Why I hate Suze Orman's advice
Suze Orman, if you've somehow missed her, is the ubiquitous queen of personal finance. Her books have been huge best-sellers, she serves as personal finance editor at CNBC -- which airs her weekly television show -- and her specials have helped raise tons of money for public broadcasting stations nationwide. It's no overstatement to say she has helped millions of people get a leg up on money management, helping them overcome the emotional issues that often get in the way of living a smart financial life. In many areas -- eliminating credit-card debt, for example -- Orman's suggestions are as sound as anyone's. It would be wrong to diminish those accomplishments. It ALSO would be equally wrong to ignore her faults.
My dislike for Orman is not personal. I have never met the woman, but there are plenty of times when her advice makes me crazy. Here are some of my biggest beefs with Orman's advice:
It's too simplistic - In Orman's book, "The Laws of Money, The Lessons of Life," she advocates reviewing your investments and giving each a rating of 1 to 5 based on what you feel best about. You keep the 5s, but sell off 25 percent of the 4s, 50 percent of the 3s and so on. The idea is that it leaves you with a portfolio you are comfortable with. Either way, it kills asset-allocation and risk-diversification strategies in favor of something that makes it likely you will buy high and sell low.
It's too extreme - Currently, Orman's big thing is paying off the mortgage. If you're in your 40s and believe your current house is the last you will own, she wants you to take advantage of any retirement-plan matching monies you can get -- because you never want to turn away free money -- and turn everything else toward zeroing the mortgage. Most Americans already have the bulk of their money tied up in their home, and while I'm all in favor of paying ahead on a mortgage, doing it to the exclusion of other investments is all-eggs-in-one-basket investing. It's a dangerous strategy being pitched as the ultimate safe one. Orman's answer is that "only time will tell if it's good advice," which is a lame answer when the suggestion is so far from mainstream. Time shows the value in all strategies, but if something extreme blows up, the people who follow it will be too far gone to recover once they recognize they've been led astray.
Skewed numbers - In preaching her scary vision of the future, Orman reminds that the U.S. stock market was up a mere 1 percent from 1965 to 1982 and that such a long lull may happen again. She's quick to say that the market can wipe you out -- she once said on the Today Show that investors could lose more than 100 percent in the market, a statement that made no sense whatsoever -- so she wants you to invest in the "known return" of your mortgage. But when Orman tells someone save their pocket change and throw it into a Roth IRA -- one of her favorite raise-yourself-by-your-bootstraps techniques -- she tells you to expect "normal stock market returns of 11 or 12 percent over the next 30 or 40 years." That's higher than historic norms and way above what experts like Warren Buffett, Jack Bogle and countless others expect for the next few decades. Anyone who honestly believes the market will gain 12 percent on average for the long haul should want to expose a good part of their money -- not just pocket change -- to it. Orman's strategy of paying off the mortgage before diving into the market shortens the investment horizon, increasing the risk that someone will not be in the market long enough to see the gains she's predicting.
I can't understand it - When Orman says the "key to life" is "to be as happy in your sadness as you are in your happiness," I think it's time to invest in pharmaceutical companies making mind-altering prescription drugs. Orman frequently breaks off lines like that. I'm sure they have something to do with money, even if they have nothing to do with reality.
Ultimately, Orman is likely to go on being America's favorite financial adviser. For the people she helps turn in the direction of debt-reduction and increased savings, that will be a good thing. But anyone watching her advice needs to be aware that it can only take you so far before you get into the negative implications of following it. I hate when that happens. ------>Click here
<You can send your comments to Elsaiah9@aol.com>