How Suze Orman Scammed The World (2016)

[marindependent]

Of course Suze Orman wants to make money and please her sponsors. She is in business like most of us. Without taking the 1 hour 15 minutes required to watch the video, I am not all that surprised by claims of people being unhappy with her.

----------

With regards to Dave Ramsey "not understanding whole life insurance" that is exactly the point. If a "financial radio host" does not understand a whole life policy - how will a consumer?

And unless you can fully explain something to me (as a consumer) than I will never buy it.

 

[xrac]

Of course Suze Orman wants to make money and please her sponsors. She is in business like most of us. Without taking the 1 hour 15 minutes required to watch the video, I am not all that surprised by claims of people being unhappy with her.

----------

With regards to Dave Ramsey "not understanding whole life insurance" that is exactly the point. If a "financial radio host" does not understand a whole life policy - how will a consumer?

And unless you can fully explain something to me (as a consumer) than I will never buy it.

If you want permanent life insurance buy whole life. If you want temporary then term. That is not too complicated as far as I am concerned.

People buy term all the time and never understand that when it goes away at a certain age, say age 70, they will have zero insurance and probably cannot afford what they can buy.

 

[Josh]

If you want permanent life insurance buy whole life. If you want temporary then term. That is not too complicated as far as I am concerned.

People buy term all the time and never understand that when it goes away at a certain age, say age 70, they will have zero insurance and probably cannot afford what they can buy.

I think Dave is an ***, but he explains the logic behind buying term (and to his credit, he does encourage buying life insurance).

He says to buy a 15-20 year term policy to cover you until your kids are out of the house. During that time be saving 15% of your income in retirement accounts. By the time the term policy runs out you have your house paid off, kids out of the house, and the need for life insurance to protect your family if something happens to you disappears. It's pretty simple and the reality is for most Americans it's solid logic.

If you listen to a lot of calls there are people with tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt putting a few hundred a month into a whole life policy which they're trying to use as a retirement plan; that's just a really bad play.

Take a look at the demographics of the folks listening, more than half have household incomes under $50k/year and 82% make less than $75k/year. Pay off your debt, get cheap term insurance, and save at least 15% for your retirement is pretty much nailing it.

https://cdn.ramseysolutions.net/media/pdf/listener_demo.pdf

 

[Gulfman]

QUESTION(s): (from newby, so forgive the idiocy if there is any)

1. Series 65 is a license to charge a fee for giving investment advice, correct? What can happen to your "license" should you give "bad advice?" How can someone take action against someone with a Series 65 lic.?
2. If the CFP is simply a designation, can it ever be taken away?

I don't think you can loose either one of these UNLESS you do a Bernie Madoff and commit bigtime financial fraud. I'm pretty sure any agreements signed between client and advisor have hugh loopholes. Lets be serious, no one can guarantee the future return of any investment...and you'd be a fool to try.

This Video makes
...Suzy look like a run-of-the mill con-artist with HUGH PUBLICITY and PR behind her. She's one of the FIRST Financial advisors to be published, and that was the key to her success. She got on shows, got publicity up the yin-yang, and made 100's of millions (literally). Publicity and Fake Choppers are what made her.





.

 

[DHK]

QUESTION(s): (from newby, so forgive the idiocy if there is any)

1. Series 65 is a license to charge a fee for giving investment advice, correct? What can happen to your "license" should you give "bad advice?" How can someone take action against someone with a Series 65 lic.?
2. If the CFP is simply a designation, can it ever be taken away?

Yes, you can be sued and go through arbitration. A complaint can be filed with the SEC and/or state regulators. Happens all the time.

Can the CFP be taken away? Yes... and that can happen all the time - for the same reasons someone can take action against you with a Series 65.

This is an older article, but they publish these things at least annually:
http://www.fa-mag.com/news/cfp-board-revokes-advisor-licenses-4453.html

 

[Tahoe Ray]

QUESTION(s): (from newby, so forgive the idiocy if there is any)

[*]Series 65 is a license to charge a fee for giving investment advice, correct? What can happen to your "license" should you give "bad advice?" How can someone take action against someone with a Series 65 lic.?
[*]If the CFP is simply a designation, can it ever be taken away?

I don't think you can loose either one of these UNLESS you do a Bernie Madoff and commit bigtime financial fraud. I'm pretty sure any agreements signed between client and advisor have hugh loopholes. Lets be serious, no one can guarantee the future return of any investment...and you'd be a fool to try

.

You can lose either for much less than that and advisors do lose their ability to practice or use their designations.

Clients also can and do sue advisors for market/investment losses and like anything, some claims are legit and some are bogus.

Most of these actions (complaints, arbitrations, lawsuits, etc.) are normally in the public domain and can be found online.

Looks like DHK beat me by a minute...what he said.

 

[DHK]

I think Dave is an ***, but he explains the logic behind buying term (and to his credit, he does encourage buying life insurance).

He says to buy a 15-20 year term policy to cover you until your kids are out of the house. During that time be saving 15% of your income in retirement accounts. By the time the term policy runs out you have your house paid off, kids out of the house, and the need for life insurance to protect your family if something happens to you disappears. It's pretty simple and the reality is for most Americans it's solid logic.

If you listen to a lot of calls there are people with tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt putting a few hundred a month into a whole life policy which they're trying to use as a retirement plan; that's just a really bad play.

Take a look at the demographics of the folks listening, more than half have household incomes under $50k/year and 82% make less than $75k/year. Pay off your debt, get cheap term insurance, and save at least 15% for your retirement is pretty much nailing it.

https://cdn.ramseysolutions.net/media/pdf/listener_demo.pdf

The problem isn't the debt. The problem is the lack of savings that is earning enough to offset the liabilities.

The biggest problem that families have is lack of assets earning uninterrupted compound interest. Paying off debt DELAYS the compounding of lifetime interest.

While every case is going to be unique, a great way to pay off debt is to buy a maximum-funded permanent life policy... and use the policy to restructure the debt via policy loans against the growing cash values. Remember that you can borrow against cash values at anytime, for any reason, tax-free (as long as the policy stays in-force).

By doing it this way, you begin the uninterrupted compound interest curve that most people never get on and stay on in the first place.

 

[xrac]

New life insurance study debunks 'buy term, invest the difference'

http://www.financial-planning.com/news/is-buy-term-and-invest-the-difference-on-life-support

 

[BYSFG]

No matter who, you tend to lose all credibility when you can't carry a conversation with a caller without name calling, shaming or putting them down.

 

[xrac]

New life insurance study debunks 'buy term, invest the difference'

Is Buy Term and Invest the Difference on Life Support? | Financial Planning

In his article, Pfau bases his conclusions on Monte Carlo simulations for both a 35-year-old and 50-year-old couple. He concentrates on the younger pair, but concludes that his findings apply to both.

In this hypothetical example, the younger couple puts $15,000 in their 401(k), less an amount needed for either term or whole life insurance. The term insurance for 30 years costs $539 annually, while the whole life policy runs $4,500 annually. The couple’s income puts them in the 25% marginal tax bracket. That means the two must reduce the amount stowed in the 401(k) by the cost of insurance and associated taxes that result from the reduced investment going into the retirement account. The death benefit for both the term and whole life policies starts at just under $400,000.

According to the article, at age 65, the couple that chooses not to buy the whole life policy has $58,556 annually to spend from the 401(k) assets, using a 3.5% spend rule. The couple buying the whole life policy has 13% less assets in their 401(k), and purchases a single premium immediate annuity. The annuity is for the husband only, since the wife will have the proceeds from the death benefit should he die before she does, which is statistically more likely. The move would support an annual spend rate of $82,034.

Voila! The whole life strategy creates 40% more income in retirement, as well as more money to pass on to heirs. “Buy term and invest the rest” is dead. Long live whole life.

My opinion is that the majority who reject whole life do not understand it very well. When I was in younger I wholehardly embraced BTID and loved the stock market. However, gradually overtime as I became educated and experienced my opinion changed.

The problem with Suze or Dave and those type is they can make statements that are never examined or challenged in the media but are accepted as gospel fact. They appear on TV shows as experts so the average person accepts what they say because they are experts.