Suze Orman

The biggest problem I see with Dave right now, is he recommends that even elderly people keep all of their money in the market. If one of us did that, it would be an E&O claim waiting to happen.
 
The sooner everyone realizes that there is no difference between Suzie Orman, Dave Ramsey, Jim Cramer, Al Franken, and Rush Limbaugh, they happier they will be. They are entertainers at heart. They've picked an issue and will ride it as long as they can to make as much money as they can. They will all say whatever it takes to sell the next book, the next CD, keep the show on the air, and book the next speaking appearance.

Every once in a while they will be right on an issue. But to take everything one of them says at face value is asking for disappointment. They are no different than politicians, they are just more obvious in their whoring for money.
 
The sooner everyone realizes that there is no difference between Suzie Orman, Dave Ramsey, Jim Cramer, Al Franken, and Rush Limbaugh, they happier they will be. They are entertainers at heart. They've picked an issue and will ride it as long as they can to make as much money as they can. They will all say whatever it takes to sell the next book, the next CD, keep the show on the air, and book the next speaking appearance.

Every once in a while they will be right on an issue. But to take everything one of them says at face value is asking for disappointment. They are no different than politicians, they are just more obvious in their whoring for money.


how's that old saying go
the pot calling the kettle black.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
While most is correct not all is correct. Sure the majority of people they help but some they actually hurt.

The big picture for me is Dave's 16 million dollar house in Tennessee. Dave didn't build that house by savings he built it on the back of all of his followers. That is the way I look at it.

If a man is 50 years old and follows the strategy of buying term and investing the difference will he have enough time and will the market cooperate to the point that this will work out for him. Those are the big ifs they do not address.

If a man dies at age 60 with no insurance he will leave his widow savings of only a few thousand and then what will she do. Live on social security and work at Walmart? The reason he won't have any term coverage is it gets too expensive as he gets older. Currently the average balance of 401k's in the US is $32,000.

http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenews.c ... k-Day.aspx


so because dave ramsey has made a lot of money, his advice must be wrong? i guess you don't listen to warren buffet or bill gates or donald trump or the kawasaki guy.

talk about bass-ackwards.

i cant believe people are still arguing against buy term and invest the rest. whole life is good for a very small percentage of society.
most of the people who watch dave and suze still have credit card debt for pete's sake. you want them to buy hwole life ins. when they still have credit card deebt. gimmeabreka.
 
Last edited:
i cant believe people are still arguing against buy term and invest the rest. whole life is good for a very small percentage of society.
most of the people who watch dave and suze still have credit card debt for pete's sake. you want them to buy hwole life ins. when they still have credit card deebt. gimmeabreka.

So what you are saying is, Dave and Suze's advice really don't work? If the majority of the people who follow them still have massive debt, then it must not be working.
 
I think Dave (based on the audience of heavily indebted people) is probably doing right by saying to buy term and invest the difference. I don't necessarily think he should say cash value life insurance is ALWAYS a bad idea. Also, most of the guaranteed UL products now are basically set up as a "permanent term" with no cash value. I wonder how he feels about those policies?

Besides the above mentioned (in my last post), one other thing I've noted is that he's really not up to date on a lot of issues I feel like he should be up to date on. It's almost like he's too busy promoting to research current information.
 
Common sense. You can't save at 4% or so while you're being charged at 19%. Makes zero sense. Anything you put into perm should have gone to pay down the high interest credit cards.
 
i cant believe people are still arguing against buy term and invest the rest. whole life is good for a very small percentage of society.
most of the people who watch dave and suze still have credit card debt for pete's sake. you want them to buy hwole life ins. when they still have credit card deebt. gimmeabreka.

1. You think like a salesperson instead of a problem solver. I use insurance products as tools to help people solve problems, not to sell them a policy.

2. Whole life is good for everyone. The question is - in what size? A small policy for $25,000 with plenty of term on top of it is a good enough taste of what whole life can do.

3. Until you understand how whole life can benefit you while you're alive, you won't ever sell it and offer it as a possible solution to problems your clients may have.

For healthagent's comment about paying 19% while trying to save at 4%... MATHEMATICALLY, you are correct. However, when some people have absolutely ZERO savings, it makes sense for them to put money away so they have some. But that money goes into a BANK, not whole life or any other permanent insurance until they have a savings cushion. It's amazing how much better you feel about life when you have some financial reserves - even if you paid more interest over time to get those reserves.
 
Suzy and Dave are clueless when it comes to investing. It's the same old same old read Morningstar, pick good funds etc etc. If they got a little fancy they mumbled something about modern portfolio theory (MPT) like Rick Edelman.

This did not work very well in 2008 and it blew up people's retirement plans. This is not a commercial for EIA's but they sure worked better than the market, 99% of mutual funds, tactical asset allocation, managed money, etc.
 
Common sense. You can't save at 4% or so while you're being charged at 19%. Makes zero sense. Anything you put into perm should have gone to pay down the high interest credit cards.




thank you healthagent for stating my point in better words than i can.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So what you are saying is, Dave and Suze's advice really don't work? If the majority of the people who follow them still have massive debt, then it must not be working.

thats not what i'm saying volagent. what i'm saying is that most people have credit card debt and therefore should not purchase wl or ul.

people who do follow suze and dave's advice get out of debt.

the more people who are out of debt the bigger the market is for you to sell ul and wl to. so you should be encouragiing dave adn suze. they are craeting prospects for you.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. You think like a salesperson instead of a problem solver. I use insurance products as tools to help people solve problems, not to sell them a policy.

2. Whole life is good for everyone. The question is - in what size? A small policy for $25,000 with plenty of term on top of it is a good enough taste of what whole life can do.

3. Until you understand how whole life can benefit you while you're alive, you won't ever sell it and offer it as a possible solution to problems your clients may have.

For healthagent's comment about paying 19% while trying to save at 4%... MATHEMATICALLY, you are correct. However, when some people have absolutely ZERO savings, it makes sense for them to put money away so they have some. But that money goes into a BANK, not whole life or any other permanent insurance until they have a savings cushion. It's amazing how much better you feel about life when you have some financial reserves - even if you paid more interest over time to get those reserves.


whole life can benefit you while you're alive?

that's a good one. :D


run the numbers.
take the same money and put it any conservative investment and they'd be a lot better off.
 
Last edited:
Nope. You're wrong, but I don't think I can properly explain it in writing, but I'll try.

With whole life, as long as you can pay the premiums over time, you have a guaranteed death benefit.

What can you do if you have a contractually guaranteed amount of money that will be paid to your estate?

1. you can spend down your 401k sooner and enjoy greater retirement income
2. you can take out a reverse mortgage and have tax-free income knowing that you have enough life insurance to repay the reverse mortgage
3. you can sell low-basis stock to a charitable remainder trust to enjoy the income from the stock and avoid the capital gains treatment (and have the life insurance replace the value back to your estate).
4. you can take single-life payouts on your pension versus joint-life because your life insurance can replace the value of your pension
5. even if all those values are used up sooner, you still have access to growing cash values to take for income via loans
6. During economic recessions and extreme portfolio volatility, you have other resources you can tap into for your retirement so you can leave your investments alone and ride it out.

So, having enough of a WHOLE LIFE DEATH BENEFIT can create a host of living benefits.

How do you pay for it? Maximum financial efficiency within one's financial affairs.

Why whole life? Because it has better benefits and less "if's" than universal life or any other product where you can build such a financial foundation. Otherwise, you're building this kind of foundation on sand... and it quickly turns into quicksand.
 
Back
Top