If You Knew Suze Like We Know Suze
Print
Comment
Email
RSS
Twitter
If You Knew Suze Like We Know Suze
You wouldn’t listen to her advice.
Posted Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 10:56am
"Tell me what I need to know," people often say to me. "Here is what you need to know," I answer.
—Suze Orman, The Road to Wealth
How a bottle-blond former waitress and self-described "55-year-old virgin" with a taste for the good life became the financial messiah for millions of Americans might be a fun Lifetime original movie. Why the masses continue to invest their faith in Suze Orman in the wake of a financial meltdown she never saw coming is a more timely question. The answer is complicated.
If you've managed to avoid Orman over the past decade, you don't watch Oprah, CNBC, or PBS, and you've probably never entered an airport bookstore, where her toothy, cougarlike visage graces the covers of numerous best-sellers, the latest of which, 2009 Action Plan, has more than 1 million copies in print and has, according to her publisher, been downloaded 2.2 million times at www.suzeorman.com. There, you might also be convinced to open an Orman-sponsored TD Ameritrade brokerage account or buy one of the products that she also sells on QVC, including: the Suze Orman FICO Kit Platinum Version w/Action Planner ($47.70); the Suze Orman Identity Theft Protection Kit w/Anti-Spyware ($39.78); and Suze Orman's Organize and Protect Financial System ($66 plus S&H; Easy Pay! Installment plan available).
Orman is that most modern breed of capitalists, the human-industry, self-mythologizing. "Suze has a unique grasp of the role money plays in our lives, as well as the gift of timing: she tells us exactly what we need to know, precisely when we need to know it." So, at least, claims the jacket copy of one of her books. She addresses her fans either as "my friends" (learned from John McCain, perhaps?) or as "girlfriend." Although she published a comprehensive—and very useful—guide to personal finance in 2001, her first two best-sellers focused on the "emotional roadblocks" to financial freedom. Suze has a lot to say about emotional roadblocks, among other things: "Falling in love is simple—or so it often seems in retrospect"; "Tears are God's way of forgiving you"; "You will never achieve a sense of power over your life until you have power over your money"; and "The stock market is like a pot of soup."
She has less patience for statistics. Although study after study has shown that personal bankruptcies are caused primarily by catastrophic events like divorce, job loss, and, above all, medical bills and that most of us are struggling with a gap between our income growth and the soaring cost of necessities like housing, Suze tends toward psychological causes that invariably blame the victim. Who is struggling these days, according to Suze? "People who grew up without much money and later earn a comfortable living sometimes spend too much to make up for what they didn't get as children. ... People who feel entitled to the good life, or are unconsciously copying a mother or father who lived beyond her or his means. ... If you feel the need to impress people with what you have rather than with who you are, you are at high risk for credit card abuse." This from a woman who spends $500,000 a year chartering private jets and who sells "Cruise With Suze" packages on an Italian luxury liner. (She has also hawked for GM, claiming that leasing a luxury car—you know, the kind that people drive to impress others—is a terrific financial decision: "If you ask me, that's smart money!") No wonder she winks more than Sarah Palin, girlfriend.
But it is not Suze's hypocrisy or even her intellectual laziness that really bothers me; no, that would be something Suze "loves" called "dollar cost averaging," which involves buying the same stock over and over again as it falls. "It's a great opportunity for you when the value of the shares drops," claims Suze in the inaptly named The Road to Wealth, "because you can buy shares at ‘bargain' prices and average down your cost per share." Oh, where to begin? Maybe with the obvious: Since when does throwing good money after bad make you rich?
Comments
and Suze Orman's Organize and Protect Financial System
"...and Suze Orman's Organize and Protect Financial System ($66 plus S&H; Easy Pay! Installment plan available)." What I'm surprised you didn't acknowledge is that she is essentially advocating purchasing something you don't have the money. Why offer installment plans if your goal is to help people manage their money better? Wouldn't it be smarter to SAVE $66 plus S&H than to spread it over time???
This is a valid critique of market orthodoxy, as preached by any
Hey James, Glad to see you back in the ring taking on the financial orthodoxy - kind of surprised you're taking such a hit in comments. most people seem to miss the salient points for your description of Orman - I thought your personal description came off a little harsh, but you are evaluating a 'feeling' persona in a man's game (the fact of the game being rationalisticly manly probably disturbs some) wasn't much hard lit as the typical New Yorker characterization. Fact is, most Americans - especially the financially 'minded' are absolutely straw men - I'd say sissies but I'd get sexist - when it comes to any challenge to the status quo: a house of cards all around. I think if Orman and her disciples are a victim of anything, it's subscribing to the orthodoxy just as it's turning from apparently solid, to indefinitely mush.
women and money
This article disappointed me in myriad ways - but I will focus on its sexism in this comment. I won't be the first reader to flag its fetishizing of Orman's "bottle-blonde" hair, her former job as a waitress, her odd self-characterization as a virgin (but interestingly NOT her status as an out lesbian and advocate for gay marriage rights). Not one of these identity labels is relevant to the financial advice that Orman provides; however, every one of them is gendered. The implication, of course, is that Orman must be a bimbo with nothing of value to say about finances because she is a.) a woman who does something to alter her appearance cosmetically, b.) a woman who once occupied a "pink collar job", and c.) a woman who chooses to discuss her own sexuality in unconventional ways. All of these objections to her advice can be boiled down to the following: she is a woman. Never mind the fact that part of Orman's professional program is to provide financial advice TO women who have previously been discouraged from managing their own finances (either directly, through educational programs that slated women into Home Economics rather than Econ 101, or indirectly, through subtle cultural messages that suggest the financial markets are for men only). Whether or not you agree with the details of her advice, a better and more balanced way to critique Orman's financial bonafides would be to acknowledge the service that she is (at the very least) trying to provide to an underserved majority of the population. This is not a market which she is trying to exploit. This is a demographic to which she belongs. Of course, by the logic of this article, that is the problem.
Seriously!
I sincerely hope NO ONE actually takes this article seriously. It couldn't be any more inaccurate and transparent. Let's see, an unknown blog writer takes a few shots at not only one of the most effective and prominent players in this space, but an obviously good person with good intentions as well, simply to get himself and his website on the radar screen. Nice try James, but it's no coincidence that Suze has millions of fans who love her and have benefited from her advice. The indisputable fact is, she has helped a lot of people...and by the way, she doesn't need a PhD in finance to be able to give good, sound advice, regardless of whether or not some of it is common sense. Sometimes, people just need to hear it and as far as I am concerned, she is doing a great job of communicating the simple stuff and the complex issues. More importantly, while I suspect Suze does make a very comfortable living, I feel that her motives and intentions are genuine and she deserves to prosper as a result. She should not have to apologize, or take this kind of abuse because she is financially successful. I certainly don't see any greed in the equation. Not when she gives away millions of copies of her book for free and turns down millions of dollars in endorsements. The few commercial relationships in which she does participate, seem to be for products or services that are very beneficial for her fans. Finally, if you're going to try to knock someone off the top of the hill for your own benefit, next time make sure you get your facts straight. If you were really listening and heard what I heard, she saw this coming a long time ago and warned us on a number of levels. Your manipulation of the truth and this lame attempt to get yourself into the spotlight is the real insult to our intelligence.
Where Do I Begin?
Is this supposed to be an article on personal finance or a listing on match.com? Your first paragraph is a weak attempt to reduce Orman to nothing more than a phony old maid. How many of your other articles begin with a physical description of the subject along with an assessment of their virginity? I agree that Orman often comes across as a wanna be psychologist. I happen to agree with a lot of her views on the relationship between people and money, but I'm not looking to her to be my therapist. And while often I can't tell the difference between Orman and Kristen Wiig's impression of her on SNL, I realize Orman is meant to be entertaining, and she is. We wouldn't watch otherwise. That said, your article was grossly misleading on many levels: Orman's mantra is people should live within their means. What she spends her money on is irrelevant--she can afford it! She's not in a position where she needs to grow her nest egg; she just needs to protect it. So her investments should be different than the average person, because she is not the average person. You say Orman "blames the victim" which is another way to say she is strongly in favor of personal responsibilty. One reason people get into debt is they are in denial about what they can afford. When people do that, they are not victims, they've made poor choices. They need someone to point the finger at them to get them to examine their spending habits. Dollar cost averaging is not about investing in companies that are doing poorly and throwing good money after bad. Suze Orman would never advocate doing that. It's about picking solid investments and buying them at set intervals so you will pay an average price rather than timing the market so you only invest at peak times. Anyone who has watched Orman's show knows that she tells her listeners to be suspicious of any advisor who stands to make money off the advice they give. I'm sure she would lump herself into that category and encourage people to do their research before buying a product she has advertised. But she would be crazy not to make money off her name--Orman is a businessperson. That doesn't mean her products are any less useful. Your article comes across as a personal attack and leaves me wondering what personal vendetta you have against Orman. Comparing her to Bernie Madoff is ridiculous and irresponsible. It would serve you well to get over Orman's on air persona and listen to the substance of what she is saying, boyfriend.
Maxed Out - watch the movie !
James - this article reminded me of the documentary Maxed Out and lord behold! it was you who directed the film. Now that makes sense why you don't like her. Suze Orman and Dr. Phil are both the same - their advice appeal to the mass media (only Mr. Phil is not a lesbian).
Hacks
Very informative! I've never heard of James Scurlock and have studiously avoided learning anything about Suze Orman. I can now say for sure that I hate both of them! A treasure trove of intellectual laziness.
James, you are a joke!
James, let me start by saying I enjoyed your 2005 docu "Stumped". James, you have made an absolute joke of yourself in this article, bashing Suze Orman. Like all television "advice givers" (Dr. Phil, Oprah, etc...) Suze is a millionaire. It comes with the territory...aka success! The quality that makes them successful is that they offer advice to the everyday citizen that is derived from there "less advantages" days. You are apparently glib to the American condition of the past 4 years. We all lost money, James! You sound like a bitter man that is looking for scapegoat...in this case...Suze Orman. If we were all millionaires, we too would have had our money in very secure investments (it would be stupid not to). But to your apparent oblivious view...there are a lot of people who believed, and still believe in American capitalism (aka. the NYSE) Where was your money James? Are you blaming Orman for the market crash, or was your money tucked away in a government protected Red Wood Tree in Oregon? You are a bleeding heart liberal, James. But hey, at least you have the right to make your idiocy public. Thank god for that...you're a joke.
Orman's advice
She's a fraud. A modern day snake oil salesman. She's brave enough to get rich off others' stupidity. What a scam...
Stock market advice
As someone else has noted, she advises people not to put money in the stock market that they are going to need within the next 10 years. I use 5 years as a rule of thumb, but anyway, the point is that she is NOT telling everyone to invest in the stock market. She regularly cites other investment vehicles that are safer than the stock market for people to invest savings. I do think this article gives a distorted view of her advice, at least as far as her TV show goes (I've never read any of her books or bought any of her products; except for a software program to help draft powers of attorney, wills and trusts, which is a very good piece of software). Yes I do find her to be sometimes a bit annoying and her advice sometimes is a bit cloying and "Dear Abby"-ish. And I wouldn't necessarily take her advice on everything; I put in the mix with other sources of information. But overall I think she does a pretty good job.