Listening to "CNBC" for Investment Strategy

[SteveO]

The advice given on this forum is designed for people that believe in this direction. There is no doubt that there are those that desire to become rich via the fastlane and many, many more that don't. This is too difficult or risky.

Well, this is the faslane forums. Expect fastlane preaching here.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[SteveO]

But, everyone else is wrong when it comes to our direction here. Like you said, it doesn't mean that it is incorrect for them and their circumstances, but it is incorrect for us.

Orman teaches in a fashion such that she feels her advice is correct and everyone elses is wrong.

I happen to believe that she is frequently wrong.

In fact, I'd like to think that part of the fastlane mentality is having the humility to accept that it may not be the best option for everyone at all times, and it may not be the "only right way". Perhaps I'm alone in that thinking...

This doesn't even warrant a response.

 

[hakrjak]

Suze's advice seems geared more towards people who have zero financial education, than the types of folks here that specialize in personal finance and investing.

I think JScott is correct in that for some people it works, and he offers the example of his own retirement account with $500k in it as evidence. There's nothing wrong with mixing and maxing philosphies and strategies. I do it every day.

I prefer to think of the Suze-type advice as a "backup plan", if my frontline fastlane approach doesn't pan out for me. I contribute to a 401k every month even though I don't really like the stock market and don't believe much in mutual funds and their managers. Worst case scenario if I keep this up, I'll have maybe $500k or a million socked away by the time I'm ready to retire -- completely seperate from my other investments. I also pay for everything with Cash, and don't carry any personal debt. I don't believe in extravagent spending because it's gotten me into major personal debt in the past and it takes years to get out from under.

I guess the important thing is that I didn't need Suze to tell me all of this -- because it's common sense. She makes a living off of preaching common sense, which is why I really don't care for her. haha

Cheers,

- Hakrjak

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Jason I understand what you are trying to say and I disagree, but from the standpoint of the "entire picture". The entire picture is variant on each person's goals.

We are in a forum that discusses the alternative to Suze Strategy - a different breed of folks.

Not everyone wants to be filthy rich. Not everyone wants to own a business. Not everyone hates their 9-5 job. That's cool and guess what, those people aren't here nor should they be. That's like me hanging out at the vegetarian forum raving about the nice filet mignon I had last nite.

My audience isn't interested in retiring at 65 with $1.4 million in saved money. They seek a little bit more ... maybe $20M at age 65, $10M at 50, or $4m at age 25. Whatever the dollar amount, we all enjoy freedom.

The people here are seeking an alternative to what society deems to be the normal, acceptable path to wealth.

I find it *spurious* :smug2: for Suzie Orman to sit on a soap-box and espouse an investment strategy that didn't make her rich ... she is rich because of her brand, and her book sales. She needs a disclosure at the bottom of her books and programs "DISCLAIMER: I DID NOT GET RICH USING THIS ADVICE. I GOT RICH SELLING BOOKS AND BUILDING A HUGE BRAND." You don't need to heed the disclaimer, however, because you are bright enough to figure that out.

Folks, if you don't understand let me be clear: I advocate a slowlane path that merges into a Fastlane.

Furthermore, I believe it is *pompous* for one to ascribe to the slowlane approach as it sprinkled with human arrogance -- like, the guarantee of living to 65, 75 or 80, the guarantee of being healthy, the guarantee of being gainfully employed for 40 years, the assumption of an ever-ascending market, are just a few.

Buyer's remorse for slow-and-steady is either death, or old age.

I stand behind my assertion that the Suzie Orman lifetime-plan for wealth is wrong for my audience.

This means as a whole, the clock is wrong (The lifetime plan) but minimized to its minute (no pun intended) parts, it can be right (like 401K matching, live below your means, etc.)

I think everyone here agrees that "live below your means" is a solid concept regardless of "lane".

Cheers,
~ MJ

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[JM86]

Another thing to keep in mind.... some of these "experts" are actually on TV for ENTERTAINMENT and to bring in ratings so that the station can sell advertising.

Take Jim Cramer (sp?), for example. Are you kidding me? I've only seen the guy a couple of times, but he is clearly only there to provide the "wow" factor with his antics, not because of his guruness.

That's the same way i feel about those CNBC guys (especially Cramer since I've seen his show more than any others) They're main goal is ratings like any other TV show.

If you watch Cramer's show, his whole premise is that "there's always a bull market somewhere and I'll find it for you". That tells you right there that he will be biased toward creating hype about a few stocks a day whether they deserve it or not. It wouldn't look good for his show if he told the audience that he can't recommend anything for that day.

After that, all he has to do is let everybody know about every stock he recommended that did well and forget about the ones he was wrong about and then he gets to look like a genius. I like the show but i wouldnt actually trade on his advice