Comments on: Review: Stay Mad for Life http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/ Simple, applicable personal finance advice for the modern world Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:24:47 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Robert http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-254403 Robert Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:03:16 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-254403 Larry, I believe that these deduction limits apply only to people who are also participating in their employer sponsored retirement plans. If you are not participating in an employer sponsored retirement plan, then these limits do not apply. Larry, I believe that these deduction limits apply only to people who are also participating in their employer sponsored retirement plans. If you are not participating in an employer sponsored retirement plan, then these limits do not apply.

]]> By: index http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-216815 index Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:50:15 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-216815 Is there a good way to measure risk? I want to know if SSO is twice as risky as an S+Pindex fund. It gets twice the gain as the S+P index, but are the risk really twice as much as an S+P Index funds? Although declines are twice as great, they both stop at zero. If you buy the regular S+P index fund, your maximum loss is everything you invested, but with SSO, it's the same in terms of maximum loss. The people issuing the fund might lose more than their costs since they're leveraged, but you do not. However, your declines are twice as great. If 80% of all fund managers can't beat the S+P, it's pretty logical just to invest in the S+P index fund. But you can do over TWICE as good, by buying SSO, a leveraged index fund. You do not get the risks of having a margin call and paying more than you owe. You can never have your expenses go below the costs of your stock like you can in margin calls. It's twice as volitile, but with a long term time perspective, is that different than twice as risky? The whole S+P isn't going to crash. You might say, but the whole S+P could crash, and it could go to zero, but if it did, you'd still lose the same amount you would if you invested in the S+P index. Plus, even if the whole S+P declines 25%, thus making your loss TWICE as great in SSO... It also means that SSO is trading at TWICE the discount, and is TWICE as valuable, so if you planned on buying more at this point, wouldn't buying more SSO at this point, not only be a better deal, but also be "cheaper"? You might need twice as much money available, or wait for twice the decline until you buy more, but is it really twice as risky, even though you get twice the return? Is there a good way to measure risk? I want to know if SSO is twice as risky as an S+Pindex fund. It gets twice the gain as the S+P index, but are the risk really twice as much as an S+P Index funds? Although declines are twice as great, they both stop at zero. If you buy the regular S+P index fund, your maximum loss is everything you invested, but with SSO, it’s the same in terms of maximum loss. The people issuing the fund might lose more than their costs since they’re leveraged, but you do not. However, your declines are twice as great.

If 80% of all fund managers can’t beat the S+P, it’s pretty logical just to invest in the S+P index fund. But you can do over TWICE as good, by buying SSO, a leveraged index fund. You do not get the risks of having a margin call and paying more than you owe. You can never have your expenses go below the costs of your stock like you can in margin calls. It’s twice as volitile, but with a long term time perspective, is that different than twice as risky? The whole S+P isn’t going to crash. You might say, but the whole S+P could crash, and it could go to zero, but if it did, you’d still lose the same amount you would if you invested in the S+P index.
Plus, even if the whole S+P declines 25%, thus making your loss TWICE as great in SSO… It also means that SSO is trading at TWICE the discount, and is TWICE as valuable, so if you planned on buying more at this point, wouldn’t buying more SSO at this point, not only be a better deal, but also be “cheaper”?
You might need twice as much money available, or wait for twice the decline until you buy more, but is it really twice as risky, even though you get twice the return?

]]> By: option http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-216809 option Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:35:33 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-216809 Trent. Thanks for the review... I found it useful. One thing I notice about all of the pros is that their number one focus is on correctly managing their money, and protecting themselves. One thing that I've noticed in the past is your distain for leverage. Leverage can be horrible in terms of credit cards, and in borrowed money and margin, and it's certainly understandible why you would think that it carries additional risk, and often in real estate it does as well. In the stock market, trading on margin is probably the riskiest thing you could ever do... But there are some forms of leverage that do work. I believe you can use 1 form of leverage to protect your stock gains from a downturn. Leverage can be used in a conservative manner as a method for protection, but only if you take the time to learn about what you are doing. Leverage can be used in stocks through options, not in a way to expose yourself to more risk, but to protect your gains. If you buy a 100 shares of a stock at $100 that you believe to be worth $150 and in only 2 months it climbs to $125, you know it still has upside, but you aren't willing to take the risk, and you realize that any stock could have some dramatic accounting fraud or event that makes them go to $0, So you can sell all of your shares, or you can hold on, and hope you're not being too greedy, sure it's worth $125, but you just got a 20% gain in 2 months, and you know stocks that go up quickly, often go down even more. But there's one way to still use common sense to hold on to an undervalued stock, AND protect your profits from a sharp sell off. So in this situation you'll have $2500 in profits, but you can actually buy 1 option contract for 100 shares at a price much less than that $2500, rather than having $12500 exposed. In that way, you can play with the house's money, without losing exposure. You are taking in more risk in terms of volitility, and it loses time value, but I believe it's a better solution than holding, as although it has great upside, it's more important to conquer greed, and sell. But it still has a 25% upside, and probably less downside, so selling as long as you still protect that money by keeping it in cash or money market until you sell that option, is often a better solution. If you buy an at the money or slightly out of the money option, you'll still be taking a significant amount of profits, and as long as you have the disapline and ability to properly manage money and sell that option a month before it expires or sooner, before the time value decay accelerates, and if it gets below a certain amount. It requires a lot of knowledge to trade options in a conservative way, and most people have no idea how much risk they're really taking, and it's easy to get caught in the trap of exceeding risk for the attractive huge rewards that aggressively trading options provide, but when used as a secondary protection method, and to protect the downside through options spreads and to use as hedges, options can be a very conservative, and more profitable solution. But like anything else, the less knowledge you have, and the less structured your system, the more risk there is. Let's face it, you don't want to owe a lot of money, such form of leverage puts MORE money on the table, not less... Such a concept would be more like "doubling down" on your bets at a roulette table until you win, and represents MORE risk, not LESS. But you DO want to "play with the house's money" after a gain to protect yourself. AND you DO want leverage in the form of money that you won't ever have to pay back. Maybe you do some JV brokering, you find a business with a huge list of subscribers but no product, and you find someone with a list of products on the same or similar topic but no list. Then you let a bunch of people know you're looking for people with a list that need a product, and people with a product but no list, and to send them to you. You have that leverage cost absolutely nothing, except the one time cost of your time setting it all up, and you have an infinite return on your $0 risk. You can do that for real estate as well, or you can find an investment club and find the deals and present them and find someone who's looking for a deal and willing to finance and give up a portion of his profits if someone can find him the property he's looking for... THAT kind of leverage contains much LESS risk, not more. Then comes forms of leverage that contain less risk, if used right. Such as buying a preorder for a hot item like the next playstation (PS4), hoping to either sell the actual playstation, or to sell the contract that guarantees you get it, as you predict it will be in demand. You might risk $100 to gain the rights to own a playstation, but thatis minimal compared to the risk of buying an entire PS4. This in essance is how options work... BUT if you manage your money with options the same as you would in terms of actually buying the underlying asset, only spending 5% on each deal, you can get in a lot of trouble and it can often times be MORE risky. But if you consider the amount of the underlying asset, and risk 5% of the underlying asset control that you gain, and not the option, you will find roughly the same returns, but lowered risks. You give up the ability to own that PS4 for all of eternity, but if you can define the maximum amount of time you are going to own it, and then throw in some extra time just for the heck of it, you might pay a little more for that time, but it's still much less than the actual costs of the underlying asset. Trent.
Thanks for the review… I found it useful. One thing I notice about all of the pros is that their number one focus is on correctly managing their money, and protecting themselves.
One thing that I’ve noticed in the past is your distain for leverage. Leverage can be horrible in terms of credit cards, and in borrowed money and margin, and it’s certainly understandible why you would think that it carries additional risk, and often in real estate it does as well. In the stock market, trading on margin is probably the riskiest thing you could ever do… But there are some forms of leverage that do work.
I believe you can use 1 form of leverage to protect your stock gains from a downturn.
Leverage can be used in a conservative manner as a method for protection, but only if you take the time to learn about what you are doing. Leverage can be used in stocks through options, not in a way to expose yourself to more risk, but to protect your gains. If you buy a 100 shares of a stock at $100 that you believe to be worth $150 and in only 2 months it climbs to $125, you know it still has upside, but you aren’t willing to take the risk, and you realize that any stock could have some dramatic accounting fraud or event that makes them go to $0, So you can sell all of your shares, or you can hold on, and hope you’re not being too greedy, sure it’s worth $125, but you just got a 20% gain in 2 months, and you know stocks that go up quickly, often go down even more.
But there’s one way to still use common sense to hold on to an undervalued stock, AND protect your profits from a sharp sell off.
So in this situation you’ll have $2500 in profits, but you can actually buy 1 option contract for 100 shares at a price much less than that $2500, rather than having $12500 exposed. In that way, you can play with the house’s money, without losing exposure. You are taking in more risk in terms of volitility, and it loses time value, but I believe it’s a better solution than holding, as although it has great upside, it’s more important to conquer greed, and sell. But it still has a 25% upside, and probably less downside, so selling as long as you still protect that money by keeping it in cash or money market until you sell that option, is often a better solution. If you buy an at the money or slightly out of the money option, you’ll still be taking a significant amount of profits, and as long as you have the disapline and ability to properly manage money and sell that option a month before it expires or sooner, before the time value decay accelerates, and if it gets below a certain amount.

It requires a lot of knowledge to trade options in a conservative way, and most people have no idea how much risk they’re really taking, and it’s easy to get caught in the trap of exceeding risk for the attractive huge rewards that aggressively trading options provide, but when used as a secondary protection method, and to protect the downside through options spreads and to use as hedges, options can be a very conservative, and more profitable solution. But like anything else, the less knowledge you have, and the less structured your system, the more risk there is.

Let’s face it, you don’t want to owe a lot of money, such form of leverage puts MORE money on the table, not less…
Such a concept would be more like “doubling down” on your bets at a roulette table until you win, and represents MORE risk, not LESS.
But you DO want to “play with the house’s money” after a gain to protect yourself.
AND you DO want leverage in the form of money that you won’t ever have to pay back. Maybe you do some JV brokering, you find a business with a huge list of subscribers but no product, and you find someone with a list of products on the same or similar topic but no list. Then you let a bunch of people know you’re looking for people with a list that need a product, and people with a product but no list, and to send them to you. You have that leverage cost absolutely nothing, except the one time cost of your time setting it all up, and you have an infinite return on your $0 risk.
You can do that for real estate as well, or you can find an investment club and find the deals and present them and find someone who’s looking for a deal and willing to finance and give up a portion of his profits if someone can find him the property he’s looking for… THAT kind of leverage contains much LESS risk, not more.

Then comes forms of leverage that contain less risk, if used right. Such as buying a preorder for a hot item like the next playstation (PS4), hoping to either sell the actual playstation, or to sell the contract that guarantees you get it, as you predict it will be in demand. You might risk $100 to gain the rights to own a playstation, but thatis minimal compared to the risk of buying an entire PS4. This in essance is how options work… BUT if you manage your money with options the same as you would in terms of actually buying the underlying asset, only spending 5% on each deal, you can get in a lot of trouble and it can often times be MORE risky. But if you consider the amount of the underlying asset, and risk 5% of the underlying asset control that you gain, and not the option, you will find roughly the same returns, but lowered risks. You give up the ability to own that PS4 for all of eternity, but if you can define the maximum amount of time you are going to own it, and then throw in some extra time just for the heck of it, you might pay a little more for that time, but it’s still much less than the actual costs of the underlying asset.

]]> By: Larry P http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-142978 Larry P Fri, 28 Dec 2007 07:42:47 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-142978 Please help me undersand. Chapter 3 in this book gives me a new way to look at my savings. However, i am confused. On the bottom of page 89 he states that "An IRA gives you the same tax savings as a 401(K)...." I went to the IRS website and looked at IRS publication 590 and it is not the case. I used an example of a single person making less then 90K. IRS says with an AGI of 63+ no deduction. What am i missing? Please help me undersand. Chapter 3 in this book gives me a new way to look at my savings. However, i am confused. On the bottom of page 89 he states that “An IRA gives you the same tax savings as a 401(K)….” I went to the IRS website and looked at IRS publication 590 and it is not the case. I used an example of a single person making less then 90K. IRS says with an AGI of 63+ no deduction.

What am i missing?

]]> By: Peachy http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-133530 Peachy Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:21:36 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-133530 "Another thing to consider is that once you leave your employer you can rollover the 401(k) into more options. If you change employers every few years, I guess Cramer’s advice doesn’t apply."-Frugal Bachelor I disagree. I've had several jobs and every time I leave, I put my money in an IRA account that I have with USAA. I can use the "new money" to buy whatever I want. I don't regularly contribute to this IRA otherwise, so it gives me a chance to diversify and watch my retirement money grow. “Another thing to consider is that once you leave your employer you can rollover the 401(k) into more options. If you change employers every few years, I guess Cramer’s advice doesn’t apply.”-Frugal Bachelor

I disagree. I’ve had several jobs and every time I leave, I put my money in an IRA account that I have with USAA. I can use the “new money” to buy whatever I want. I don’t regularly contribute to this IRA otherwise, so it gives me a chance to diversify and watch my retirement money grow.

]]> By: John Aitek http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-133432 John Aitek Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:31:52 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-133432 I hear a lot of people say that you should invest in index funds to avoid stock picking. But that begs the question: which index fund? By selecting index funds aren't you fund picking? I hear a lot of people say that you should invest in index funds to avoid stock picking. But that begs the question: which index fund?

By selecting index funds aren’t you fund picking?

]]> By: plonkee http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132795 plonkee Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:00:12 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132795 I'm going to guess that you want to read the details of your specific plan before you decide the 401(k)s always have poor investment choices. My equivalent (money purchase pension) has essentially the same funds that I would be investing in anyway - as in low cost funds that track the same indices. If your fund choices in your 401(k) are poor, then you should look to see if something else would be better. If they're quite good - use that. I’m going to guess that you want to read the details of your specific plan before you decide the 401(k)s always have poor investment choices.

My equivalent (money purchase pension) has essentially the same funds that I would be investing in anyway – as in low cost funds that track the same indices.

If your fund choices in your 401(k) are poor, then you should look to see if something else would be better. If they’re quite good – use that.

]]> By: Sarah http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132443 Sarah Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:54:47 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132443 "The investment options on the average 401(k) are terrible” Amen - I agree. That is also true for some 529 plans, which is why we are just earmarking some of our invested money for the children and not using a 529. (Another reason being that we are not planning to pay for all of their education, but would rather encourage them to be frugal, work and get scholarships). “The investment options on the average 401(k) are terrible”

Amen – I agree. That is also true for some 529 plans, which is why we are just earmarking some of our invested money for the children and not using a 529. (Another reason being that we are not planning to pay for all of their education, but would rather encourage them to be frugal, work and get scholarships).

]]> By: Frugal Bachelor http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132391 Frugal Bachelor Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:21:41 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132391 "put into your 401(k) up to the match, then max out an IRA (using a Roth IRA for some of this if you’re eligible), then invest in a taxable account. Why? The investment options on the average 401(k) are terrible" How interesting, I never thought about this before. I am reasonably happy with the selection for my 401(k), and I've always considered 401(k) higher priority than funding taxable accounts. Basically he's saying 401(k) is useless except for the employer match. I wonder what he says about Roth 401(k)? Another thing to consider is that once you leave your employer you can rollover the 401(k) into more options. If you change employers every few years, I guess Cramer's advice doesn't apply. A question is, why are 401(k) options so generally "terrible"? Why don't employers have good options in order to attract top employees? I have no idea how employers put together 401(k) plans and what the considerations are. “put into your 401(k) up to the match, then max out an IRA (using a Roth IRA for some of this if you’re eligible), then invest in a taxable account. Why? The investment options on the average 401(k) are terrible”

How interesting, I never thought about this before. I am reasonably happy with the selection for my 401(k), and I’ve always considered 401(k) higher priority than funding taxable accounts. Basically he’s saying 401(k) is useless except for the employer match. I wonder what he says about Roth 401(k)?

Another thing to consider is that once you leave your employer you can rollover the 401(k) into more options. If you change employers every few years, I guess Cramer’s advice doesn’t apply.

A question is, why are 401(k) options so generally “terrible”? Why don’t employers have good options in order to attract top employees? I have no idea how employers put together 401(k) plans and what the considerations are.

]]> By: Trent http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132262 Trent Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:41:32 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132262 Ryan, that criticism is mostly about his "lightning round" segment, which is mostly purely entertainment - all he's doing is giving very snap judgments on things that should have hours of homework before you invest. As for market manipulation, that's what hedge fund managers are supposed to do. They're supposed to hedge. Ryan, that criticism is mostly about his “lightning round” segment, which is mostly purely entertainment – all he’s doing is giving very snap judgments on things that should have hours of homework before you invest.

As for market manipulation, that’s what hedge fund managers are supposed to do. They’re supposed to hedge.

]]> By: atlas http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132255 atlas Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:18:28 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132255 <i>The investment options on the average 401(k) are terrible</i> I assume he means they're terrible because 401k's are usually limited to high-fee mutual funds? Did he say to do 401k->max roth IRA->taxable account, OR, 401k->max roth IRA->traditional IRA with Vanguard/Fidelity/etc? Tax avoidance is critical in long-term investment accounts so I don't see the huge benefit in saving for retirement in a retail taxable account, especially if one sticks to conservative investments without shorts or options, unless all tax-advantaged methods are max'ed out first. The investment options on the average 401(k) are terrible

I assume he means they’re terrible because 401k’s are usually limited to high-fee mutual funds? Did he say to do 401k->max roth IRA->taxable account, OR, 401k->max roth IRA->traditional IRA with Vanguard/Fidelity/etc?

Tax avoidance is critical in long-term investment accounts so I don’t see the huge benefit in saving for retirement in a retail taxable account, especially if one sticks to conservative investments without shorts or options, unless all tax-advantaged methods are max’ed out first.

]]> By: Ryan http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132248 Ryan Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:47:57 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132248 I'm glad this book did offer some solid advice. There are lots of reasons to dislike the guy including http://www.fundadvice.com/articles/psychological-hurdles/paul-merriman-ten-reasons-to-ignore-jim-cramer-s-advice.html Paul Merriman's a little harsh, but his site has some excellent info. I’m glad this book did offer some solid advice. There are lots of reasons to dislike the guy including http://www.fundadvice.com/articles/psychological-hurdles/paul-merriman-ten-reasons-to-ignore-jim-cramer-s-advice.html
Paul Merriman’s a little harsh, but his site has some excellent info.

]]> By: BigRed http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132210 BigRed Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:18:12 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132210 much better to listen to on the radio--he used to be on from 1-2 on our local dial, and if I was running errands or heading to/from work/lunch, it was an amusing hour of wackiness, with some nuggets of good advice mixed in with a lot of yelling and boo-ya and such. I can't imagine watching the man, though--yikes! I take that back--I did catch a video clip of Cramer having a total apocalyptic meltdown over the subprime mortgage issues, as a guest on someone else's financial segment (MSNBC, maybe), and he got "het up", as we say down South. Yowza! much better to listen to on the radio–he used to be on from 1-2 on our local dial, and if I was running errands or heading to/from work/lunch, it was an amusing hour of wackiness, with some nuggets of good advice mixed in with a lot of yelling and boo-ya and such. I can’t imagine watching the man, though–yikes!

I take that back–I did catch a video clip of Cramer having a total apocalyptic meltdown over the subprime mortgage issues, as a guest on someone else’s financial segment (MSNBC, maybe), and he got “het up”, as we say down South. Yowza!

]]> By: Sarah http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132194 Sarah Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:44:27 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132194 Whether you like his personal style or not is a matter of taste, I suppose, but why you would like a guy <a href="http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/cramer-market-manipulator/" rel="nofollow">who has admitted to manipulating the market</a> is beyond me. Whether you like his personal style or not is a matter of taste, I suppose, but why you would like a guy who has admitted to manipulating the market is beyond me.

]]> By: Money Blue Book http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132169 Money Blue Book Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:39:37 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132169 I enjoy the financial and investment advice he pours out during his show but the camera shaking and angle changes can be quite distracting. The sound effects are mildly amusing :) -Raymond I enjoy the financial and investment advice he pours out during his show but the camera shaking and angle changes can be quite distracting. The sound effects are mildly amusing :)
-Raymond

]]> By: Writer's Coin http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132147 Writer's Coin Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:35 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132147 It's refreshing to hear that such a popular TV personality has some common-sense substance to him beyond the boo-yas and crazy camera work from his show. It's good that people watch him and get interested in investing. Although it sounds like they would be much better off reading his book than watching his show to get ahead financially. Too bad most people won't. It’s refreshing to hear that such a popular TV personality has some common-sense substance to him beyond the boo-yas and crazy camera work from his show.

It’s good that people watch him and get interested in investing. Although it sounds like they would be much better off reading his book than watching his show to get ahead financially.

Too bad most people won’t.

]]> By: Marjorie http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132145 Marjorie Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:56:17 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132145 Dear Trent, Greetings! I'm not much for abrasive people in real life, but I find Cramer entertaining, at the least. I saw him on <i>The Colbert Report</i> once (I think) which was a great place for him to showcase his personality. I was wondering if you've ever reviewed Suze Orman's books "Women and Money" or "Young, Fabulous and Broke?" Or perhaps Jean Chatzky's "Make Money, Not Excuses?" I read all three, and while I didn't find anything new in "Women and Money," I liked the other two. Great post! Salut, Marjorie Dear Trent,

Greetings! I’m not much for abrasive people in real life, but I find Cramer entertaining, at the least. I saw him on The Colbert Report once (I think) which was a great place for him to showcase his personality.

I was wondering if you’ve ever reviewed Suze Orman’s books “Women and Money” or “Young, Fabulous and Broke?” Or perhaps Jean Chatzky’s “Make Money, Not Excuses?” I read all three, and while I didn’t find anything new in “Women and Money,” I liked the other two.

Great post!

Salut,
Marjorie

]]> By: aly http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132127 aly Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:19:27 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132127 Thanks for the review! Am I missing something, though? How can you just "put everything else you’re going to invest into an IRA". Regular IRAs have the same contribution limits as Roth IRAs (5000/yr for 2008). I don't understand how his advice is any different than what you're doing now. If you were going to invest more than 5000 then you'd either have to go back to your 401k or invest in a taxable account. Thanks for the review!

Am I missing something, though? How can you just “put everything else you’re going to invest into an IRA”. Regular IRAs have the same contribution limits as Roth IRAs (5000/yr for 2008). I don’t understand how his advice is any different than what you’re doing now. If you were going to invest more than 5000 then you’d either have to go back to your 401k or invest in a taxable account.

]]> By: Modern Worker http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132120 Modern Worker Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:55:46 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132120 I kind of like the guy as well... perhaps I'll pick this up for a weekend read. Thanks for breaking it down, MC Trent. I kind of like the guy as well… perhaps I’ll pick this up for a weekend read. Thanks for breaking it down, MC Trent.

]]> By: Eden http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/comment-page-1/#comment-132117 Eden Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:45:45 +0000 http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/12/14/review-stay-mad-for-life/#comment-132117 Interesting. I didn't know he had another book coming out. I really enjoyed his first two (I think first two)- Confessions of a Street Addict and Real Money. Cramer is actually quite brilliant and rather risk averse in my opinion. If someone only saw him during the 'lightning round' it would be easy to assume otherwise. However, the time he spends on his show to educate people is when his knowledge comes through and I know a lot of that was evident in his other books as well. I'll have to take a look at this one some day. Interesting. I didn’t know he had another book coming out. I really enjoyed his first two (I think first two)- Confessions of a Street Addict and Real Money.

Cramer is actually quite brilliant and rather risk averse in my opinion. If someone only saw him during the ‘lightning round’ it would be easy to assume otherwise. However, the time he spends on his show to educate people is when his knowledge comes through and I know a lot of that was evident in his other books as well. I’ll have to take a look at this one some day.

]]>