If you haven't heard of Laura Vanderkam yet - you will.
My intellectual girl crush on Laura began back in August 2009 when I read her wonderful op-ed in USA Today, The Princess Problem, I was gripped by her grasp on the odd conundrum that is the modern woman's relationship to money and power. Immediately I knew that I wanted more, and Laura did not disappoint. Her new book, 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think , launches today and let me say... it is absolutely brilliant.
As a personal finance expert I am fond of chanting "time is money". But Laura's book taught me a much better mantra is: "How are you spending your 168 Hours"? Reading 168 Hours is an investment in your life that will pay dividends for years to come. Laura was kind enough to share some thoughts that would be of interest to those of us passionate about all things women and money. So savor the answers below - and for more Laura check out the book's website and follow her on twitter at @LVanderkam.
(1) These days with unemployment hovering near 10% a lot of people are wondering how best to maximizing their hours at work. From your research for 168 Hours what would you suggest?
Keep in mind two things. First, most employers want you to make more money for them. Potentially the currency of your profession is different, but don't fool yourself, it often comes back to money somehow. And second, you probably have long-term career goals. You'll maximize your time at work if you focus on activities related to those two desires. You'll really soar if the two overlap! One tip: Write your year-end performance review in January. Now you know exactly what you should be focusing on at work, and what you can skip (because I'm guessing that "she always answers her emails within 10 minutes" won't be listed as one of your key accomplishments).
(2) One thing I always encourage women to have is an "F-You Fund," that special savings cushion which enables you to make bold changes to how you use your time. You made exactly that type of leap in your life. Can you tell us about that?
I didn't know it was called an "F-You Fund," but I have called upon this fund multiple times. When I was 23, I wanted to move to New York to become a writer. The fact that I had built up savings, even as an intern earning about $25k a year, made it possible for me to pursue my dream. In the years since then, I've walked away from several projects that just weren't going to work long-term. Money may not buy you love, but it buys you freedom. Even if you like what you do, I believe people perform better when they don't desperately need their jobs. You're more willing to take risks. You're more willing to stretch yourself and push back.
(3) Chapter Seven of 168 Hours is called "Don't Do Your Own Laundry." I can already hear women across the land high five-ing you on that. What is your logic?
Time is money. The only reason we view outsourcing household chores like laundry, food preparation or cleaning as expensive is that we expect women to do these things for free. But what's funny about this is that the definition of women's work keeps changing. You probably don't sew your own clothes or churn your own butter anymore. So why not try a wash-and-fold service? If you could moonlight and earn $20/hour, and laundry takes you 3 hours per week, it isn't free, it cost you $60 (well, $40 after taxes). I know this seems like it contradicts my advice, above, about having savings, but you can build assets two ways: spending less or earning more. It takes a lot of coupons to get the same bang as asking for a $5,000 raise.
(4) You also raise an issue in the book that is a hot button for many women right now... the draw backs to working part time. What would you say to a working woman who came to you for counsel on whether or not to shift to part-time work?
Working part-time seems like the best of both worlds, but it's incredibly inefficient. As I discussed in a recent USA Today column, you don't gain much time with your kids. But you'll really hurt your earning capability. People who work 45 hours per week earn more than double the salaries of those working 34 hours, even though they're only working about a third more. Plus, if you think working part-time will deliver that Zen-like state known as work-life balance, consider this: there are 168 hours in a week. If you work 40 and sleep 8 hours a night (56 per week) that leaves 72 hours for other things. This is a lot of time. It's so much time it's hard to see what's balanced about working 20 hours and having 92 hours leftover.
(5) Money, like time, is a finite resource (or at least it is for the 99.99999...% of us who aren't billionaires!) What advice do you have for women on how to maximize the money they do have?
Use your money to create the life you want. Use it to get rid of things you don't want to do, like laundry, and use it to do more of things you do like. If you really care about a certain cause, there is great joy in being able to both volunteer and write a significant check. If you have a hobby you love, put your money where your heart is. For example, in 168 Hours, I interviewed a businessman who used his resources to record a country music album with professional musicians. That wasn't cheap, but it made him far happier than a year's worth of mindless spending.
FTC disclosure: In order to review the book prior to release I had to actually read it in advance. That entailed getting an advance review copy, which I did not pay for (disclosed!). Importantly, upon reading 168 Hours, I immediately hopped on Amazon to buy copies via their pre-order function to give as gifts (which I don't have to disclose but I will because the book is that good.)
- Colbert King:
Family, marriage and the contribution of fathers come together as topics for reflection on Father's Day. So I'd like to know why Barack Obama, a husband and a father in a family structure that encompasses bonds deemed essential to our society, is constantly and savagely attacked by conservative leaders whose personal circumstances undermine the family values they espouse?
Consider Obama: Raised by a single mother in a middle-class family where hard work and education were watchwords, Obama graduated from two of the top schools in the country, Columbia University and Harvard Law School. His legal scholarship was recognized when he became the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. He married and, equally important, has stayed married to Michelle Robinson, a Princeton graduate and Harvard Law alumna. He lives with his wife, two children and his mother-in-law. Obama: constitutional law professor, civil rights lawyer, state legislator, U.S. senator, 44th U.S. president, family man.
Now let's turn to Obama's foremost critics: Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, Newton Leroy Gingrich and Sarah Palin.
- Eighty-five percent of Swedish fathers take parental leave. It's expected, both by employers and society as a whole.
In this land of Viking lore, men are at the heart of the gender-equality debate. The ponytailed center-right finance minister calls himself a feminist, ads for cleaning products rarely feature women as homemakers, and preschools vet books for gender stereotypes in animal characters. For nearly four decades, governments of all political hues have legislated to give women equal rights at work — and men equal rights at home.
Swedish mothers still take more time off with children — almost four times as much. And some who thought they wanted their men to help raise baby now find themselves coveting more time at home.
But laws reserving at least two months of the generously paid, 13-month parental leave exclusively for fathers — a quota that could well double after the September election — have set off profound social change.
- In 2002, a telecommunications engineer with dual Canadian/Syrian citizenship was seized from JFK airport, held in solitary confinement for two weeks without adequate access to an attorney, then sent to Syria, where he was imprisoned for a year and tortured. Then, he was released back to Canada. Jeralyn explains that although the Supreme Court denied cert in his civil lawsuit against U.S. officials, at least someone official is investigating. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
- Blackwater is awarded a new contract -- under another name, of course -- to guard U.S. consulates in Afghanistan. --Susan Gardner
- Republicans just can't help revealing their unhinged extremism, and no matter how many times they later backtrack, they are what they are.
The Republican nominee for a northern New Mexico congressional seat suggested during a radio interview that the United States could place land mines along the Mexican border to secure the international boundary.
Asked Monday to clarify, Tom Mullins emphasized that he does not advocate doing so.
He was just making conversation. Or something.
- Dahlia Lithwick:
Almost two weeks ago, former Supreme Court Justice David Souter gave the commencement speech at Harvard, a speech that's been variously described by some of my favorite legal writers as a denunciation of "originalism," a defense of "living constitutionalism," and a suggestion that "judicial activism" is a game both liberals and conservatives can play. But the striking aspect of Souter's remarkable speech is that it rejected virtually all of these easy ideological labels and addressed itself to two much simpler questions: Is the meaning of the Constitution clear? And is the task of divining that meaning easy? These incisive questions themselves beg an even more pressing constitutional question: Why must justices first leave the bench before they can speak seriously about the importance of the court?
- Science Daily:
Advances in high-yield agriculture over the latter part of the 20th century have prevented massive amounts of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere -- the equivalent of 590 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide -- according to a new study led by two Stanford Earth scientists.
- Andrew Lawler, in Science Magazine:
After decades of taboo and controversy, Pacific Rim archaeologists are finding new evidence that Polynesians reached South America before Europeans did, voyaging across the world's largest ocean around 1200 C.E.
- Cynthia Tucker's reaction to President Obama's energy speech was concise and pointed.
- Diego Valle makes a comprehensive analysis of the Drug War in Mexico. Suffice to say that the present strategy isn't working. If you don't have a lot of time, just scroll down to his conclusions.
- Europe's recession might bring down Germany's Merkel government, and is leading to a rise in xenophobia and racism.
- Markos linked this, last week, but it deserves an encore. After taking apart the canard that Social Security is going broke, digby ends with this gem:
Any deficit scold who doesn't put reducing health care costs at the very top of the agenda is just a demagogic crank doing the dirty work for the aristocratic overlords.
- Defense Secretary Robert Gates claims Iran could launch hundreds of missiles into Europe. At least he didn't claim it could be done in 45 minutes.
- Pretend you're surprised:
Recent setbacks in Afghanistan have intensified debate over the wisdom of the Obama administration's plan to begin withdrawing U.S. military forces next summer and highlighted reservations among military commanders over a rigid timeline.
At a Senate hearing Tuesday, Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees U.S. forces in the Mideast and Afghanistan, offered "qualified" support for President Obama's plan to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011.
You have to admire the logic. The worse things get, the longer we have to stay.
penis enlargement
In November 2008, an article was published on Associated Content. This article listed ten reasons why the author felt that Suze Orman is not qualified to discuss finance and money. For each of the ten reasons in the article, I have formulated a response. My response shows the weaknesses that I found in the author's arguments.
Suze is NOT certified and licensed as a financial analyst. She is not someone who's trained to handle money or consult people about money.
The statement above is a blatant lie. Suze Orman is a Certified Financial Planner. To become a CFP, Suze had to go through a two-year certification process. In addition, she has to stay up to follow continuing education requirements so that she can stay up-to-date on the kinds of information that you need. With this certification she is qualified to talk to you about your money.
It is very simple to check and see if someone is a Certified Financial Planner. Simply go to a website and search based on name and state. I typed in "Orman" in the last name field and selected California as the state. Suze L. Orman is a Certified Financial Planner in California.
It is important to do your research before making these types of allegations.
Suze's educational background has absolutely NOTHING to do with finance. Her degree is in social work.
Only one part of the above statement is correct. It is true that Suze Orman's undergraduate degree was not in a business field. However, it's hard to state that someone is unqualified just because of their undergraduate degree. Suze Orman obtained a Series 7 license, just like every other stock broker. She's a Certified Financial Planner. She knows finance inside and out. You don't have to get a college degree in finance to become a financial expert.
One reason that Suze Orman is a great financial adviser is that she understands people. Her understanding of people comes is partially due to her undergraduate education. She knows the intricacies of how we think. She knows that the only way to make changes in our lives is to understand why we do things. Her education helps her to coach others. Think of her as a social worker and a money guru all rolled up in to one.
Much of the information Suze Orman talks about on her show sounds like she got it off the Internet and tweaked it to sound like she did her research to the capacity of a financial advisor or accountant. Most of the information Suze Orman discusses are things that financial advisors speak with their clients about.
This statement doesn't make any sense. Does the author have PROOF that Suze Orman gets her stuff from the Internet? Furthermore, we have established that she is a licensed financial advisor. This is why Suze Orman talks about things that financial advisors talk about.
Suze Orman isn't qualified to discuss things like 401(k)s and financial accounts. If someone has questions about financial matters they need to contact firms like Vanguard and Edward Jones because they have qualified financial advisors on staff.
We have established that Suze Orman is LICENSED. She is qualified to talk about these matters.
Suze is not a licensed attorney. She is not qualified to advise about legal matters, nor is she qualified to advise on legalities of money.
While it is true that Suze is not an attorney, she is qualified to state her opinion on what is good for your money. She is not telling people that they will never lose one cent if they do what she says. Suze Orman simply gives you the facts and lets you make your own decision. She adheres to a code of ethics under her Certified Financial Planner credential. She is not giving you "legal" advice. She is giving you facts.
What is the difference between listening to Suze Orman and reading a website that tells you about the legalities of money? You can simply type in "how do I avoid probate upon my death" in ask.com and will be given a slew of sites. Many of these sites deal with revocable living trusts. Several of the sites allow you to do-it-yourself. There's no difference between finding this information online and listening to Suze Orman.
Regular licensed and certified financial experts constantly stay up to date through continuing education courses. Suze Orman probably does most of this online, and that does not validate her credibility as a trusted financial expert.
The worst thing about the above statement is that it is blatant speculation. The author did not conduct his research. If he had done the proper research, he would have had a source that indicated that Suze Orman conducts her continuing education online. Even if Suze Orman does stay up to date using virtual CPE, there are many venues that are just as good- if not better- than traditional in-person meetings.
Furthermore, in order for continuing education to count towards maintaining a CFP designation, sponsoring organizations must be approved by the CFP board. Suze Orman is following a code of ethics. Taking web-based courses for continuing education is just as credible as a conference or in-person class - as long as the sponsor is approved by the licensing board.
Suze has a history of poor investment. She took a $50,000 loan meant for opening a bakery and invested it with a crooked broker. She isn't qualified to discuss money because she invested money that was intended for another purpose.
It takes time to open a bakery. Suze Orman would not be able to take $50,000 and immediately start a bakery. She would need to make a business plan, find a location to lease, and buy equipment. She would need to do a lot of research. She took her money to a broker and told him she couldn't afford to lose the money and wanted it somewhere safe. He violated his code of ethics, and she was a victim. However, everything happens for a reason. It was this situation which sparked her journey to the top in the realm of personal finance. She had the sense to educate herself so that it wouldn't ever happen again.
Furthermore, the gentleman who gave her the "loan" told her that he wanted her to open an account at Merrill Lynch until she was ready to open her bakery. The above statement about how she invested money that was intended for another purpose is false. She did exactly as she was told at the time.
Before making accusations, or jumping to conclusions, you should always do your research. The information that refutes the author's statements is easily found on Suze Orman's very own website.
It's also worthwhile to note that Suze Orman paid the gentleman back. When she sued Merrill Lynch, they gave her all the money back plus interest. She was able to pay back the loan and she did. She paid the loan back despite the fact that she had no "legal" requirement to do so. She did the right thing. This says a lot about her character and ethics.
Suze puts herself in serious legal risk because she could be sued for giving financial advice. If someone took her advice and applied it to their situation, they could lose money. If they lose all their money taking her advice, they could sue Suze. The TV station, CNBC, could also be sued because they allow someone whose background is not finance to give financial advice on their station.
The above statement does not make any sense. The advice she gives is not controversial or high-risk advice. She tells people things like...pay off your credit card debt or try to avoid bankruptcy at all costs. She doesn't give you her stock picks. In fact, I have even heard her tell people that they should stay out of the stock market if they need their money within the next ten years. Furthermore, she informs us of the differences between load funds and no-load funds. She explains things that actually SAVE money. I don't see how someone could lose money based on this advice.
Suze does love municipal bonds. She explains that if you invest in municipal bonds, you need to do your research. She tells you how to do that research. However, never once have I ever heard her recommend a given investment.
Furthermore, the TV station is very aware of legal risks. They employ corporate lawyers. The corporate lawyers would not allow them to air a show if it posed them a significant legal risk. In addition, we have already established that Suze Orman is a credible financial expert.
Suze doesn't need to write books because she is not qualified to discuss finances. She doesn't have certifications so she shouldn't be consulting, either. People who work in finance are licensed and monitored by various boards. They also are held accountable under a code of ethics.
Again, this argument makes no sense. Suze Orman is a Certified Financial Planner. She is qualified to consult. She is very well qualified to write books on finance. After all, she's written multiple New York Times Best Sellers. I highly doubt her books would be as successful as they are if she wasn't qualified to write them.
Suze Orman is held accountable under a code of ethics. She is a Certified Financial Planner. You can read the code of ethics for a Certified Financial Planner here.
Suze is hurting the actual people who have degrees, certifications, and licenses. She gives information to viewers that many others spend time researching. Others spend lots of time taking continuing education courses and staying up to date with their licenses.
It's highly unlikely that the people who can afford to go to financial planners will fail to do so just because they watch the Suze Orman show. Suze's audience is usually so bogged down in credit card debt and in financial despair that they aren't going to have an extra $200 an hour to consult with a CPA or CFP. She is actually doing many people a great service by offering this information on TV and on her website. In many cases, the only way people can receive information like this is through TV and online media sources.
In addition, Suze Orman spends just as much time staying up-to-date with current events as any other LICENSED Certified Financial Planner.
My Conclusions
The article titled "Ten Reasons Why Suze Orman is Not Qualified to Discuss Finance and Money" was poorly written and ill-informed. The author gave ten reasons why he felt that Suze Orman was not qualified to discuss finances. Many of these reasons centered around one statement - that Suze Orman wasn't licensed therefore not qualifed to speak about these matters. Then, after the author's ten reasons he goes in to a lengthy rant about his disdain for Suze Orman. It's unfortunate that the author doesn't realize that Suze Orman is licensed and qualified.
Furthermore, the author keeps mentioning finance and business degrees as a good indicator of financial adviser quality. That's not necessarily so. Many licensing boards require only a college degree. An exception to this statement would be a CPA. CPA's are required by the state to take certain accounting and business courses. Other than that, many other certifications only require a bachelor's degree. This is because there is also an experience requirement. If you meet the experience requirement, and pass the exams, you are qualified for the certification.
The last statement of the article is "it's better to leave the advice giving and helping you to manage and maintain your financial health to a licensed, trained, and certified financial analyst or accountant." While I do agree that you should seek help from licensed professionals - SUZE ORMAN IS LICENSED.
For those of you who are on the fence about financial powerhouse Suze Orman, know this: SUZE ORMAN IS LICENSED AND QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS MONEY ISSUES WITH YOU.
I really like Suze Orman. I think she's made a difference in so many people's lives. However, I realize that we all have a right to our own opinions. It's okay to dislike her. However, it's not okay to misrepresent her credentials and make speculations about her without checking your facts.
Resources:
www.suzeorman.com
www.cfp.net
Associated Content
Arrowheadlines: Chiefs <b>News</b> 6/21 - Arrowhead Pride
Good morning boys and girls. An early edition of Arrowheadlines today so I can hit the road (pretty much the case all week). Here's today's Kansas City Chiefs news (tweet-free). Enjoy!
Crude Oil Up On Chinese Yuan <b>News</b>, Gold Holding Up As $1250 <b>...</b>
The bias remains up in crude oil and news out of China that the country plans to allow more flexibility in its exchange rate is just more fuel for an already.
At Buffao <b>News</b>, New Rules for Online Comments - Media Decoder Blog <b>...</b>
In a significant step toward reigning in the largely unpoliced world of anonymous online commenting, The Buffalo News said that it will require all people who leave comments on its website to identify themselves.
