Dave Ramsey's advice is awful

For the majority, it is not awful. For those that have a pulse of what is going on with their finances, I would agree, it is not someone they should be following.

You think people that have to follow Dave Ramsey should be investing in the market?

quote:

---

Hope everyone following him, paying off their 4% mortgage tbe last few years is having fun while im hurdling their arse with 24% in the market.

---

Sigh.

The people following him are not paying off mortgages at the expense of putting money into the market. They are paying off mortgages at the expense of nothing, or at the expense of wasting it on stupid stuff.

I do hope you cash out in time.

One would be better off putting funds in a taxable brokerage account than paying off their mortgage early

So you did a cash out refi and borrowed the max to drop it in the market right?

Ran up those 14% CC's to the max too right? All that sweet cashback making 10% over those rates in the market right?

How much did you take out in personal loans to invest? Surely the market beat those rates too...

quote:

---

Dave Ramsey's advice is awful Germans. Anyone that knows anything about money management knows this

---

People that that can manage their money don't need Dave Ramsey's advice, for those that cant manage money his plan is probably better than most as it is based on psychology not math. Those that continually spend more than they make, and rack up debt don't need a lesson in math/finance they need a step by step plan that will allow them to make small but continuous progress in getting out of debt and eventually changing their mindset about money, Dave's plan does that.

quote:

---

Hope everyone following him, paying off their 4% mortgage tbe last few years is having fun while im hurdling their arse with 24% in the market.

---

I think Dave’s general principles regarding budgeting, saving, and to a lesser extent eliminating debt (specifically bad debt), is good at the Marco level. And while I disagree with the extremes his approach goes, and the fact that it’s often detrimental to long term financial outcomes, at least he seemed pretty transparent about this in regards to psychological impact debt can have. To each his own as long as it’s known what the costs could be.

On the other hand, when he starts delving into investment advice, is where he really bothers me—not only because it’s ethically questionable but sometimes it’s just flat out wrong.

For example, he has touted this claim about the S&P averaging > 12% yearly growth to show how beneficial early investment could be (obviously good advice to invest early). The problem with that is he incorrectly used the average change as calculated by the arithmetic mean when compounding growth must be calculated using the geometric mean, which was more like 10% and that couple percent difference would have a huge impact on the long term. That’s an inexcusable error for anyone providing investment advice and shows that he lacks the basic competency to delve into that ethically questionable area.

But the absolute worst part of that was when he was lambasted for this error, rather than admitting he made mistake, he tried to justify it as proving a point about investing and skirt away from the error, an error that would result in hundreds of thousands (before adjusting for inflation) less than than than the million that would result from his numbers.

The mistake may have shown he lacked the competent, but the refusal to admit a glaring and objectively indisputable mistake calls into question his integrity and character especially given the underlying morality that is basis for his approaches and the fact the mistake continues to go uncorrected for the millions who follow his advice, unaware of his investing incompetence.

How do you feel about his 401k allocation of:

Growth fund, Growth & Income fund, one Aggressive Growth fund and one International fund.

(no message)