Posted on 02/23/2007 1:19:43 PM PST by PDR
In an interview for The New York Times Magazine this coming Sunday, financial guru and TV host Suze Orman gets on Deborah Solomon's case for not looking out for her own money, partly because "you are a woman." This inspires Solomon to ask Orman if she is married.
Orman says she "has a relationship with life," so Solomon presses her, and Suze then reveals that her "life partner" is Kathy Travis and, "We're going on seven years. I have never been with a man in my whole life. I'm still a 55-year-old virgin."
Orman says they'd like to get married, and both "have millions of dollars in our name. It's killing me that upon my death, K.T. is going to lose 50 percent of everything I have to estate taxes. Or vice versa."
Pressed again, she says that estimates that she is worth $25 million are "pretty close."
She says she has about a million dollars in the stock exchange, because if she loses it all "I don't personally care."
It's a man, baby!
I assume it means she still has a hymen. I hate to be crude, but I find it hard to believe that nothing's been up there. No strap-ons?
On the other hand, perhaps she's a top.
The high commissions and fees are often rolled into the product itself -- like the expense ratio in a mutual fund. For example, for evey $1000 that I spend on a life insurance product, I may only be getting $920 in value, with the other $80 or more going to commissions and expenses. While the super high commissions are technically paid by the company to the sales person, they effectively come out of the consumers' pockets.
I understand the product very well, which is why I am a life insurance/annuity pedalers' worst nightmare.
What's a top?
I tried not to be quite that crude but I really wanted to mention the "tools".
I don't think toys count since someone could "administer" the tools themselves for an entire lifetime and still be a virgin. I believe only the real deal counts, but she definitely isn't "pure" in the traditional sense of a virgin.
She looks nothing like Fred Astaire.
I believe it is the current lexicon for "dom". The "man". The "pitcher" (in a homo male sense.)
I don't have any personal experience with any of this garbage, btw. I don't have sex.
I wouldn't have even read the article if I hadn't thought it was about someone reaching the age of 55 and never having sex. I didn't think it was going to be about another angry bulldyke. That's not news. That's dog bites man, not man bites dog.
Silly me - I've watched some of her programs on financial advice without ever wondering ONCE what was being put in her other end, or how, or by whom!
i never paid any attention to her, let alone her sex life, but looks like Suze is the one that put it on the table in this article.
After being "asked" and "pressed" by the reporter. I think I would have deflected it, personally. I don't really see why it's anyone's business.
Silly me, I was responding to her claim (You know, the title of this thread, the subject) of a lesbian thinking she was a virgin.
Sorry if that offends the "moderates" of Free Republic, usually I could care less about the deviants but don't start bringing the "lesbianism is pure/natural bull feces."
That is when I start in on criticizing "the love that dare not speak it's name". Take it out of the bed room, get ready to be criticized.
Oh Ok, I got ya.
Either way, eeewww. Why do people have to tie thier whole identity to thier sexuality and then force us to accept or reject them as a person on that basis primarily?
Wrong again. Unlike your mutual funds that charge a fee in both good and bad years, the < 1% charge is only assesed in the years that the product increases in value. Imagine a mutual fund/financial adviser that only charged a percentage when they made money and didn't when they lost money, which a good EIA can't do, because, by definition it is not a security product. so no risk to the buyer, guaranteed principle, bonus up front and in exchange the insurance company wants "time" to recoup the payout.
Not a bad deal. But like any other product, there are absolutely bad ones as well. The number one seller of EIA's by far the worst out there. Like mutual funds, or any product, there are good and bad, the difference is knowing the difference. Please tell me you're getting your information from self research and not NASD notices.
Hey: Where have you been? Nothing like taking a shot late in the thread.
I dont envy anyone with wealth. I am glad they have it,
But then how much does one need?
I get by good on what I have.
Some people have more some less. I couldnt care less.
I simply asked if she has 13 1/2 milion to leave her partner , How much more could her partner need?
Because of the super-duper high commissions and other perks that life insurance and annuity peddlers "earn" there is an inherent conflict of interest between the needs of the client and the wants of the so-called investment professionals. I have seen so-called financial planners talk their clients into using their tax deferred retirement plans to purchase tax deferred life annuities and insurance products. How stupid it that!
How do I know all of this? Because I was involved in the Prudential-Bache litigation a few years back involving questionable practices with respect to the sale of life insurance and annuities. In additon, I have represented several large publically-traded financial services companies in litigations involving the sale of life insurance and annuity products.
Ummmmm.....you know what Rush's butt looks like?
A good EIA has a place for some (we have a narrow market sector that we deal with) to be a great way to transfer assets, IF it is a part of the overall financial picture or strategy.
A life insurance policy is a great way to transfer wealth to the beneficiary. That is not in dispute, I hope. An EIA can do the same thing, if the purchaser has is willing accept the time that it takes to transfer the wealth. As you know there are a myriad of products that have 5,6,7, 10, and up to 16 years to mature and then start annuitizing.
I can't argue the legal side of the argument, but the cast such a net that all EIA's are bad, is wrong and skewed. It is easy to find a bad product in every market. The key (which refers to one of my earlier posts) is that in some instances a EIA might be the right product for part of an overall financial strategy, say for example, a 1035 from a old company 401K. The "bonus" paid upfront onto the principle to the purchaser is in exchange for time. No deduction is ever made from an annuity account for "fees" but the insurances company pays the seller in a lump sum, usually one time.
Even Suze Orman's book states as much that a good EIA may be right for a person who wants to take advantage of market gains without the risk to the principle (pg. 473 of The Road to Wealth)
Keep sharing your thoughts. I am reading everything you post. I realize that we are not going to change each others mind, but I'd love to read more about the case. This product is not a security and the NASD has no right to comment on it. The NASD last time I checked was concerned with the Security Dealers. They are a private institution that is not concerned with the welfare of the public at large, IMO. If the argument is made that they do care about the welfare of the public why the heck would they endorse a product like a Variable Annuity? You want to talk about a bad product, that's it.
Sorry for the long post, but thanks for taking time to reply.
K4
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.