Chuck Jaffe recently wrote an article criticizing Suzy Orman for being "out of touch". Among many things, he criticized Suzy Orman for being a lesbian; which - he acknowledges - has little to no effect on her ability to provide financial advice. If "...sexuality plays no role and carries no influence in financial advice", why bring it up? I think Chuck Jaffe is taking every shot he can at Ms. Orman in order to defame her character and make his point seem stronger. This is a weak and pitiful way to write an article.
Jaffe also criticizes Ms. Orman's stock market investments. Orman commented "I have a million dollars in the stock market, because if I lose a million dollars, I don't personally care." Jaffe summarizes that "...the person being trusted as everyone's financial adviser has a portfolio that few people could live with. "
However, Jaffe seems ignorant to the fact that Suze Orman doesn't encourage her audience to invest a million dollars in the stock market. She encourages her audience to make the best decisions for their portfolio. She encourages her audience to pay down expensive debt (and I agree in theory; but have difficulty in practice). Since Orman is worth about $25 million (according to Jaffe's article) she probably doesn't have an overwhelming debt load.
Her audience, however, seems to be middle class and lower income families and singles. I would guess that Suze Orman is the financial planner for people who can't afford financial planners.
If you make enough to own a home, but not pay cash... Suze Orman has good advice.
If you make enough to live paycheck to paycheck, but can't get out from under your credit card and school debt... Suze Orman has good advice.
It doesn't seem that Suze Orman is trying to sell her books to the executive that drives a mercedes, lives in a million dollar home, and paid for all of it with cash.
Suze Orman knows her audience. It doesn't seem that Chuck Jaffe does.