Dave Ramsey recommends 2 funds on the air

[Nahum]

I love Dave and I think I should send him the Bogleheads Guide to Investing book. Yesterday he was encouraging people to invest. On Twitter he posted 2 funds he says he puts his money in. The ticker symbols for these are AIVSX and AGTHX two growth funds. I compared these funds to the Fidelity Spartan 500 index institutional fund FXSIX and this fund beat the American Funds hands down based on 10yr average.

I scratch my head and say to myself "Dave why would you invest in expensive funds especially one that has a load in it? If you only invested the Boglehead way you would have been even more wealthy?" It was also funny when he said that just by investing on the index is an "idiot proof" way to invest.

[NYBoglehead]

I gotta say, I absolutely love Dave Ramsey's advice on personal finance and budgeting matters, but for the life of me I can't figure out why his investing advice stinks so bad (good thing that isn't the focus of his show/books). A lot of people don't pay the sales loads because they contribute enough money to avoid them (I know something like 25k at Oppenheimer gets you out of the loads for some funds). Of course Dave having been a Finance major he has probably convinced himself that others are capable of beating the market. I'm sure he's got a ton of money anyhow so I doubt it matters much to him whether or not he's paying for the fund manager's Maserati (although the fund ERs of 61 and 71 bps aren't the [i]worst[i] that a lot of us have seen).

Dave Ramsey is fantastic on matters of personal finance and helping people get out of debt, he is not the best place to turn for investment advice.

[hsv_climber]

"Dave why would you invest in expensive funds especially one that has a load in it?

To get kickbacks from the American Funds (12b-1 fees are there for a reason) for pushing them to people who love him.

[mickeyd]

I heard him later say that he was not recommending those funds for everyone. They were what he selected in his 401(K) plan. I believe that he also stated that his investments included a growth fund and RE that was purchased with cash. Not very diversified, but if he likes his AA and it fits his IPS, have at it Dave.

[NYBoglehead]

"Dave why would you invest in expensive funds especially one that has a load in it?

To get kickbacks from the American Funds (12b-1 fees are there for a reason) for pushing them to people who love him.

I don't deify the guy, but most of his show is centered on getting and staying out of debt. Talking about investing isn't all that frequent. If he were more about the kickbacks, I'd expect to hear more about "put any extra money into American Funds" instead of "pay off the mortgage by 40!"

If you ever read one of this books I don't think the subject of taxable investing ever comes up, so unless you've got these funds in your 401k you wouldn't be steered toward them anyhow. I'm not saying the guy is above taking a little cash from American Funds, I'm just not so quick to assume the worst, especially since the content of his show/books emphasizes getting/staying out of debt over investing.

[zotty]

To get kickbacks from the American Funds (12b-1 fees are there for a reason) for pushing them to people who love him.

This hurts. I don't like his political rants, but i do think his heart has always been in the right place. His personal finance advise is downright bogleheaded and he helped a lot of people.

His investment advice, on the other hand... OMG.

[hsv_climber]

I'll just repost Taylor's quote for those who are lazy enough to use the search button on this forum:

Hi Joe:

How can we convince Dave (in a loving way) that he is giving out bad investing advice and cowering to commission based investment firms?

It is virtually impossible to convince someone of doing things differently if their income depends on the status quo.

[sschullo]

To get kickbacks from the American Funds (12b-1 fees are there for a reason) for pushing them to people who love him.

This hurts. I don't like his political rants, but i do think his heart has always been in the right place. His personal finance advise is downright bogleheaded and he helped a lot of people.

His investment advice, on the other hand... OMG.

+1

[Toons]

I purchased AIVSX( Investment Company Of America) in my wifes IRA in 1993/ 1700.00 worth of B shares,,thats right b shares
still holding them converted to A shares after 8 years , last check they had compounded their way to 11,400, Quicken shows
9.70 average annual return at current price ,providing I have entered all transactions correctly since 1993
Could be better could be worse ,its all good though

[NYBoglehead]

Let's all try to remember one thing as well...that while we on this forum are convinced (and I am 100%) that indexing is the best way to invest, those that might think otherwise are not necessarily evil, twisted, or greedy.

[HardKnocker]

It's very hard to remain pure when you give financial advice.

It's just real hard not to do things that are not in the customer's best interest when it is in your best interest.

Dave Ramsey is human.

[ObliviousInvestor]

Let's all try to remember one thing as well...that while we on this forum are convinced (and I am 100%) that indexing is the best way to invest, those that might think otherwise are not necessarily evil, twisted, or greedy.

Agreed.

That said, I think his preference of actively managed funds is one of his lesser not-evils. (His greater not-evils being recommending 100% stocks and an 8% withdrawal rate in retirement.)

[SSSS]

As I've heard it, commissioned investment advisers pay money to Dave for an affiliation that they can advertise to potential clients. Investors pay sales loads to those advisers, so indirectly some of the load goes to Dave. That's why he will never recommend no-load funds.

[Steelersfan]

I heard him later say that he was not recommending those funds for everyone. They were what he selected in his 401(K) plan. I believe that he also stated that his investments included a growth fund and RE that was purchased with cash. Not very diversified, but if he likes his AA and it fits his IPS, have at it Dave.

If he got them in his 401k he almost certainly didn't pay a load and the ER would be less than a retail guy off the street would pay.

But it doesn't appear he made that distinction.

[Default User BR]

I held AIVSX for a long time, until I sold it off to complete my portfolio. While an OK fund, the ER was relatively high and it had a lot of capital gains distributions over the years. Due to my ignorance of record-keeping, it was a bit of a chore to back-calculate the cost basis of it.


Brian

[rustymutt]

[quote="Nahum"]


On Twitter he posted 2 funds he says he puts his money in. The ticker symbols for these are AIVSX and AGTHX two growth funds.




I wonder how much this gains Dave's bank account? Those are quite costly for what they are. I guess Dave's not knowledgeable enough to help keep cost low. That's the perception of him that I've always had. I don't know.

[Nahum]

Dave is still the man in my book. Listening to him helped fix my finances. There are just some things that never changes otherwise Wall Street would be all about passive investing but everyone knows that would certainly never happen.

[mollymillions]

I listened to this episode also.

Dave did not recommend either of the funds that he mentioned. He disclosed these funds that he has invested in as a response to many people asking something along the lines of "where are these magical 12% return mutual funds that you always refer to???" He is not a broker, or an investment adviser, and he doesn't recommend specific investments. This is the first time (that I know of) that he has disclosed this information after many years of being asked for it.

During his general rant on this topic in the episode he explained his investing advice a little. He isn't really that concerned with what exactly people have their money invested in. He encourages people to invest in the market, stay in for the long term and not try to time the market, which are all Good Things (tm). His primary goal with his investing advice is to encourage people to actually invest. He basically uses the "12% return" number as a reference point, and he does use it for compound-interest examples and etc. This might seem a little dangerous, since you might think people will take that number and count on it for their retirement (using his sometimes-quoted 8% withdrawal rate as well). However, he continually harps on his advice of "do not invest in something that you don't understand" and "invest at least 15% of your income into tax-advantaged retirement funds".

Dave does talk about investing pretty regularly, but most of his investing advice consists of "get your money into the market and LEAVE IT THERE", and the two rules that I mentioned above. He doesn't like bonds, which is odd, and I believe he just doesn't have much interest in them and doesn't understand how they work, so he follows his own advice and doesn't put his money there. (I believe the vast majority of his large personal fortune is in real estate, with a smaller percentage in mutual funds. He is a real-estate guy by trade, so this makes sense I guess.)

He does point people to his ELP's, who sell funds on commission and stuff. Some people see this as a conflict of interest, but I do not personally have a problem with it. Truthfully, most people either are not savvy enough and/or do not have the interest to research and manage their own funds. I know the Boglehead-way is to go Vanguard and avoid paying commission for dubious investing advice, but most people are just not going to go down that path. Most people want someone to hold their hand with investing, and the ELP program provides that.

TL;DR, Dave's investment advice is not the best, but it's really not "bad". He promotes solid basic principles to people who would normally just flush their money down the toilet.

Sorry for the wall of text!

[SpringMan]

and Suze Orman is my woman. Suze and Dave are birds of a feather. Both are out to feather their own beds.

[NYBoglehead]

^I'm not Dave Ramsey's PR guy or defense attorney, but I'm willing to give him a pass on this one. 90% of his radio show is dedicated to advising listeners and callers on how to reduce their debt to remove that burden from their lives. While he does sell books and I'm he gets some money from his "ELPs" I don't think he collects a single dime from telling a caller to forgo making purchases (and even investing) in order to pay off debt.

If you've ever read his books or listened to the show once or twice, you would know that taxable investing is something that is not even advised until all debt, to include the mortgage, is paid off. So again, unless someone has these funds in their 401k, I highly doubt anybody is going to be influenced to invest in them after seeing something on twitter.

[justus]

Both Dave and Suze give good, level-headed advice on living below your means and about the dangers of debt. They provide good strategies and a roadmap for getting out from under seemingly overwhelming consumer debt & for many people, the advice is timely and pithy.

[NYBoglehead]

and Suze Orman is my woman. Suze and Dave are birds of a feather. Both are out to feather their own beds.

What we often forget on this forum is that we are in the minority. Few people will spend the few hours it takes to read a book on investing. They figure that financial professionals with Ivy League pedigrees must provide something of value. Many people have consumer debt on their backs and are willing to sheepishly go along with the accepted mantras of "you'll always have a car payment" and that debt "helps you build credit, which is important."

Someone will be infinitely better off following Dave Ramsey's advice on staying out of debt and investing 15% of their income in tax-advantaged accounts. His investment advice isn't perfect, but I think we are holding him to unreasonably high standard here.

[JuanZ]

On his show for February 7/2013, a caller told that years ago a payroll deduction was set for her to buy EE bonds. Now she says she's more interested in investments, says she does not know anything about EE bonds, and asks Dave Ramsey what should she do with those EE bonds. Dave Ramsey says that EE bonds are "cute", like a CD, paying only 2 or 3%, but she should cash them in to “invest in good mutual funds”.

Good grief. EE bonds are a super-safe investment that will pay 3.5% — if you keep them 20 years. Where else can one get that very safe return? If the person wants to invest in something more risky, fine, don’t buy any more EE bonds, but the person should keep them for their bond allocation (has Ramsey ever suggested keeping a bond portion?).

Suggesting to cash EE bonds before maturity, to buy those "good mutual funds" is just terrible advice, twice.

[crowd79]

On his show for February 7/2013, a caller told that years ago a payroll deduction was set for her to buy EE bonds. Now she says she's more interested in investments, says she does not know anything about EE bonds, and asks Dave Ramsey what should she do with those EE bonds. Dave Ramsey says that EE bonds are "cute", like a CD, paying only 2 or 3%, but she should cash them in to “invest in good mutual funds”.

Good grief. EE bonds are a super-safe investment that will pay 3.5% — if you keep them 20 years. Where else can one get that very safe return? If the person wants to invest in something more risky, fine, don’t buy any more EE bonds, but the person should keep them for their bond allocation (has Ramsey ever suggested keeping a bond portion?).

Suggesting to cash EE bonds before maturity, to buy those "good mutual funds" is just terrible advice, twice.

"In one ear and out the other" with Dave Ramsey. I never listen to what he says to begin with. This proves it.

EE Bonds are a very underrated safe investment and overlooked by so many people. Sure the cash-out before year 20 would be terrible (not ideal for short or mid-term goals), but the "yield to maturity" goes up every year. If interest rates remain poor at even just 1.5% for the next 3 years (which they will be that low, the Fed has basically said rates are staying low until 2015), then interest rates on CD's, savings, etc, would have to average above 4.5% for 17 years starting in the 3rd year of holding an EE Bond to beat the EE's doubling in 20 years.

[SSSS]

On his show for February 7/2013, a caller told that years ago a payroll deduction was set for her to buy EE bonds. Now she says she's more interested in investments, says she does not know anything about EE bonds, and asks Dave Ramsey what should she do with those EE bonds. Dave Ramsey says that EE bonds are "cute", like a CD, paying only 2 or 3%, but she should cash them in to “invest in good mutual funds”.

Good grief. EE bonds are a super-safe investment that will pay 3.5% — if you keep them 20 years. Where else can one get that very safe return? If the person wants to invest in something more risky, fine, don’t buy any more EE bonds, but the person should keep them for their bond allocation (has Ramsey ever suggested keeping a bond portion?).

Suggesting to cash EE bonds before maturity, to buy those "good mutual funds" is just terrible advice, twice.

That would be a great way to troll people: convincing them to cash in their EE bonds after 18-19 years.

[zebrafish]

I love the personal finance aspects of the show, I hate the occasional political rants, but his investment advice is embarrassing

[DonDraper]

He recently did a rant on diversification. His idea of diversification is recommending four different styles of equity mutual funds. He doesn't recommend any bonds, gold, or commodities.

[ObliviousInvestor]

TL;DR, Dave's investment advice is not the best, but it's really not "bad". He promotes solid basic principles to people who would normally just flush their money down the toilet.

One can make a good case that the investment advice he gives most often (e.g., don't try to time the market) isn't bad, but some of the investment advice he gives is.

Recommending an 8% withdrawal rate in retirement is bad. It's worse than recommending high cost actively managed funds. It's worse than recommending equity indexed annuities. It's worse than most of the bad advice we rail against on this forum.

[SC Hoosier]

As I've heard it, commissioned investment advisers pay money to Dave for an affiliation that they can advertise to potential clients. Investors pay sales loads to those advisers, so indirectly some of the load goes to Dave. That's why he will never recommend no-load funds.

Yes. This is how it works.

[SC Hoosier]

TL;DR, Dave's investment advice is not the best, but it's really not "bad". He promotes solid basic principles to people who would normally just flush their money down the toilet.

One can make a good case that the investment advice he gives most often (e.g., don't try to time the market) isn't bad, but some of the investment advice he gives is.

Recommending an 8% withdrawal rate in retirement is bad. It's worse than recommending high cost actively managed funds. It's worse than recommending equity indexed annuities. It's worse than most of the bad advice we rail against on this forum.

I agree with you Mr. Piper, 8% is way off,(I listened to him say it recently) but I also see the majority of people driving too much car(putting $2000 rims on a $1000 car ) and have credit card debt. He is getting people interested in money, getting them discussing it constructively with their spouse and lives are changing. If we could get everyone out of debt in this country I would enjoy the returns in my index funds much more.(Except financials )

BTW I love the Oblivious Investor. Keep up the good work.

SC Hoosier

[ObliviousInvestor]

He is getting people interested in money, getting them discussing it constructively with their spouse and lives are changing.

Indeed. He's had a significant positive impact on the lives of many people, and I have a great deal of respect for that.

And, I'm happy to hear that you're enjoying the blog.

[mollymillions]

Recommending an 8% withdrawal rate in retirement is bad. It's worse than recommending high cost actively managed funds. It's worse than recommending equity indexed annuities. It's worse than most of the bad advice we rail against on this forum.

This is accurate. Though I've never heard him go into a lot of detail on his "8%" quote. He may not be factoring in inflation, his goal may not be to maintain a nest-egg in perpetuity, he may really be able to maintain that himself (since he's filthy rich at this point), whatever.

From what I can tell, he pretty much just throws that number out there (like the "12% returns") just so people can do a napkin-calculation and become encouraged to save and invest. I certainly agree that these numbers are misleading, but that's not really the point. His point is to get people to invest and plan and calculate, and look at the numbers themselves. His schtick is to be almost hyperbolicly (wtf is that a word?) positive, because otherwise many of his listeners would throw their hands up in despair and start flushing money down the toilet again. I think he's trying to foster hope in people who may have given up, sometimes before they've begun.

He uses this same overbearing optimism in his personal finance advice (where it works better, I think). He tells people who are in financial straights to go do things like clean houses or blow leaves or whatever for extra money, and postulates they can make silly amounts of money like $50/hr. This is really just to get people thinking more positively about their situations so that they get out and DO something about it. I have some misgivings about this philosophy, but I think it does help a lot of people. Sometimes I'm like "really, Dave, this person is $200,000 in debt and has been laid off for a year, and you are telling them to go rake some leaves...?" But, people in these kind of situations do need hope, and Dave recognizes that and tries to give it to them, reality-be-damned.

[ObliviousInvestor]

Though I've never heard him go into a lot of detail on his "8%" quote. He may not be factoring in inflation, his goal may not be to maintain a nest-egg in perpetuity

The following comes from this article.

How Can You Make Sure Your Retirement Funds Last?
As long as you didn’t take the ready-fire-aim approach to retirement planning, you should already know how to make retirement last. But, here’s a refresher:

You’re going to keep your nest egg invested and averaging 12% growth. We’re estimating inflation at 4%. So, to maintain your nest egg and break even with inflation, you will live on 8% income from your nest egg. That means if you have a nest egg of $625,000, you will live on $50,000 per year: $625,000 x 8% (.08) = $50,000.

Other examples are here and here.

[SSSS]

How Can You Make Sure Your Retirement Funds Last?
You’re going to keep your nest egg invested and averaging 12% growth. We’re estimating inflation at 4%. So, to maintain your nest egg and break even with inflation, you will live on 8% income from your nest egg. That means if you have a nest egg of $625,000, you will live on $50,000 per year: $625,000 x 8% (.08) = $50,000.

If he says "nest egg" ONE MORE TIME...

[Easy Rhino]

Rember he probably likes 'growth' funds because he wants his funds to 'grow'....

[Toons]

I still think it is refreshing to hear someone scream,"I'm debt free" on the Ramsey show

[SSSS]

Rember he probably likes 'growth' funds because he wants his funds to 'grow'....

I guess he doesn't like a good "value".

Maybe he likes large-cap funds because he wants a "large" income?

[mollymillions]

The following comes from this article.

How Can You Make Sure Your Retirement Funds Last?
As long as you didn’t take the ready-fire-aim approach to retirement planning, you should already know how to make retirement last. But, here’s a refresher:

You’re going to keep your nest egg invested and averaging 12% growth. We’re estimating inflation at 4%. So, to maintain your nest egg and break even with inflation, you will live on 8% income from your nest egg. That means if you have a nest egg of $625,000, you will live on $50,000 per year: $625,000 x 8% (.08) = $50,000.

Other examples are here and here.

Oh, I guess he's getting the silly 8% number from the silly (and basically hypothetical) 12% number. That is obviously a bad assumption but I guess the math makes sense. If you're netting a 12% return then you CAN draw 8% !!!!!! ( )

[ivesjl]

I think a lot of the comments here are missing the true value of Dave Ramsey's advice, specifically from his FPU curriculum.

My feeling is that most people would benefit from his advice (e.g., living below your means, spending wisely, saving for the future, and staying away from consumer debt).

The fact that he advocates a non-boglehead strategy is secondary. Yes he recommends loaded funds, with 100% stock allocation, but even on this forum there is a wide variety of portfolios that are advocated (there is more than one way to skin a cat).

Dave Ramsey has guided more to financial maturity, and helped more get out of debt than probably anyone else in America; so I really respect his message.

[BigOil]

He does point people to his ELP's, who sell funds on commission and stuff. Some people see this as a conflict of interest, but I do not personally have a problem with it. Truthfully, most people either are not savvy enough and/or do not have the interest to research and manage their own funds. I know the Boglehead-way is to go Vanguard and avoid paying commission for dubious investing advice, but most people are just not going to go down that path. Most people want someone to hold their hand with investing, and the ELP program provides that.

TL;DR, Dave's investment advice is not the best, but it's really not "bad". He promotes solid basic principles to people who would normally just flush their money down the toilet.

+1

[NYBoglehead]

+2

Investing in a crappy fund is still better than buying a $40,000 car on credit or other frivolous expenditures.

[ObliviousInvestor]

Let's flip the situation around. Let's imagine that somebody who we have a great deal of respect for on the forum (let's even say Mr. Bogle himself), in an interview on CNBC, explicitly encouraged people to live it up a little and go ahead and put that next vacation on their credit card.

What should we do? Should we gloss over his statement, giving him a free pass, because we know he has helped so many people with his work in the investing field? Or should we go ahead and point out that his suggestion is terrible?

With regard to Mr. Ramsey, it's plain as day that he has helped many, many people with their finances. And I genuinely applaud him for that. But I don't think we do anybody any favors when we gloss over the fact that, while some of his investing advice (recommending against timing the market) is good, some of it (using actively managed funds) is mediocre, and some of it (recommending an 8% withdrawal rate) is abysmal.

When we see somebody giving bad advice, I think the most helpful thing we can do is to point out (hopefully in a respectful manner) that it is in fact bad advice.

[mickeyd]

Dave seems to make most of his money now from selling his seminars, DVDs, "Classes" and radio show income. That must be a nice bundle as he seems to have a bunch of people working for his company. He also seems to be heavily invested in RE that (he says) was purchased with cash.

Dave is doing OK.

[ivesjl]

Oblivious,
I agree completely with your statement. It is important to remain wary of anyone's advice, no one gets a free pass.

But it would be unwise to ignore everything he teaches because of this one area; his program covers everything from budgeting to insurance (and yes saving for retirement). My wife and I did the FPU program, and it completely changed the way we viewed money and also the way we related to each other. It was DR's advice that got me interested in cleaning up a mess that I had made for myself.

The irony is that because of DR, I cleaned up my financial health, started being intentional with my money, and then I found out about Bogleheads (where he is not so well liked).

[SC Hoosier]

Let's flip the situation around. Let's imagine that somebody who we have a great deal of respect for on the forum (let's even say Mr. Bogle himself), in an interview on CNBC, explicitly encouraged people to live it up a little and go ahead and put that next vacation on their credit card.

What should we do? Should we gloss over his statement, giving him a free pass, because we know he has helped so many people with his work in the investing field? Or should we go ahead and point out that his suggestion is terrible?

With regard to Mr. Ramsey, it's plain as day that he has helped many, many people with their finances. And I genuinely applaud him for that. But I don't think we do anybody any favors when we gloss over the fact that, while some of his investing advice (recommending against timing the market) is good, some of it (using actively managed funds) is mediocre, and some of it (recommending an 8% withdrawal rate) is abysmal.

When we see somebody giving bad advice, I think the most helpful thing we can do is to point out (hopefully in a respectful manner) that it is in fact bad advice.

I can pick and choose what I want to copy. "I admire the way that guy treats his wife. I'm going to copy that, but not the way he keeps his yard."

I will also say that I found this site about 7 years after taking FPU, but I have always been interested in financial strategy. Investing theory never interested me until I was debt free and had my house in order. I really think that Dave and Jack Bogle would be on the same page if they sat down together. I have met Dave in person. Wonderful guy.

SC Hoosier

[Toons]

+2

Investing in a crappy fund is still better than buying a $40,000 car on credit or other frivolous expenditures.

+3

[jasonv]

With regard to Mr. Ramsey, it's plain as day that he has helped many, many people with their finances. And I genuinely applaud him for that. But I don't think we do anybody any favors when we gloss over the fact that, while some of his investing advice (recommending against timing the market) is good, some of it (using actively managed funds) is mediocre, and some of it (recommending an 8% withdrawal rate) is abysmal.

When we see somebody giving bad advice, I think the most helpful thing we can do is to point out (hopefully in a respectful manner) that it is in fact bad advice.

+1

The 8% SWR is abysmally bad indeed. I did some back-testing in a spreadsheet (based on quarterly performance data from Yahoo) withdrawing at a fixed annual rate of 8% of the original investment in quarterly increments. Starting at the beginning of Q2 in 2000, AGTHX would have exhausted all funds within just 12 years. Yes, I cherry picked the starting date, but that's exactly the point. This clearly demonstrates the pitfalls of choosing a a mutual fund with a "solid track record" and hoping that past performance will continue. When choosing choosing your retirement date you cannot guess what the returns will be going forward, so you should be prepared for the worst.

In this example, the fund would not have survived for even the average life expectancy of a 70 year old, and I still had not even included room for inflation in the withdrawals. Since the CPI has increased by a third between 2000 and 2012, real world results might not allow any of these funds to survive a 8% withdrawal rate. These funds also carry loads, so anyone investing them would need to save 6.1% more than they would needed to without a sales load.

Dave Ramsey has clearly admitted that he cannot predict with certainty what the performance will be in the future. However, even the specific funds he highlighted as matching his expectations in the past have already failed to provide for retirement, unless one strictly defines retirement as not exceeding 12 years. If that were the goal, then a TIPS ladder would probably serve perfectly well without any risk. One potential response could be that just as one shouldn't invest in only one stock, one shouldn't invest in only one mutual fund either. That might reduce risk, but I suspect that the performance would then more closely correlate with an index fund, minus the higher fees of course.

[HardKnocker]

Dave Ramsey is corrupted by money just like everyone else.

[stemikger]

I have been a fan of Dave's for a long time. I saw him live when he came to New York City years ago and I was a caller on his show. As others said, I think he knows his forte is not investing and I guess that is why he spends so little time talking about it on his show and even in his book The Total Money Makeover.

Dave is definitely great for motivation, but as I said in another post about Dave, even some of his personal finance advice is flawed. I personally think David Bach's no budget approach is much better. But if either works that is the way to go.

I also think Dave does a lot of good, but as a daily listener he sometimes can be very mean spirited in a bullying sort of way. This does not happen often, but it is a big turn off for me.

[mjsmithz]

i did hear dave ramsey recently recommend a S&P 500 index fund....baby steps