SCENARIO 1

When a client asks whether they should follow Orman's advice to prioritize retirement savings over other financial goals, especially children's educationI would approach the conversation with care and children's perspective, particularly her statement, "There are no loans for retirement," underscores a critical truth: retirement is one of the few life expenses that cannot be financed through borrowing, making early and consistent saving essential (Orman, 2020).

I would rely heavily on active listening and open-ended questioning to determine the financial motivations behind this question. These skills allow me to understand whether the client's concern stems from emotional guilt (such as wanting to fund their children's education fully), financial insecurity, or a misunderstanding of retirement planning. Demonstrating empathy while exploring the children and goals helps build trust and ensures that I provide tailored advice rather than generic recommendations.

I must be conscious of both my own and the client's biases. As a planner, I might have a professional bias toward mathematically optimal outcomes (such as maximizing retirement contributions). At the same time, the client might hold emotional biaseslike prioritizing family legacy or avoiding student debt for their children. Cultural expectations around family support can also influence their thinking. By recognizing these biases, I can facilitate a balanced, values-based discussion rather than a purely numbers-driven one.

The time value of money (TVM) is crucial in this conversation. Retirement savings benefit immensely from compound growth over time. Delaying contributions to prioritize other expenseseven noble ones like educationcan significantly reduce the long-term value of a retirement account. For example, contributing $6,000 annually to a Roth IRA from age 30 to 65 at a 7% return could result in over $900,000. Waiting 10 years to start would reduce that value by nearly half (Sethi, 2023). Explaining this visually with projections often helps clients see the long-term impact of their decisions.

While Suze Orman's advice to prioritize retirement may initially feel counterintuitive or even selfish to some clients, it reflects the financial reality that retirement must be self-funded. As a planner, my role is to align sound financial principles with the client's values, ensuring they make informed decisions that support both their present responsibilities and future independence.

SCENARIO 2

Suze Orman is a well regarded financial professional that promotes smart financial decisions, so I won't say that her advice is without merit, though I personally would never tell my clients what she says. If a client were to ask me if they should take her advice, that would be a difficult question to answer because I'd have to look at the client's situation, her advice applies better to seniors or people closer to retirement or that have limited resources. To those clients I would tell them that they can try it out, though I don't promote it. In general, Suze's advice steems from saving as much as you can so you can live a better life later, the problem with this advice is that we are all living in the now, not the later, the value of your life is not just how you live in your 60s and 70s its also how you live in your 20s and 30s. If you never anything you WANT due to lack of money so that you can save up for retirement you'll be saving up your life so that you can finally live it only towards the end of it. Thus, this is not good advice. I'd also argue her comments about people not being able to get more money, it comes from a place of lack, money is everywhere, it is not impossible to get more of it and increase your income so long as you plan for it. She is promoting living a limited life so that you can live a good one ONLY when you retire, problem is that devalues where you are at now, and doesn't take into consideration the fact that you can die tomorrow, trying to save up for a future that isn't guaranteed. There is a balance here, its not about not purchasing your wants, it's about not overspending! Usually, I believe people simply overspend, and overspending is a problem no matter your income level. My advice, would be to: increase your income, decrease excessive spending, and save/invest wisely.

I would simply ask my client WHY they feel that this is important advice to follow. It could be that the client believes that he/she cannot get more money, or that they are simply overspending. However, you don't have to spend minimally to enjoy a good retirement, you can have both.

My bias is very clear here, I don't believe that people can't increase their income and I don't believe in money being scarce. Suze's advice hinges on those two facts, and if they are true for you then her advice makes perfect sense. Though I don't promote it, some clients might hold these viewpoints strongly, and my job isn't to change them, but to advise.

Finally, we would have to consider the time value of money here. It is a basic premise that money's value decreases over time due to inflation, while investing that money would tend to make it grow over time. Thus, depending on what you do with it, it will grow or decrease over time. With Suze's advice taken to the extreme you might be a millionaire when you retire at the price of living as a "poor" person now, the client has to determine if that is a worthy trade off, to trade 20-40 years of their life to make the last 20 great (not even considering the health impacts of old age vs youth).

Youth is a terrible thing to waste.

BASED ON SCENARIO 1 & 2 PLEASE ANSWER Do you agree with how your classmate would approach this advice with their client? Support your responses with specific details. Please be respectful in your comments as this discussion offers opportunities for differing opinions.