Who has the best Cult? Dave Ramsey or MMM?

[ericrugiero]

Dave Ramsey has done a fantastic job of improving the finances of tons of people.  He says (and he is probably right) that behavior change is more important than perfectly optimizing the math.  He has a charismatic personality and is a great cheerleader for the people who follow his plan.  His plan absolutely works and is safer than using highly leveraged debt.  It's better for "most people" who are a financial train wreck.  He puts a higher priority on being safe financially ("financial peace") than on optimizing every last possible cent. 

On the other hand, he has made a huge fortune by getting people to follow his advice.  My conscience wouldn't allow me to charge people who are deeply in debt what he charges them.  His snowball advice makes sense as a general rule but I disagree that it must be followed without any deviation.  If I had a $10,000 auto loan at 3% and an $11,000 credit card debt at 21%, you better believe I'd pay off the credit card first. 

I don't have much use for Chris Hogan because he just parrots what Dave says without the personal experience or personality.  Even if he did disagree he wouldn't be allowed to say so on Dave's show.  Some of the other personalities at least have something different to add. 

MMM is less of a cult leader (even though he jokes about it) but he has some great advice as well.  His financial posts are more about teaching people principles and making them think for themselves about optimizing their lives.  As such, his advice can be used for many specific scenarios and can be better for each individual.  His environmental beliefs are a little more cultish but he is just really good at persuasive writing to make people think about his opinions. 

I read and listen to both and find them both good for learning and entertainment.  I don't follow either blindly. 

[Telecaster]

So, I've seen the phrase "shitty investing advice" already on this thread, in reference to Dave Ramsey.  Anyone who's researched the criticism on DR would also find such terms as "unrealistic return expectations".

I can imagine, many decades from now, a former DR disciple confronting him: "Hey, you told me I could consistently earn 12% in the markets!  That was a lie; I only made 8%!".  And the answer might be: "Well, it got you to invest and become a millionaire, so sorry, my bad -- guilty."

My quibble is that he recommends expensive, front-loaded, managed funds.   Unlike say, the snowball method---which while suboptimal it might be the psychological trick needed to stay on course--recommending front loaded, managed funds is just really shitty financial advice. 

The difference between DR's shitty mutual funds and a nice, low-cost index fund over 30 years (typical investing horizon) could easily turn out to the price of a nice house.

But I think his advice is bad for another reason:  There is a great amount of peace that comes with the simplicity of indexing.  You don't have to try to select the right fund.  You don't have to worry, wonder or care if your over-priced fund manager is doing his job.   You win by taking the simplest option.   And along with that comes a certain empowerment.  Your fund is beats the over-priced fund manager's fund.  That makes you a better investor than him, despite his MBA. 

The worst part though, is he gets a commission from these crappy funds.  He's selling false hope to people in financial distress.   

[ctuser1]

I once heard Ramsey mislead on a call about the low-cost index funds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR64-Ea_r5U

He says (I'm paraphrasing):
1. Charging fees = "capitalism"
2. "Liberal undercurrent" -> "questioning fees", "not allowed to charge fees".
3. "No 1 reason people retire with no money is they don't put any money.... not fees..."

#1 and #2 means either Dave does not understand what the word "capitalism" means, or that he is intentionally misleading with an aim to make financial gain. I think the later is more likely.

#3 is technically correct, but irrelevant in the context of the callers question, and misleading where he asked specifically about index vs. mutual funds in the context of his 401k.

As anyone can generally tell from my posts, I live in a "liberal bubble" and strongly suspect the integrity of "conservative leaning" personalities. Instances like the call above (+ many others) have made big contributions to that mindset.

Note: I have so far not found nothing fundamentally objectionable in Dave's advice on debt/savings etc.

[slappy]

So, I've seen the phrase "shitty investing advice" already on this thread, in reference to Dave Ramsey.  Anyone who's researched the criticism on DR would also find such terms as "unrealistic return expectations".

I can imagine, many decades from now, a former DR disciple confronting him: "Hey, you told me I could consistently earn 12% in the markets!  That was a lie; I only made 8%!".  And the answer might be: "Well, it got you to invest and become a millionaire, so sorry, my bad -- guilty."

My quibble is that he recommends expensive, front-loaded, managed funds.   Unlike say, the snowball method---which while suboptimal it might be the psychological trick needed to stay on course--recommending front loaded, managed funds is just really shitty financial advice. 

The difference between DR's shitty mutual funds and a nice, low-cost index fund over 30 years (typical investing horizon) could easily turn out to the price of a nice house.

But I think his advice is bad for another reason:  There is a great amount of peace that comes with the simplicity of indexing.  You don't have to try to select the right fund.  You don't have to worry, wonder or care if your over-priced fund manager is doing his job.   You win by taking the simplest option.   And along with that comes a certain empowerment.  Your fund is beats the over-priced fund manager's fund.  That makes you a better investor than him, despite his MBA. 

The worst part though, is he gets a commission from these crappy funds.  He's selling false hope to people in financial distress.

Index investing may be simple, but it's not easy. Just look at how many in this forum and the ChooseFI group were panicking during the most recent downturn, as well as the Dec 2018 drop.   And we are supposed to be the "sophisticated" ones. If we are going under the assumption that Dave is for people who are bad with money, I think it's fair to assume that those people don't understand investing the way mustachios do, and would therefore panic during downturns. I know mustachios hate fees, but if paying a fee keeps those people invested, it might end up being worth it. (My assumption here being that the fee also gives them access to the relationship with Dave's ELP, which would allow them to talk through their concerns before panic selling.) Even Vanguard put out a study showing the value of financial advice to be 1.5-4% on the portfolio.

The difference between paying a fee for Dave's funds and selling out of the market in a panic and then being afraid to get back in could easily turn into the price of a nice house.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Dave fan, and I do have index funds along with some actively managed stuff.

[nereo]

So, I've seen the phrase "shitty investing advice" already on this thread, in reference to Dave Ramsey.  Anyone who's researched the criticism on DR would also find such terms as "unrealistic return expectations".

I can imagine, many decades from now, a former DR disciple confronting him: "Hey, you told me I could consistently earn 12% in the markets!  That was a lie; I only made 8%!".  And the answer might be: "Well, it got you to invest and become a millionaire, so sorry, my bad -- guilty."

My quibble is that he recommends expensive, front-loaded, managed funds.   Unlike say, the snowball method---which while suboptimal it might be the psychological trick needed to stay on course--recommending front loaded, managed funds is just really shitty financial advice. 

The difference between DR's shitty mutual funds and a nice, low-cost index fund over 30 years (typical investing horizon) could easily turn out to the price of a nice house.

But I think his advice is bad for another reason:  There is a great amount of peace that comes with the simplicity of indexing.  You don't have to try to select the right fund.  You don't have to worry, wonder or care if your over-priced fund manager is doing his job.   You win by taking the simplest option.   And along with that comes a certain empowerment.  Your fund is beats the over-priced fund manager's fund.  That makes you a better investor than him, despite his MBA. 

The worst part though, is he gets a commission from these crappy funds.  He's selling false hope to people in financial distress.

Index investing may be simple, but it's not easy. Just look at how many in this forum and the ChooseFI group were panicking during the most recent downturn, as well as the Dec 2018 drop.   And we are supposed to be the "sophisticated" ones. If we are going under the assumption that Dave is for people who are bad with money, I think it's fair to assume that those people don't understand investing the way mustachios do, and would therefore panic during downturns. I know mustachios hate fees, but if paying a fee keeps those people invested, it might end up being worth it. (My assumption here being that the fee also gives them access to the relationship with Dave's ELP, which would allow them to talk through their concerns before panic selling.) Even Vanguard put out a study showing the value of financial advice to be 1.5-4% on the portfolio.

The difference between paying a fee for Dave's funds and selling out of the market in a panic and then being afraid to get back in could easily turn into the price of a nice house.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Dave fan, and I do have index funds along with some actively managed stuff.

What evidence is there that managed funds with high fees reduce the number of people who panic-sell?

I know that Vanguard put out a white-paper a few years after the ‘great recession’ showing that an overwhelming majority of their shareholders didn’t change their account settings one bit during the downturn.

[slappy]

So, I've seen the phrase "shitty investing advice" already on this thread, in reference to Dave Ramsey.  Anyone who's researched the criticism on DR would also find such terms as "unrealistic return expectations".

I can imagine, many decades from now, a former DR disciple confronting him: "Hey, you told me I could consistently earn 12% in the markets!  That was a lie; I only made 8%!".  And the answer might be: "Well, it got you to invest and become a millionaire, so sorry, my bad -- guilty."

My quibble is that he recommends expensive, front-loaded, managed funds.   Unlike say, the snowball method---which while suboptimal it might be the psychological trick needed to stay on course--recommending front loaded, managed funds is just really shitty financial advice. 

The difference between DR's shitty mutual funds and a nice, low-cost index fund over 30 years (typical investing horizon) could easily turn out to the price of a nice house.

But I think his advice is bad for another reason:  There is a great amount of peace that comes with the simplicity of indexing.  You don't have to try to select the right fund.  You don't have to worry, wonder or care if your over-priced fund manager is doing his job.   You win by taking the simplest option.   And along with that comes a certain empowerment.  Your fund is beats the over-priced fund manager's fund.  That makes you a better investor than him, despite his MBA. 

The worst part though, is he gets a commission from these crappy funds.  He's selling false hope to people in financial distress.

Index investing may be simple, but it's not easy. Just look at how many in this forum and the ChooseFI group were panicking during the most recent downturn, as well as the Dec 2018 drop.   And we are supposed to be the "sophisticated" ones. If we are going under the assumption that Dave is for people who are bad with money, I think it's fair to assume that those people don't understand investing the way mustachios do, and would therefore panic during downturns. I know mustachios hate fees, but if paying a fee keeps those people invested, it might end up being worth it. (My assumption here being that the fee also gives them access to the relationship with Dave's ELP, which would allow them to talk through their concerns before panic selling.) Even Vanguard put out a study showing the value of financial advice to be 1.5-4% on the portfolio.

The difference between paying a fee for Dave's funds and selling out of the market in a panic and then being afraid to get back in could easily turn into the price of a nice house.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Dave fan, and I do have index funds along with some actively managed stuff.

What evidence is there that managed funds with high fees reduce the number of people who panic-sell?

I know that Vanguard put out a white-paper a few years after the ‘great recession’ showing that an overwhelming majority of their shareholders didn’t change their account settings one bit during the downturn.

I said it was an assumption. Therefore, I have no evidence.

[Telecaster]

Index investing may be simple, but it's not easy. Just look at how many in this forum and the ChooseFI group were panicking during the most recent downturn, as well as the Dec 2018 drop.   And we are supposed to be the "sophisticated" ones. If we are going under the assumption that Dave is for people who are bad with money, I think it's fair to assume that those people don't understand investing the way mustachios do, and would therefore panic during downturns. I know mustachios hate fees, but if paying a fee keeps those people invested, it might end up being worth it. (My assumption here being that the fee also gives them access to the relationship with Dave's ELP, which would allow them to talk through their concerns before panic selling.) Even Vanguard put out a study showing the value of financial advice to be 1.5-4% on the portfolio.

The difference between paying a fee for Dave's funds and selling out of the market in a panic and then being afraid to get back in could easily turn into the price of a nice house.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Dave fan, and I do have index funds along with some actively managed stuff.

I find it fantastically unlikely that a financial advisor who makes money off of your churning funds would argue against his own best financial interests by telling you to stay put, when he could get another commission by moving you in and out of the market, especially if you called and asked if you should sell. 

Regardless, that's not the argument Ramsey uses for front-loaded funds.  He claims they provide higher returns.  As we all know, that claim is false over any reasonable period of time. 

[Zikoris]

Index investing may be simple, but it's not easy. Just look at how many in this forum and the ChooseFI group were panicking during the most recent downturn, as well as the Dec 2018 drop.   And we are supposed to be the "sophisticated" ones. If we are going under the assumption that Dave is for people who are bad with money, I think it's fair to assume that those people don't understand investing the way mustachios do, and would therefore panic during downturns. I know mustachios hate fees, but if paying a fee keeps those people invested, it might end up being worth it. (My assumption here being that the fee also gives them access to the relationship with Dave's ELP, which would allow them to talk through their concerns before panic selling.) Even Vanguard put out a study showing the value of financial advice to be 1.5-4% on the portfolio.

The difference between paying a fee for Dave's funds and selling out of the market in a panic and then being afraid to get back in could easily turn into the price of a nice house.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Dave fan, and I do have index funds along with some actively managed stuff.

I find it fantastically unlikely that a financial advisor who makes money off of your churning funds would argue against his own best financial interests by telling you to stay put, when he could get another commission by moving you in and out of the market, especially if you called and asked if you should sell. 

Regardless, that's not the argument Ramsey uses for front-loaded funds.  He claims they provide higher returns.  As we all know, that claim is false over any reasonable period of time.

Not to mention, if having an advisor to talk you down is the sole magic bullet, he could just as easily recommend advisors who manage lower fee index portfolios, which would save his followers a bundle. Those exist.

[clarkfan1979]

OP talks about "Dave fans" and "MMM fans", but username is "Clarkfan", and doesn't mention Clark Howard... maybe one of the rules of following Clark is that you don't talk about following Clark?

Am I the only one who saw "Clarkfan" and thought Clark Griswold?

I always think of Clark Kent for some reason.

iirc, the OP is originally from Chicago, so Griswold is the most likely option.

Psychstache: What is your Psychology background? I have a Ph.D. in Applied Social Psychology (no therapy). I'm a big fan of behavioral economics, which is basically social psychology applied to economics.

The name "ClarkFan" comes from Clark Howard, but I am originally from the Chicagoland area and also a big fan of Clark Griswold.

I appreciate the concerns regarding Hogan. I have really struggled with some of the things that have come out of his mouth. I think it's trying to make sure that everything fits nicely into the Dave Ramsey philosophy. If it doesn't really fit, he does his best to get a square peg to fit into a round hole.

[slappy]

Index investing may be simple, but it's not easy. Just look at how many in this forum and the ChooseFI group were panicking during the most recent downturn, as well as the Dec 2018 drop.   And we are supposed to be the "sophisticated" ones. If we are going under the assumption that Dave is for people who are bad with money, I think it's fair to assume that those people don't understand investing the way mustachios do, and would therefore panic during downturns. I know mustachios hate fees, but if paying a fee keeps those people invested, it might end up being worth it. (My assumption here being that the fee also gives them access to the relationship with Dave's ELP, which would allow them to talk through their concerns before panic selling.) Even Vanguard put out a study showing the value of financial advice to be 1.5-4% on the portfolio.

The difference between paying a fee for Dave's funds and selling out of the market in a panic and then being afraid to get back in could easily turn into the price of a nice house.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Dave fan, and I do have index funds along with some actively managed stuff.

I find it fantastically unlikely that a financial advisor who makes money off of your churning funds would argue against his own best financial interests by telling you to stay put, when he could get another commission by moving you in and out of the market, especially if you called and asked if you should sell. 

Regardless, that's not the argument Ramsey uses for front-loaded funds.  He claims they provide higher returns.  As we all know, that claim is false over any reasonable period of time.

Do his advisors make money by churning funds? I thought it was from trailing fund expenses.

[slappy]

Index investing may be simple, but it's not easy. Just look at how many in this forum and the ChooseFI group were panicking during the most recent downturn, as well as the Dec 2018 drop.   And we are supposed to be the "sophisticated" ones. If we are going under the assumption that Dave is for people who are bad with money, I think it's fair to assume that those people don't understand investing the way mustachios do, and would therefore panic during downturns. I know mustachios hate fees, but if paying a fee keeps those people invested, it might end up being worth it. (My assumption here being that the fee also gives them access to the relationship with Dave's ELP, which would allow them to talk through their concerns before panic selling.) Even Vanguard put out a study showing the value of financial advice to be 1.5-4% on the portfolio.

The difference between paying a fee for Dave's funds and selling out of the market in a panic and then being afraid to get back in could easily turn into the price of a nice house.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Dave fan, and I do have index funds along with some actively managed stuff.

I find it fantastically unlikely that a financial advisor who makes money off of your churning funds would argue against his own best financial interests by telling you to stay put, when he could get another commission by moving you in and out of the market, especially if you called and asked if you should sell. 

Regardless, that's not the argument Ramsey uses for front-loaded funds.  He claims they provide higher returns.  As we all know, that claim is false over any reasonable period of time.

Not to mention, if having an advisor to talk you down is the sole magic bullet, he could just as easily recommend advisors who manage lower fee index portfolios, which would save his followers a bundle. Those exist.

Well yeah, but then he wouldn't get paid. And people would still complain because there would still be a fee. In fact, people would probably complain more because they are charging a fee to manage low cost index portfolios. 

[Fomerly known as something]

Hogan in particular takes this type of sloganing to the extreme.

Of all the Ramsey personalities, he is one of the worst as far as information quality imo.

I do not think he really understands much of the financial implications of what he preaches.

Yes, whenever he talks about ETFs he implies they are for those interested in day trading only.  It appears to me he fundamentally will not recognize the definitions Correctly  of “well known” financial products.

[habanero]

Yes, whenever he talks about ETFs he implies they are for those interested in day trading only.

Someone (don't remember who) strongly recommended mutual funds over ETF. The dude understood they would have similar performance given the same underlying and fees, but the absence of live prices of mutual funds strongly discouraged trading, hence they were likely the better choice.

[Phenix]

Yes, whenever he talks about ETFs he implies they are for those interested in day trading only.

Someone (don't remember who) strongly recommended mutual funds over ETF. The dude understood they would have similar performance given the same underlying and fees, but the absence of live prices of mutual funds strongly discouraged trading, hence they were likely the better choice.

Dave Ramsey often talks about behavior, so it makes sense that he doesn't want his followers investing in something that they may be more apt to sell on a volatile day.  That's also why he advocates using cash/debit vs CC.  It's much harder to impulse buy something when you don't have enough cash on hand (or in your checking account).

[Fomerly known as something]

Yes, whenever he talks about ETFs he implies they are for those interested in day trading only.

Someone (don't remember who) strongly recommended mutual funds over ETF. The dude understood they would have similar performance given the same underlying and fees, but the absence of live prices of mutual funds strongly discouraged trading, hence they were likely the better choice.

Dave Ramsey often talks about behavior, so it makes sense that he doesn't want his followers investing in something that they may be more apt to sell on a volatile day.  That's also why he advocates using cash/debit vs CC.  It's much harder to impulse buy something when you don't have enough cash on hand (or in your checking account).

Besides the point.  Hogan chronically incorrectly defines what an ETF is.

Personally I prefer to use mutual funds because I can just buy $50 worth instead of having to put an order in for a # of shares.   In my HSA, I own ETFs because there is no fee for buying them, where there was for mutual funds.

[ender]

Besides the point.  Hogan chronically incorrectly defines what an ETF is.

It's not just ETFs either.

Hogan doesn't really understand a lot of basics in personal finance.

[simonsez]

So, I've seen the phrase "shitty investing advice" already on this thread, in reference to Dave Ramsey.  Anyone who's researched the criticism on DR would also find such terms as "unrealistic return expectations".

I can imagine, many decades from now, a former DR disciple confronting him: "Hey, you told me I could consistently earn 12% in the markets!  That was a lie; I only made 8%!".  And the answer might be: "Well, it got you to invest and become a millionaire, so sorry, my bad -- guilty."

My quibble is that he recommends expensive, front-loaded, managed funds.   Unlike say, the snowball method---which while suboptimal it might be the psychological trick needed to stay on course--recommending front loaded, managed funds is just really shitty financial advice. 

The difference between DR's shitty mutual funds and a nice, low-cost index fund over 30 years (typical investing horizon) could easily turn out to the price of a nice house.

But I think his advice is bad for another reason:  There is a great amount of peace that comes with the simplicity of indexing.  You don't have to try to select the right fund.  You don't have to worry, wonder or care if your over-priced fund manager is doing his job.   You win by taking the simplest option.   And along with that comes a certain empowerment.  Your fund is beats the over-priced fund manager's fund.  That makes you a better investor than him, despite his MBA. 

The worst part though, is he gets a commission from these crappy funds.  He's selling false hope to people in financial distress.

Index investing may be simple, but it's not easy. Just look at how many in this forum and the ChooseFI group were panicking during the most recent downturn, as well as the Dec 2018 drop.   And we are supposed to be the "sophisticated" ones. If we are going under the assumption that Dave is for people who are bad with money, I think it's fair to assume that those people don't understand investing the way mustachios do, and would therefore panic during downturns. I know mustachios hate fees, but if paying a fee keeps those people invested, it might end up being worth it. (My assumption here being that the fee also gives them access to the relationship with Dave's ELP, which would allow them to talk through their concerns before panic selling.) Even Vanguard put out a study showing the value of financial advice to be 1.5-4% on the portfolio.

The difference between paying a fee for Dave's funds and selling out of the market in a panic and then being afraid to get back in could easily turn into the price of a nice house.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Dave fan, and I do have index funds along with some actively managed stuff.

Downturn or not (if even aware of it), I'll keep doing the same as before because it's not sophisticated at all.  Short-term market swings don't matter regardless of the proportion of my portfolio that is index funds.  Money invested today will be higher 30+ years in the future.  Earn paycheck, invest per IPS, edge closer to FI, don't die.  Rinse, repeat.  I don't think that's difficult.  In fact, "doing something" about market fluctuations would constitute effort to pay attention and that just seems like too much work and worry.  The 5 minutes I spend to rebalance each year is about all I can stomach.  The portion of my IPS devoted to investing (I have a bunch of crap on there about future plans) is quite short and pretty boring/bland and has nothing to do with market performance.  If people en masse on this forum are panicked about market downturns, I haven't really noticed but then again the doom/gloom doesn't really pique my curiosity.

Not to mention, if having an advisor to talk you down is the sole magic bullet, he could just as easily recommend advisors who manage lower fee index portfolios, which would save his followers a bundle. Those exist.

Well yeah, but then he wouldn't get paid. And people would still complain because there would still be a fee. In fact, people would probably complain more because they are charging a fee to manage low cost index portfolios.

Do you think the MMM brand earns nothing overall because it doesn't have mutual funds purchased by readers giving MMM kickbacks? 

IMO, there is something far more noble (less slimy, whatever) about a cult leader when you stand for something and aren't having your followers pay you for it.  I.e. the principles are strong enough on their own to rope you in.

[Psychstache]

iirc, the OP is originally from Chicago, so Griswold is the most likely option.

Psychstache: What is your Psychology background? I have a Ph.D. in Applied Social Psychology (no therapy). I'm a big fan of behavioral economics, which is basically social psychology applied to economics.

The name "ClarkFan" comes from Clark Howard, but I am originally from the Chicagoland area and also a big fan of Clark Griswold.

I appreciate the concerns regarding Hogan. I have really struggled with some of the things that have come out of his mouth. I think it's trying to make sure that everything fits nicely into the Dave Ramsey philosophy. If it doesn't really fit, he does his best to get a square peg to fit into a round hole.

Ah, my mistake.

Bachelors in Psychology and Sociology and a Masters and License in School/Educational Psychology. I spent years 'in the trenches' but now am a consultant providing support and professional development to district staff across the area.

[ChickenStash]

For the group with the most cult-like program I would vote DR. His preaching is mostly about following rules with little deviation and when presented with a problem, the answers are almost always the same. MMMism, on the other hand, is more about understanding the effect of our decisions and how we relate with money than it is placing hard numbers on what we should or should not do. This means MMMers wind up displaying many different paths and even different destinations for their finances.

That said, if I could pick one that would show the greatest improvement over the largest number of people, I'd pick DR. The simplicity of just getting people to keep themselves out of debt would be a gigantic benefit. MMMism requires far more research, planning, and introspection than most people are willing to commit.

[DadJokes]

IMO, there is something far more noble (less slimy, whatever) about a cult leader when you stand for something and aren't having your followers pay you for it.  I.e. the principles are strong enough on their own to rope you in.

It's not much of a cult if the leader isn't getting rich.

[nereo]

IMO, there is something far more noble (less slimy, whatever) about a cult leader when you stand for something and aren't having your followers pay you for it.  I.e. the principles are strong enough on their own to rope you in.

It's not much of a cult if the leader isn't getting rich.

[John Galt incarnate!]

That said, if I could pick one that would show the greatest improvement over the largest number of people, I'd pick DR. The simplicity of just getting people to keep themselves out of debt would be a gigantic benefit.

I'v heard Ramsey say "Don't do debt" which is good advice.

[HPstache]

IMO, there is something far more noble (less slimy, whatever) about a cult leader when you stand for something and aren't having your followers pay you for it.  I.e. the principles are strong enough on their own to rope you in.

It's not much of a cult if the leader isn't getting rich.

From MMM's interview with the New Yorker:

"His blogging pace has slowed in the past couple of years—what is this, a job?—and so his numbers have plateaued. He gets about three-quarters of a million unique visitors a month. The blog’s forum has nearly a million posts, on more than forty thousand topics. His readership is fifty-five per cent male. “More females than I thought,” he said. “They are mostly younger than I am. That’s also what I see at the meet-ups.”

He told me that his blog is now earning around four hundred thousand dollars a year. He was reluctant for this to become public, without his being able to provide a detailed explanation. He makes money from the products and services he recommends—Betterment, Lending Club, Geico, and numerous others."


That being said... Dave Ramsey most certainly has the better "cult"

[nereo]

That said, if I could pick one that would show the greatest improvement over the largest number of people, I'd pick DR. The simplicity of just getting people to keep themselves out of debt would be a gigantic benefit.

I'v heard Ramsey say "Don't do debt" which is good advice.

I don’t think such blanket statements are good advice.  The world revolves on debt, and its part of every transaction. It’s not the moral sinkhole he portrays it to be.  For many, taking on debt is key to financial advancement.

[John Galt incarnate!]

That said, if I could pick one that would show the greatest improvement over the largest number of people, I'd pick DR. The simplicity of just getting people to keep themselves out of debt would be a gigantic benefit.

I'v heard Ramsey say "Don't do debt" which is good advice.

I don’t think such blanket statements are good advice.  The world revolves on debt, and its part of every transaction. It’s not the moral sinkhole he portrays it to be.  For many, taking on debt is key to financial advancement.

Of course.

I don't think DR meant don't ever assume any debt.

[HPstache]

That said, if I could pick one that would show the greatest improvement over the largest number of people, I'd pick DR. The simplicity of just getting people to keep themselves out of debt would be a gigantic benefit.

I'v heard Ramsey say "Don't do debt" which is good advice.

I don’t think such blanket statements are good advice.  The world revolves on debt, and its part of every transaction. It’s not the moral sinkhole he portrays it to be.  For many, taking on debt is key to financial advancement.

Of course.

I don't think DR meant don't ever assume any debt.

The only debt he allows in his guidelines is a personal residence on a 15 year loan with a minimum of a 10% down payment.

[PDXTabs]

The only debt he allows in his guidelines is a personal residence on a 15 year loan with a minimum of a 10% down payment.

Yup. I'd say that MMM is superior to DR simply because MMM knows basic maths.

[lhamo]

DR is VERY good at figuring out how to harness other people into making him money.

Imagine the millions he saved by getting churches to not just promote, but also to host/staff his Financial Peace University courses for free?

His ELPs not only have to adhere to his philosophies, they pay him generously for the privilege of being one (from what I understand from talking to someone who used to be one, Dave charges a monthly fee for people to be listed + gets a referral kickback when people hire an ELP)

When he realized he only had a few more viable years as a one-man show, he started rolling out the "Ramsey Solutions" brand, including the "Ramsey Personalities."  He had a major mis-step with the first iteration of this, though.  He hired Jon Acuff as a charismatic heir apparent. Acuff developed the first non-FPU or Entreleadership oriented event (the Smart Conference) but then quit the day after the first one -- he probably had an NDA so he didn't go into the reasons.  It was after that that Dave started rolling out the many other personalities and "their" authority-establishing books (I suspect at least a few of these are ghostwritten) and podcasts.  Chris Hogan was originally the host for Entreleadership after the first guy left (the first guy was MUCH better).  He had a good voice but was a horrible interviewer.  So they packaged him up as the "retirement expert" but he isn't one at all -- he struggles to keep even the simplest things like the benefits of Roths vs traditional retirement straight.  So they plopped him on the "everyday millionaire" project as well, which actually seems to be a better fit.

They pivoted pretty quick to offering "Ramsey Unlimited" as a package when in-person FPU and the events business were tanked by Covid.  And at this point the real estate empire can probably prop up the rest of the business for awhile if necessary (though I wonder how much of their portfolio is commercial versus residential). 

Of the personalities, Rachael clearly got her job cuz she's his daughter, but she has gotten better with time. Christy Wright seems to know her stuff on small/home based business -- though I bristle at the traditional gender stuff and the "god who made you" packaging.  Hate Hogan.  Not really a fan of Ken Coleman.  Jon Delony is an interesting addition, though I kind of doubt he will stick -- he seems to push back on/against some of Dave's conservative viewpoints more than anyone else.  It'll also be interesting to see whether the Dave Ramsey show loses listeners now that he is mostly co-hosting and/or having the other "personalities" sub for him.  He commented on people complaining about it a few weeks ago and he basically said shove it -- he likes cohosting and wants more time off.  I'm guessing they have a plan to just keep trying new personalities every 6-12 months, give them a bit of time to build an audience and discontinue anybody who isn't making money in a reasonable timeframe.

Dave is probably worth several times what MMM is, but is also a workaholic.  I'll take the MMM model for my eventual cult, thanks very much.

   

[ChickenStash]

That said, if I could pick one that would show the greatest improvement over the largest number of people, I'd pick DR. The simplicity of just getting people to keep themselves out of debt would be a gigantic benefit.

I'v heard Ramsey say "Don't do debt" which is good advice.

I don’t think such blanket statements are good advice.  The world revolves on debt, and its part of every transaction. It’s not the moral sinkhole he portrays it to be.  For many, taking on debt is key to financial advancement.

Of course.

I don't think DR meant don't ever assume any debt.

And there's the rub. If there was a poll of the average adult, how many could give even the most basic definition of "good debt" or explain when debt can be useful? I'd guess not many. And even less that knew how to apply that knowledge to their daily lives. That's why the DR rules of "don't do debt" work for the majority of the people that subscribe to his cult.

It's not optimal, but it is far better than the path most choose when left on their own.

[Telecaster]

I don’t think such blanket statements are good advice.  The world revolves on debt, and its part of every transaction. It’s not the moral sinkhole he portrays it to be.  For many, taking on debt is key to financial advancement.

I think it is good advice for his audience.  I'd guess most people who screw up their finances do it by bad borrowing choices.

As far as cults go, DR has a leg up on MMM because DR invokes the power of God.  It is hard to have a cult without some sort of divine authority. 

[simonsez]

I don’t think such blanket statements are good advice.  The world revolves on debt, and its part of every transaction. It’s not the moral sinkhole he portrays it to be.  For many, taking on debt is key to financial advancement.

I think it is good advice for his audience.  I'd guess most people who screw up their finances do it by bad borrowing choices.

As far as cults go, DR has a leg up on MMM because DR invokes the power of God.  It is hard to have a cult without some sort of divine authority.

Hmm, that's interesting.  I might've guessed divorce or inadequate retirement savings.  Maybe I underestimate the bad debt situation (which I assume to be high interest credit card debt that isn't paid off or anything with an interest rate higher than the inflation-adjusted long-term market return) as it's lower than the total student loans debt in the US (~1.0t vs. 1.4t).  Looking into it a bit, divorce affects roughly 40% of those married and according to a 2019 Forbes article a quarter of all American adults have ZERO money saved for retirement (42% 18-29, 26% 30-44, 17% 45-59, and 13% 60+) and a good percentage besides those have inadequate savings.  37% of American households have month-to-month credit card debt (isn't paid in full each month).

Of course, not all divorces are devastating nor are all credit card balances equal nor are all inadequate retirement savings the same amount.

[20957]

I think it's a pity DR hasn't hired any Personalities with personality. I would love for him to find someone who worked and saved their way out of a difficult situation which would have caused many others to give up. Like, for instance, DR himself! He has really used his whole bankruptcy thing to be relatable and sympathetic and to give him the cred to face-punch. And he doesn't force himself into any stupid condescending box of "for young people" or "retirement expert" or whatever. So why he isn't hiring someone to mimic his success confuses me. Imagine the expansion of audience  he could have if he hired a black single mother who learned about him at church and bettered her situation, esp if he didn't make her his "urban" or "single parent" expert.

But in any case, yeah, I listen to DR occasionally for the schadenfreude, MMM is much better IMO. Plus, DR's ugly McMansion and consumerist attitude is so Nouveau Riche, it's gross.

[Bloop Bloop Reloaded]

That said, if I could pick one that would show the greatest improvement over the largest number of people, I'd pick DR. The simplicity of just getting people to keep themselves out of debt would be a gigantic benefit.

I'v heard Ramsey say "Don't do debt" which is good advice.

It's pretty terrible advice here in Australia where for example a home loan at 2.8% with 47% written off for investment purposes returns a "real" interest rate of 1.5%, which is less than inflation.

Dave Ramsay, even putting aside his obvious conflict of interest (which in my view should disqualify him from making any financial recommendations at all), seems to think that people only have, say, 4 out of 10 amounts of willpower and financial sophistication. That may be fair enough since that's 40% of the population. But at least acknowledge it - say that there are many different options and that his approach is a low-stress, low-information approach.

Of course he doesn't acknowledge it. Because he's not spreading truth. He's spreading dogma. Like any church leader, it's all about the sanctity and the conformity, it's not about the actual self-improvement.

I have no time for that.

[ender]

That said, if I could pick one that would show the greatest improvement over the largest number of people, I'd pick DR. The simplicity of just getting people to keep themselves out of debt would be a gigantic benefit.

I'v heard Ramsey say "Don't do debt" which is good advice.

It's pretty terrible advice here in Australia where for example a home loan at 2.8% with 47% written off for investment purposes returns a "real" interest rate of 1.5%, which is less than inflation.

Dave Ramsay, even putting aside his obvious conflict of interest (which in my view should disqualify him from making any financial recommendations at all), seems to think that people only have, say, 4 out of 10 amounts of willpower and financial sophistication. That may be fair enough since that's 40% of the population. But at least acknowledge it - say that there are many different options and that his approach is a low-stress, low-information approach.

Of course he doesn't acknowledge it. Because he's not spreading truth. He's spreading dogma. Like any church leader, it's all about the sanctity and the conformity, it's not about the actual self-improvement.

I have no time for that.

... do you even listen to Dave Ramsey?

What you are attributing to him is just not what he says.

He will certainly tell you to pay off your mortgage early but he never says to do that at the extent of retirement investing or saving for kids college.

[PDXTabs]

He will certainly tell you to pay off your mortgage early but he never says to do that at the extent of retirement investing or saving for kids college.

I've never listened to him, but I did read Total Money Makeover.

Telling people to pay down a 30 year mortgage so that they can get it to 15 years is prioritizing mortgage debt over saving for retirement.

[ender]

He will certainly tell you to pay off your mortgage early but he never says to do that at the extent of retirement investing or saving for kids college.

I've never listened to him, but I did read Total Money Makeover.

Telling people to pay down a 30 year mortgage so that they can get it to 15 years is prioritizing mortgage debt over saving for retirement.

For the average person, 15% towards retirement throughout their mortgage holding life followed by maxing out retirement will be more than sufficient.

It won't get you to an age 40 year early retirement. But for the overwhelming majority of people it will lead them to decent financial stability and a retirement with plenty of money.

[lhamo]

I think it's a pity DR hasn't hired any Personalities with personality. I would love for him to find someone who worked and saved their way out of a difficult situation which would have caused many others to give up. Like, for instance, DR himself! He has really used his whole bankruptcy thing to be relatable and sympathetic and to give him the cred to face-punch. And he doesn't force himself into any stupid condescending box of "for young people" or "retirement expert" or whatever. So why he isn't hiring someone to mimic his success confuses me. Imagine the expansion of audience  he could have if he hired a black single mother who learned about him at church and bettered her situation, esp if he didn't make her his "urban" or "single parent" expert.

But in any case, yeah, I listen to DR occasionally for the schadenfreude, MMM is much better IMO. Plus, DR's ugly McMansion and consumerist attitude is so Nouveau Riche, it's gross.

Oh, I forgot about anthony o'neill. He pulled himself up and out of homelessness, and is black. He spent a lot of time doing youth outreach before he went on air. He's quite engaging.

[vand]

Yes, whenever he talks about ETFs he implies they are for those interested in day trading only.

Someone (don't remember who) strongly recommended mutual funds over ETF. The dude understood they would have similar performance given the same underlying and fees, but the absence of live prices of mutual funds strongly discouraged trading, hence they were likely the better choice.

Dave Ramsey often talks about behavior, so it makes sense that he doesn't want his followers investing in something that they may be more apt to sell on a volatile day.  That's also why he advocates using cash/debit vs CC.  It's much harder to impulse buy something when you don't have enough cash on hand (or in your checking account).

Besides the point.  Hogan chronically incorrectly defines what an ETF is.

Personally I prefer to use mutual funds because I can just buy $50 worth instead of having to put an order in for a # of shares.   In my HSA, I own ETFs because there is no fee for buying them, where there was for mutual funds.

DR's "growth stock mutual fund" catch-all really pisses me off. It's like a mantra that if repeated enough makes it guaranteed.

[Proud Foot]

His ELPs not only have to adhere to his philosophies, they pay him generously for the privilege of being one (from what I understand from talking to someone who used to be one, Dave charges a monthly fee for people to be listed + gets a referral kickback when people hire an ELP)

When he realized he only had a few more viable years as a one-man show, he started rolling out the "Ramsey Solutions" brand, including the "Ramsey Personalities."  He had a major mis-step with the first iteration of this, though.  He hired Jon Acuff as a charismatic heir apparent. Acuff developed the first non-FPU or Entreleadership oriented event (the Smart Conference) but then quit the day after the first one -- he probably had an NDA so he didn't go into the reasons.  It was after that that Dave started rolling out the many other personalities and "their" authority-establishing books (I suspect at least a few of these are ghostwritten) and podcasts.  Chris Hogan was originally the host for Entreleadership after the first guy left (the first guy was MUCH better).  He had a good voice but was a horrible interviewer.  So they packaged him up as the "retirement expert" but he isn't one at all -- he struggles to keep even the simplest things like the benefits of Roths vs traditional retirement straight.  So they plopped him on the "everyday millionaire" project as well, which actually seems to be a better fit.
 

I really enjoy a lot of the writing Jon Acuff has done and I would absolutely love a tell-all from him centered on the split between himself and DR. I am sure there is an NDA of some sort in place.

As far as his personalities, I like Anthony ONeal and Chris Hogan's voice. I would really be interested in how much of an "expert" some of them are if you could get them out or DR control and allow them to think independently. I feel like they just parrot DR's teachings to the letter and don't seem to be able to explain things clearly when questioned.

There was someone on here who is an accountant and was a part of his Tax ELP network. They had a blog and I remember reading their write up of the experience after they got out.

[mathlete]

No good cults.

[lhamo]

Only talks about certain aspects of it in this post -- he was much more candid in person:

https://wealthyaccountant.com/2017/06/12/get-there-before-you-arrive/

[englishteacheralex]

I've been inappropriately curious about the gossip surrounding Jon Acuff's departure, too. You know, in my opinion Dave Ramsey is terrific radio. Super entertaining. I keep coming back because the way he yells at people's ridiculous financial decisions is hilarious. But the "personalities" are pretty awful, and I've been wondering why I find them such a turn off. Lately I've realized...it's because they're all just Flava Flav hype men who echo everything Ramsey says. Hogan is the worst. Anthony O'Neill has a great personal story but OMG all he does is agree with Ramsey with every breath. And none of them have the unique ability to issue gentle face punches to callers like Ramsey does.

Rachel Cruz is ok; I've heard her argue a little with her dad and that's entertaining. John Delaney is also ok but he's a little bland. Also he seems to think that mental health problems (specifically anxiety) are over hyped and to me that is a dangerous party line to go down. Christy Wright actually has her own expertise and angle so she's ok. But man I just can't stand Hogan. Just no substance there whatsoever.

The problem is Ramsey doesn't seem to be able to hire anybody who will argue with him a little or push back or even just banter. It's just the familiar Ramsey-isms and then somebody agreeing with him. Once in a while having the second person there inspires Dave to tell a new story, which is kind of nice because I think I've heard all of his advice a million times so new stories give some depth to his fairly threadbare schtick.

When the personalities are on their own I turn off the show immediately because they're so boring. So circling back to Acuff--my theory is that Dave is a bit of an egotist and can't stand anyone who might actually give him a run for his money on the show. And maybe Acuff had enough of his own personality that the two of them just couldn't coexist in the same organization.

[Psychstache]

I've been inappropriately curious about the gossip surrounding Jon Acuff's departure, too. You know, in my opinion Dave Ramsey is terrific radio. Super entertaining. I keep coming back because the way he yells at people's ridiculous financial decisions is hilarious. But the "personalities" are pretty awful, and I've been wondering why I find them such a turn off. Lately I've realized...it's because they're all just Flava Flav hype men who echo everything Ramsey says. Hogan is the worst. Anthony O'Neill has a great personal story but OMG all he does is agree with Ramsey with every breath. And none of them have the unique ability to issue gentle face punches to callers like Ramsey does.

Rachel Cruz is ok; I've heard her argue a little with her dad and that's entertaining. John Delaney is also ok but he's a little bland. Also he seems to think that mental health problems (specifically anxiety) are over hyped and to me that is a dangerous party line to go down. Christy Wright actually has her own expertise and angle so she's ok. But man I just can't stand Hogan. Just no substance there whatsoever.

The problem is Ramsey doesn't seem to be able to hire anybody who will argue with him a little or push back or even just banter. It's just the familiar Ramsey-isms and then somebody agreeing with him. Once in a while having the second person there inspires Dave to tell a new story, which is kind of nice because I think I've heard all of his advice a million times so new stories give some depth to his fairly threadbare schtick.

When the personalities are on their own I turn off the show immediately because they're so boring. So circling back to Acuff--my theory is that Dave is a bit of an egotist and can't stand anyone who might actually give him a run for his money on the show. And maybe Acuff had enough of his own personality that the two of them just couldn't coexist in the same organization.

Do we have end of the year awards on the forum? If so, I would nominate this for understatement of the year.

[thesis]

I want to hear Pete run a radio show where people call in and get facepunched :D

I'm very happy with my life trajectory pursuing FI, but I have to admit that there are quite a lot of people who are not interested in this for one reason or another, and I want to make sure I don't develop some superiority complex where I dismiss those people. There is a lot more to life than financials, and some people just don't have the interest or the gumption to go against the grain the way many of us do. I'd say that following Dave's plan does a great job setting you up for financial success, and if you follow it, you will likely enjoy a decent retirement at age 65.

But that's the kicker - I want to retire ASAP. MMM is for people who are comfortable going against the grain and doing some (occasionally) cut-throat  reasoning and life-philosophy in order to reach their goals. I definitely fall in this camp. But I'd be pretty happy for my parents if they could just pull off a decent retirement - they followed all of Dave's advice on getting out of debt, so I have no complaints.

Criticisms of Dave are valid. He's become a bit of a megalomaniac over the years, but I still like his general ideas, and I have a soft spot for his book The Total Money Makeover, which helped my sorry butt through college.

[nereo]

I want to hear Pete run a radio show where people call in and get facepunched :D

Go back and read the context behind the ‘facepunch”.  It’s intended to be something one gives themselves, not something doled out to other people.  Introspective, not mob-rule.  As in:  If you’ve got a hair-on-fire emergency you should give yourself a face punch anytime you consider buying a new car.

FWIW Pete’s got a YouTube channel now.  Though AFAIK there’s no call-ins.

[PurpleYogurt]

My conscience wouldn't allow me to charge people who are deeply in debt what he charges them.

I found Dave's book at the library. I didn't pay him a cent. Well, after I read the library book I did buy my own copy so I paid Dave $19.95 to get out of debt. I grew up with parents who spent like they were in congress. In fact they're in their late 80's and they still do, ridiculous.

 
Because of my upbringing, I had no idea about budgets and waiting to buy things instead of charging them. I needed a basic, dumbed down plan to help me. I listened to his radio program and heard him and others say they saved money to buy things like couches and appliances. When I wanted something I used my credit card and definitely didn't pay it off every month.

His baby steps worked for me. After several years I paid off all debt when I didn't think it could happen. Dave is good for some people. People like me who need the absolute basics.

[ender]

My conscience wouldn't allow me to charge people who are deeply in debt what he charges them.

Eh.

He wants a community of people serious about actually changing. You don't get that by having no admission charge imo.

I suspect not charging what he charges would result in a net negative impact on people accomplishing change.

[phildonnia]

I've been inappropriately curious about the gossip surrounding Jon Acuff's departure, too. You know, in my opinion Dave Ramsey is terrific radio. Super entertaining. I keep coming back because the way he yells at people's ridiculous financial decisions is hilarious. But the "personalities" are pretty awful, and I've been wondering why I find them such a turn off. Lately I've realized...it's because they're all just Flava Flav hype men who echo everything Ramsey says. Hogan is the worst. Anthony O'Neill has a great personal story but OMG all he does is agree with Ramsey with every breath. And none of them have the unique ability to issue gentle face punches to callers like Ramsey does.

Rachel Cruz is ok; I've heard her argue a little with her dad and that's entertaining. John Delaney is also ok but he's a little bland. Also he seems to think that mental health problems (specifically anxiety) are over hyped and to me that is a dangerous party line to go down. Christy Wright actually has her own expertise and angle so she's ok. But man I just can't stand Hogan. Just no substance there whatsoever.

The problem is Ramsey doesn't seem to be able to hire anybody who will argue with him a little or push back or even just banter. It's just the familiar Ramsey-isms and then somebody agreeing with him. Once in a while having the second person there inspires Dave to tell a new story, which is kind of nice because I think I've heard all of his advice a million times so new stories give some depth to his fairly threadbare schtick.

When the personalities are on their own I turn off the show immediately because they're so boring. So circling back to Acuff--my theory is that Dave is a bit of an egotist and can't stand anyone who might actually give him a run for his money on the show. And maybe Acuff had enough of his own personality that the two of them just couldn't coexist in the same organization.

I've always thought it must suck psychologically to be a "Ramsey Personality", as though your own philosophy and financial advice style are subordinated to someone else's last name. 

You are right: one thing you will never, ever hear from any "Ramsey Personality" is something like "Well, Dave is a big proponent of X, but I would be comfortable in your situation to try Y instead..."  I love Chris Hogan's voice, but it seems he never has anything to say with it.

Suggestions for programming: I would definitely tune in for a special "One hour of classic Dave rants". 

[Metalcat]

I've been inappropriately curious about the gossip surrounding Jon Acuff's departure, too. You know, in my opinion Dave Ramsey is terrific radio. Super entertaining. I keep coming back because the way he yells at people's ridiculous financial decisions is hilarious. But the "personalities" are pretty awful, and I've been wondering why I find them such a turn off. Lately I've realized...it's because they're all just Flava Flav hype men who echo everything Ramsey says. Hogan is the worst. Anthony O'Neill has a great personal story but OMG all he does is agree with Ramsey with every breath. And none of them have the unique ability to issue gentle face punches to callers like Ramsey does.

Rachel Cruz is ok; I've heard her argue a little with her dad and that's entertaining. John Delaney is also ok but he's a little bland. Also he seems to think that mental health problems (specifically anxiety) are over hyped and to me that is a dangerous party line to go down. Christy Wright actually has her own expertise and angle so she's ok. But man I just can't stand Hogan. Just no substance there whatsoever.

The problem is Ramsey doesn't seem to be able to hire anybody who will argue with him a little or push back or even just banter. It's just the familiar Ramsey-isms and then somebody agreeing with him. Once in a while having the second person there inspires Dave to tell a new story, which is kind of nice because I think I've heard all of his advice a million times so new stories give some depth to his fairly threadbare schtick.

When the personalities are on their own I turn off the show immediately because they're so boring. So circling back to Acuff--my theory is that Dave is a bit of an egotist and can't stand anyone who might actually give him a run for his money on the show. And maybe Acuff had enough of his own personality that the two of them just couldn't coexist in the same organization.

I've always thought it must suck psychologically to be a "Ramsey Personality", as though your own philosophy and financial advice style are subordinated to someone else's last name. 

You are right: one thing you will never, ever hear from any "Ramsey Personality" is something like "Well, Dave is a big proponent of X, but I would be comfortable in your situation to try Y instead..."  I love Chris Hogan's voice, but it seems he never has anything to say with it.

Suggestions for programming: I would definitely tune in for a special "One hour of classic Dave rants".

M'eh, riding another person's professional brand is pretty common. There are trade offs, but these people are about business, not really personal self expression. They'll say what sells to their client base.

[ericrugiero]

I've always thought it must suck psychologically to be a "Ramsey Personality", as though your own philosophy and financial advice style are subordinated to someone else's last name. 

You are right: one thing you will never, ever hear from any "Ramsey Personality" is something like "Well, Dave is a big proponent of X, but I would be comfortable in your situation to try Y instead..."  I love Chris Hogan's voice, but it seems he never has anything to say with it.

The ones that find their own niche can be good.  Ken Coleman is focused on career and Jon Deloney is more about emotional well being.  Those guys are allowed to give their own opinion because they aren't in exactly the same space as Ramsey.  I don't like listening to any of them talk about getting out of debt or investing because they just regurgitate Dave's advice.