Suzie Says You Must be a $9 Million Man/Woman to Retire

[YttriumNitrate]

I was going to post this in the general discussion, but the Antimustachian Wall of Shame seemed more appropriate.

Anyways, Suzie Orman is now hocking her new book and is generating some buzz by spouting out that unless your portfolio is enough to throw off $350,000/yr you cannot retire before 70. It appears that number was chosen because that's how much Orman spent on top-of-the-line round the clock in-home nursing care for her mother, and clearly everyone else need to spend that much as well.
http://podcast.affordanything.com/153-hate-fire-movement-suze-orman/

The Boglehead discussion of the podcast can be found here:
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4144219#p4144219

[DS]

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/suze-orman-hates-fire-97275/

[TheAnonOne]

So basically, noone will ever retire. A large portion will die before 70, and those that don't will be doomed to paying more than most spend in 5 years on medical bills.

I think people here know how much absolute horseshit is being peddled here.

Will 4% work for 60 year retirements? Maybe, maybe not but the people retiring at 30 are clearly the smart ones who have MANY backup plans.

[sol]

Like so much of the internet, you have to recognize who is selling what here. 

Orman is selling financial advice for people who desperately want to be rich, so she's telling them to be rich.  The podcast is selling your clicks and eyeballs, so they want you to go to their site and listen to their advertisements and they accomplish that by publishing outrageous content they are sure will get you riled up.

I will not be giving any more attention to either of these parties. 

[WhiteTrashCash]

Suze Orman sold out a long time ago. Probably around the time that she started her own prepaid debit card. Just ignore her.

[MrsPete]

So basically, noone will ever retire. A large portion will die before 70, and those that don't will be doomed to paying more than most spend in 5 years on medical bills.

Exactly what I was thinking. 

Maybe this is her plan to "fix" Social Security?  Make sure everyone works himself to death before he can collect? 

Will 4% work for 60 year retirements? Maybe, maybe not but the people retiring at 30 are clearly the smart ones who have MANY backup plans.

Or they are overly optimistic.  If you could study all their portfolios /plans, you'd probably find some of both.

[sol]

Will 4% work for 60 year retirements? Maybe, maybe not but the people retiring at 30 are clearly the smart ones who have MANY backup plans.

Or they are overly optimistic.  If you could study all their portfolios /plans, you'd probably find some of both.

Even I could be that kind of financial planner...

"After reviewing your records and your finances, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, I have determined that you are both idiots.  You are so phenomenally bad with your money that it's frankly amazing you haven't yet declared bankruptcy despite earning over $200k/year.  My professional advice is that you both work until you die, because you are going to be broke forever either way and this way you're less of a burden on society."

[oldtoyota]

Her writing isn't worth my time these days.

[partgypsy]

I used to like her and her show. But sometimes bad advice is worse than no advice at all.

[slugline]

Orman has a new book and a new podcast to promote. She's making the rounds -- I've heard her on the Stacking Benjamins podcast this week too. It's in her best interest to throw out at least one statement grenade to grab people's attention. To Paula Pant's credit, she prefaced the episode by saying that what Suze said was Suze's opinion and reiterated this again at the end. She was asking some good pointed questions too, but it was obvious that Suze wanted to dig in on her anti-FIRE stance. I've just started listening to Paula Pant and if anything, this interview made me want to listen to more.

[DS]

Orman has a new book and a new podcast to promote. She's making the rounds -- I've heard her on the Stacking Benjamins podcast this week too. It's in her best interest to throw out at least one statement grenade to grab people's attention. To Paula Pant's credit, she prefaced the episode by saying that what Suze said was Suze's opinion and reiterated this again at the end. She was asking some good pointed questions too, but it was obvious that Suze wanted to dig in on her anti-FIRE stance. I've just started listening to Paula Pant and if anything, this interview made me want to listen to more.

So true. She's probably loving all the free press from the FIRE bloggers rn.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Suze Orman sold out a long time ago. Probably around the time that she started her own prepaid debit card. Just ignore her.

That's about when she jumped the shark. About a decade ago I used to occasionally watch her show at a friend's house, because it helped me to feel superior. It's in the same category as watching a daytime television show like Dr. Phil or Jerry Springer (are those still on?)

[KodeBlue]

Some people think they're getting financial advice when they watch Suze Orman. Same folks who think they're getting legal advice by watching Judge Judy or counseling by watching Dr. Phil.

[stimepy]

Some people think they're getting financial advice when they watch Suze Orman. Same folks who think they're getting legal advice by watching Judge Judy or counseling by watching Dr. Phil.

Wait, that's bad?  But that how I am going to become a certified Lawyer-Counseler!

Also, from my understanding Suze never understood finance, retirement or how to live.  It was just made up BS that made her money.   Anyone still got her "Credit Card"?

[slugline]

I see Paula Pant just released a followup episode to her Orman interview. If you don't know her stuff already, expect a pro-FIRE response.

[sol]

I see Paula Pant just released a followup episode to her Orman interview. If you don't know her stuff already, expect a pro-FIRE response.

If it follows the history of these things, I would expect her followup episode to reiterate all of the points in this very thread.  I'm consistently shocked by how much of the personal finance blogosphere is roughly one week behind the MMM forums.  I'm pretty sure every well-known personal finance blogger has an account here, and reads our stuff for inspiration and blog post ideas.

Hi bloggers!  I'm glad we could help you make money on the internet!

[KodeBlue]

Suze Orman is bat-crap-crazy. I watched her show for a couple of years; got me motivated to organize my money. i remember one episode where she did a 1 on 1 with a woman in her 40's who had won about $50M on the lottery. She advised the woman to keep working at Wal-mart and save all she could.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

There's an article about this disagreement on the front page of MSN. I hope MMM got a cut or benefited somehow.

[bacchi]

There's an article about this disagreement on the front page of MSN. I hope MMM got a cut or benefited somehow.

Link? I don't see it. I suspect it's a curated article meant just for you. ;)

[partgypsy]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mr-money-mustache-wants-suze-orman-and-everyone-else-to-understand-these-8-things-about-the-fire-movement-2018-10-05

[sol]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mr-money-mustache-wants-suze-orman-and-everyone-else-to-understand-these-8-things-about-the-fire-movement-2018-10-05

That appears to be a paid repost of the front page blog article on this topic.  I think it's must MMM sharing his writing with a wider audience for profit.  Nothing wrong with that, but also probably not worth the clicks for anyone who is already here.

[clarkfan1979]

I used to enjoy watching Suzie Orman's show when I was in my early to mid 20's. I was frugal because I was in grad school. I liked the "can I afford it" part of the show.

Now I'm older and more educated. Fire or not, I was really disappointed with her wisdom and advice. It really didn't make any sense. Her take home points was, "I know what I'm doing and you don't, so buy my book."

[jinga nation]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mr-money-mustache-wants-suze-orman-and-everyone-else-to-understand-these-8-things-about-the-fire-movement-2018-10-05

That appears to be a paid repost of the front page blog article on this topic.  I think it's must MMM sharing his writing with a wider audience for profit.  Nothing wrong with that, but also probably not worth the clicks for anyone who is already here.

I think MMM set out to give Suze a good bollocking after she served shit sandwiches on mainstream media. He had to use the same platform to reach the wider audience that she likes to prey upon.

[SnackDog]

If you use a conservative SWR of 3% it is more like $12 million.   

[smoghat]

She seems to have no qualifications to give financial advice besides working for Merrill Lynch. Degree in social work? Is there any evidence she has any math training? I may have a doctorate in a history field (although history can be very useful as a frame to investing) but two years packed with college economics courses was the most eye opening learning I ever did. I don’t think anybody should listen to my financial advice, but she seems thoroughly unqualified.

[sol]

Suze Orman railing against the FIRE movement is like the fattest person you've ever met shouting stupid diet tips at you. 

She's still working at 67 years old, she's already worth tens of millions of dollars, and she still can't envision life without the ever-present specter of running out of money.  She's terrified of never having enough, because she doesn't understand the concept.  She's completely missed the whole point of the movement, and so even when her advice is good she's the worst kind of hypocrite for giving it. 

If I cared about what she said at all I might be angry with her for leading so many people down a dark road, but instead I only feel pity.  She doesn't even know how sad she is, how wonderful her life could have been if she listened instead of talking so much, how her quest for financial security has ironically deprived her of ever feeling secure. 

[hodedofome]

You definitely need $9 million to retire...if you choose to retire in NYC or San Francisco.

The rest of America has figured out that's a dumb idea after watching Fixer Upper. They see the home prices in Waco, TX and decide they can sell their house up north or in California for $800k+, buy a house in Waco for $200-300k and stop working.

[Wexler]

Suze Orman railing against the FIRE movement is like the fattest person you've ever met shouting stupid diet tips at you. 

She's still working at 67 years old, she's already worth tens of millions of dollars, and she still can't envision life without the ever-present specter of running out of money.  She's terrified of never having enough, because she doesn't understand the concept.  She's completely missed the whole point of the movement, and so even when her advice is good she's the worst kind of hypocrite for giving it. 

If I cared about what she said at all I might be angry with her for leading so many people down a dark road, but instead I only feel pity.  She doesn't even know how sad she is, how wonderful her life could have been if she listened instead of talking so much, how her quest for financial security has ironically deprived her of ever feeling secure.

I think her personal finance advice is mostly OK, and I always appreciate more voices telling Americans not to blow so much money on their vehicles.  She's kind of like the other side of the Dave Ramsey coin to me.  From what I understand, she  is mostly in bonds because she is so risk averse.  Dave Ramsey tells people to expect 12% returns.  Both are wrong, and the right answer is in the middle.  She's less wrong, because at least her math is correct if too conservative, but her advice just doesn't work unless you have several million already.  Dave Ramsey's advice is more applicable to average Americans.  Neither have any useful advice if you are already here.

[TempusFugit]

The headline today from MSN:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/these-numbers-show-suze-orman-is-right-about-needing-dollar5-million-to-retire/ar-BBOq6Ie

"These numbers show Suze Orman is right about needing $5 million to retire"

The article quotes Financial Samurai with nuggets of wisdom such as these:

"Retiring at 50 with $3,000,000 in after-tax investments is closer. “Not bad!” he says. “But you’ve got to live in a cheaper part of the country and stay frugal if you have kids and parents to care for. At this age, you might as well keep on working until you’re 60 to eliminate the risk of financial shortfalls.” [emphasis mine]

Live in a cheap part of the country and stay frugal, because you've only got $120K / year to live on!  Practically cat food time. Better hope the car doesn't break down.  </sarcasm>

Sure, what the hell, your life is almost over anyway, just keep working another decade.  What have you got to lose?


and this:

"His takeaway is that $5,000,000 in after-tax income generates $200,000 a year in passive income, and that’s about right if you have a family and want to live an urban existence, such as San Francisco, New York, Seattle, Boston, etc." [emphasis mine]

Ok, I've never lived in NYC or Boston or SF.  I know it's expensive in those places.  But living there is a choice.  If you prioritize living someplace that requires that much spending, then go for it.

Wouldn't it have been more honest to just say, "If you want to spend lots more money in retirement, you'll need to save more."  Duh. 

[ysette9]

The headline today from MSN:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/these-numbers-show-suze-orman-is-right-about-needing-dollar5-million-to-retire/ar-BBOq6Ie

"These numbers show Suze Orman is right about needing $5 million to retire"

The article quotes Financial Samurai with nuggets of wisdom such as these:

"Retiring at 50 with $3,000,000 in after-tax investments is closer. “Not bad!” he says. “But you’ve got to live in a cheaper part of the country and stay frugal if you have kids and parents to care for. At this age, you might as well keep on working until you’re 60 to eliminate the risk of financial shortfalls.” [emphasis mine]

Live in a cheap part of the country and stay frugal, because you've only got $120K / year to live on!  Practically cat food time. Better hope the car doesn't break down.  &lt;/sarcasm&gt;

Sure, what the hell, your life is almost over anyway, just keep working another decade.  What have you got to lose?


and this:

"His takeaway is that $5,000,000 in after-tax income generates $200,000 a year in passive income, and that’s about right if you have a family and want to live an urban existence, such as San Francisco, New York, Seattle, Boston, etc." [emphasis mine]

Ok, I've never lived in NYC or Boston or SF.  I know it's expensive in those places.  But living there is a choice.  If you prioritize living someplace that requires that much spending, then go for it.

Wouldn't it have been more honest to just say, "If you want to spend lots more money in retirement, you'll need to save more."  Duh.

Uh, I live in the SF Bay Area in an expensive house (well, not for my area but compared to just about everywhere else). I also have sky-high childcare costs for my two Littles and we still don’t come close to spending $200k a year. I suppose I could buy a new Tesla every few years to bump me up to that level of spending.

[DS]

I know more people retired with $0 saved and living off SS than with anywhere near 1,2,3+ million.

[Maenad]

I love how they cherry-picked the one PF blogger who's aggressively non-frugal to profile.

[spartana]

You definitely need $9 million to retire...if you choose to retire in NYC or San Francisco.

ummm...no. No you don't. Not unless you need a fancy house that cost several million and then several million more to fund a fancy expensive lifestyle.

[Rosy]

Quote from MMM himself:

If you are afraid of what might happen in the future, you have a mental problem rather than a financial problem. So you should work on that first, by training your mind and body:

Yup, that about sums it up. Suze is frozen in financial fear.

[ducky19]

Looks like Suze has backtracked a little bit on the viewpoint she originally expressed in the initial interview:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/15/suze-orman-trying-to-retire-in-your-30s-or-40s-is-incredibly-dangerous.html

"When I was first asked my opinion about the FIRE movement, I had plenty of questions. I wanted to know about the Retire Early part of the equation. In my world, retirement means not working. Full stop. I was told that this was indeed the focus of FIRE, and that early was 30s or 40s, not 55.

The math of that makes absolutely no sense. And I said so.

But I now realize that I was given bad information. Retire Early for FIRE followers is not about stopping work completely. It is about stopping work that you don't like, or just do for the money, and finding work that you actually enjoy, and that fulfills you.

Hello! We are so on the same page. In fact, I have been telling people that they should never work at a job they hate. And I have long said that living below your means, but within your needs is how you set up your life to be able to live life On. Your. Terms.

That seems to be right in line with what the FIRE movement is all about. If you want to retire from a long commute, a corporate hierarchy you loathe and work that you don't look forward to, I am 100 percent cheering you on. But that assumes your next goal is to segue into a new "career" that speaks to you and that, yes, brings in some money."

Sounds like she couldn't stand being hated by so many people. Definitely doesn't sound genuine to me - but that's just me...

[fattest_foot]

The headline today from MSN:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/these-numbers-show-suze-orman-is-right-about-needing-dollar5-million-to-retire/ar-BBOq6Ie

"These numbers show Suze Orman is right about needing $5 million to retire"

The article quotes Financial Samurai with nuggets of wisdom such as these:

"Retiring at 50 with $3,000,000 in after-tax investments is closer. “Not bad!” he says. “But you’ve got to live in a cheaper part of the country and stay frugal if you have kids and parents to care for. At this age, you might as well keep on working until you’re 60 to eliminate the risk of financial shortfalls.” [emphasis mine]

Live in a cheap part of the country and stay frugal, because you've only got $120K / year to live on!  Practically cat food time. Better hope the car doesn't break down.  </sarcasm>

Sure, what the hell, your life is almost over anyway, just keep working another decade.  What have you got to lose?


and this:

"His takeaway is that $5,000,000 in after-tax income generates $200,000 a year in passive income, and that’s about right if you have a family and want to live an urban existence, such as San Francisco, New York, Seattle, Boston, etc." [emphasis mine]

Ok, I've never lived in NYC or Boston or SF.  I know it's expensive in those places.  But living there is a choice.  If you prioritize living someplace that requires that much spending, then go for it.

Wouldn't it have been more honest to just say, "If you want to spend lots more money in retirement, you'll need to save more."  Duh.

Financial Samurai is insane. I guess he makes money by selling fear. He's also the one that came up with that yearly budget of $300k to be "middle class." I'll just go ahead and say it, he's a clown.

Anyway, I read his article in agreement with Suze because sol posted one of his graphs. But the one that I thought was ridiculous was why you need $200k in passive income to retire early. His budget includes gems such as:

• $9,144 in childcare assistance. Because when you're retired early, you apparently don't have any time and need a part time nanny.
• $36,168 for a mortgage. I mean, the only place in the world you could possible live is San Francisco.
• $1,800 in landscaping, because once again like above, you have no time so you need to farm this out.
• $1,500 for life insurance which I'm having trouble even wrapping my head around. Somehow with $5M in liquid assets, you still need a $2M life insurance policy. Who knew?
• $24,000 a year in food, for three people, with a note by this one that says "lots of delivery to save time." I guess I was sorely mistaken thinking that early retirement meant more time. Even with that, $2,000 a month to feed 3 people. That's like 6 times our food budget.

Really, the whole rest of the article is just excuses for why things couldn't work based on odd assumptions. Can't retire with $40k a year because health insurance is going to eat $20k of that. Can't retire with $75k because you're going to lose $23k in taxes (uh, why?), and then you're going to be supporting your elderly parents (also why?). Can't retire with $120k a year because you still have needy parents and then you have to live in the "cheap" part of the country (and god forbid you live somewhere other than LA, SF, or NYC). And at this point, he states, you may as well keep working until you hit Social Security age.

[mizzourah2006]

The headline today from MSN:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/these-numbers-show-suze-orman-is-right-about-needing-dollar5-million-to-retire/ar-BBOq6Ie

"These numbers show Suze Orman is right about needing $5 million to retire"

The article quotes Financial Samurai with nuggets of wisdom such as these:

"Retiring at 50 with $3,000,000 in after-tax investments is closer. “Not bad!” he says. “But you’ve got to live in a cheaper part of the country and stay frugal if you have kids and parents to care for. At this age, you might as well keep on working until you’re 60 to eliminate the risk of financial shortfalls.” [emphasis mine]

Live in a cheap part of the country and stay frugal, because you've only got $120K / year to live on!  Practically cat food time. Better hope the car doesn't break down.  </sarcasm>

Sure, what the hell, your life is almost over anyway, just keep working another decade.  What have you got to lose?


and this:

"His takeaway is that $5,000,000 in after-tax income generates $200,000 a year in passive income, and that’s about right if you have a family and want to live an urban existence, such as San Francisco, New York, Seattle, Boston, etc." [emphasis mine]

Ok, I've never lived in NYC or Boston or SF.  I know it's expensive in those places.  But living there is a choice.  If you prioritize living someplace that requires that much spending, then go for it.

Wouldn't it have been more honest to just say, "If you want to spend lots more money in retirement, you'll need to save more."  Duh.

Financial Samurai is insane. I guess he makes money by selling fear. He's also the one that came up with that yearly budget of $300k to be "middle class." I'll just go ahead and say it, he's a clown.

Anyway, I read his article in agreement with Suze because sol posted one of his graphs. But the one that I thought was ridiculous was why you need $200k in passive income to retire early. His budget includes gems such as:

• $9,144 in childcare assistance. Because when you're retired early, you apparently don't have any time and need a part time nanny.
• $36,168 for a mortgage. I mean, the only place in the world you could possible live is San Francisco.
• $1,800 in landscaping, because once again like above, you have no time so you need to farm this out.
• $1,500 for life insurance which I'm having trouble even wrapping my head around. Somehow with $5M in liquid assets, you still need a $2M life insurance policy. Who knew?
• $24,000 a year in food, for three people, with a note by this one that says "lots of delivery to save time." I guess I was sorely mistaken thinking that early retirement meant more time. Even with that, $2,000 a month to feed 3 people. That's like 6 times our food budget.

Really, the whole rest of the article is just excuses for why things couldn't work based on odd assumptions. Can't retire with $40k a year because health insurance is going to eat $20k of that. Can't retire with $75k because you're going to lose $23k in taxes (uh, why?), and then you're going to be supporting your elderly parents (also why?). Can't retire with $120k a year because you still have needy parents and then you have to live in the "cheap" part of the country (and god forbid you live somewhere other than LA, SF, or NYC). And at this point, he states, you may as well keep working until you hit Social Security age.

Not sure if it's kosher to post directly frin another blog, but he made another one yesterday, very similar to the first one only I guess he used another couple from LA as an example.

https://www.financialsamurai.com/why-5-million-dollars-is-barely-enough-to-retire-early-with-a-family/#comment-364539

Apparently the couples' kid at 8 months old has Stanford/Harvard/Yale written all over him/her as they are saving $24k/yr in 529s for the kid. With just a 3% CAGR on that money from 0-18 it comes just shy of $600k. I doubt many people will be sending their kids to elite private schools if that's what it costs for a degree in 18 years.

[I'm a red panda]

It seems insane that anyone would think you need $200k in passive income to retire; when very few families even APPROACH that EVER.

[sol]

It seems insane that anyone would think you need $200k in passive income to retire; when very few families even APPROACH that EVER.

You're all taking this nonsense way too seriously.  These people don't actually believe this garbage, but they're in the business of selling advertising and they need to generate controversial content.  It's literally professional-level trolling, in the sense that they are being paid to antagonize you.

Every blogger who manages to get himself mentioned as part of this raging online wildfire is inserting himself into the public consciousness, drawing new visitors, increasing his readership and ad revenue.  There is stiff competition to see who can be the most outrageous, because that's the person who will grab headlines and eyeballs.  The nature of the argument is almost irrelevant, they're just jumping on the trending topic of the day because that's what everyone is upset about right now.

[DS]

It seems insane that anyone would think you need $200k in passive income to retire; when very few families even APPROACH that EVER.

You're all taking this nonsense way too seriously.  These people don't actually believe this garbage, but they're in the business of selling advertising and they need to generate controversial content.  It's literally professional-level trolling, in the sense that they are being paid to antagonize you.

Every blogger who manages to get himself mentioned as part of this raging online wildfire is inserting himself into the public consciousness, drawing new visitors, increasing his readership and ad revenue.  There is stiff competition to see who can be the most outrageous, because that's the person who will grab headlines and eyeballs.  The nature of the argument is almost irrelevant, they're just jumping on the trending topic of the day because that's what everyone is upset about right now.

Suzie 2020!

[I'm a red panda]

It seems insane that anyone would think you need $200k in passive income to retire; when very few families even APPROACH that EVER.

You're all taking this nonsense way too seriously.  These people don't actually believe this garbage, but they're in the business of selling advertising and they need to generate controversial content.  It's literally professional-level trolling, in the sense that they are being paid to antagonize you.

Every blogger who manages to get himself mentioned as part of this raging online wildfire is inserting himself into the public consciousness, drawing new visitors, increasing his readership and ad revenue.  There is stiff competition to see who can be the most outrageous, because that's the person who will grab headlines and eyeballs.  The nature of the argument is almost irrelevant, they're just jumping on the trending topic of the day because that's what everyone is upset about right now.

Don't get too upset. I didn't actually click any links, so I've generated no revenue for any of them.

[spartana]

Looks like Suze has backtracked a little bit on the viewpoint she originally expressed in the initial interview:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/15/suze-orman-trying-to-retire-in-your-30s-or-40s-is-incredibly-dangerous.html

"When I was first asked my opinion about the FIRE movement, I had plenty of questions. I wanted to know about the Retire Early part of the equation. In my world, retirement means not working. Full stop. I was told that this was indeed the focus of FIRE, and that early was 30s or 40s, not 55.

The math of that makes absolutely no sense. And I said so.

But I now realize that I was given bad information. Retire Early for FIRE followers is not about stopping work completely. It is about stopping work that you don't like, or just do for the money, and finding work that you actually enjoy, and that fulfills you.

Hello! We are so on the same page. In fact, I have been telling people that they should never work at a job they hate. And I have long said that living below your means, but within your needs is how you set up your life to be able to live life On. Your. Terms.

That seems to be right in line with what the FIRE movement is all about. If you want to retire from a long commute, a corporate hierarchy you loathe and work that you don't look forward to, I am 100 percent cheering you on. But that assumes your next goal is to segue into a new "career" that speaks to you and that, yes, brings in some money."

Sounds like she couldn't stand being hated by so many people. Definitely doesn't sound genuine to me - but that's just me...

The problem is that she is still saying FIRE is impossible at an early age UNLESS you continue to earn an income - which of course supports her point. But as most of us FIREees who are only living on passive income (and have done so for a long time and have dealt with market downturns and personal issues and have seen our NW increase) know that's just not true. For most people who RE, earning an income afterwards is a choice not a need.