One of his Rich Dad, Poor dad seminars is coming to our area. So there are radio ads.
One line was, which really go to me was "Savers are Losers!'

wtf? Someone out there actually saying that saving money is stupid?

See Chuck Jaffe’s July 13 MarketWatch article, “Stupid Investment of the Week: 'Rich Dad Academy' a poor choice for investors,” for even more stupidity concerning RK’s seminar. But since were talking RK, I can’t say that I’m surprised. I actually more surprised that you’re surprised, JH!?!

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/r ... D77644B%7D

That guy is seriously stupid. As a YHOO stock holder I'm ashamed that they give him a voice. Anyone else want to start a letter-writing campaign or petition to get him fired?

I think the best thing we can do is continue to write here about what a fraud he appears to be (so that we reach the lurkers) and make sure we talk to our friends and family about him so that if anyone we care about is considering flushing their money down one of his seminars, they reconsider.

Oh trust me, I'll tell anyone who mentions his name. I used to work in a book store and one of the best benefits was being able to talk people out of buying his books and into buying something useful.

I worry about the people who don't read this forum and talk to us though. Being on YHOO and other media outlets gives him an air of legitimacy and people who don't know better will actually listen to him.

I was able to educate Julie's mother on the evils of Robert Kiyosaki. She thought he was just a guy who wrote a easy reading book. I don't think she realized WHAT he was teaching. Obviously, Julie's family earned money the tried and true way, and they're not losers by any stretch.

It just makes me sick to hear those ads, just as I get sick everytime I drive by a payday loan place in a hispanic neighborhood. Of course, once I truly live in my new home, Ill continue talking to our new city council dude about em


Same thing for the Donald. He has scaminars around here too now.

I read Rich Dad, Poor Dad. At first, I thought it was for real. But then I went back and looked at it critically. I realized what bunk it is. I especially realized this after going to business school.

That being said, I do think that the rich / upper middle class teach their children completely different ideas about money. However, I think Limbo by Alfred Lubrano does a much better job of explaining that situation. (Unfortunately, Lubrano doesn't explain how to gain that upper middle class knowledge!)

Man, I'm an investing n00b if there ever was one, but I really want to punch this guy in the throat. If anyone wants fodder for their despise, see http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article ... cher/30687 . Why mutual funds are dumb and risky.

Granted, there are snippets of truth, like how a lot of your gain pads the pockets of account managers. Yet he NEVER ever mentions index funds, never mentions MF with low ER's. He talks about how silly retirement saving is because, if you're young, you're in a low tax bracket and you might be in a high one when you take it out, but never talks about Roth's or any of the other benefits of tax-advantaged accounts. He never even proposes a solution except to sit down with someone who can help you figure it out, despite the fact that those people charge you money, just like an MF manager.

The commenters tear him a new one, despite the fact that it's probably like 50% Kiyosaki worshippers reading that article.

Iwillteachyoutoberich.com had a great article on how there are some people out there who know enough jargon just to be dangerous, not to be effective or reasonable. Count Kiyosaki among that group.

I'll stick with reading Eric Tyson. Maybe since he writes "for dummies", he'll find audience with Kiyosaki, who could definitely learn something from him.

I got to admit that reading RK got me interested in personal finance again. However, I soon after discovered that he's really a fraud. He's basically the guy that got rich selling how to get rich book. Much better information can be found elsewhere - i.e., GRS.

Ditto for me, but I still like some of the ideas in his book. Especially the idea that things which cost you money every month, like your house and your car, are liabilities and not assets. However, there were also a lot of anecdotes in there that would obviously be covered by a "results not typical" disclaimer in an infomercial. The basic premise (use your money to buy things that will make you more money) is sound, but his advice on how to go about it (real estate get-rich-quick schemes, investing in high-risk startups) would not work for the majority of people.

> Especially the idea that things which cost you money every month, like your house and your car, are liabilities and not assets.

They are assets. Your car is a depreciating asset, but it's still an asset. Your house is definitely an asset. However, the debt is a liability. The asset is not.

Aleks, thanks for agreeing. I also agree that his idea about buying things that make money is sound.

But consultantjournal is right. Your house is definitely an asset. I was lucky enough to buy my house in 1998 and see it appreciate over 300%. Cars are also assets, granted not very good ones. I bought a new honda element in 2005 and it's probably 70% of it's original value now.

Keep in mind that assets like cars and homes provide value beyond their given market price whether or not they appreciate or depreciate. There is value in having shelter and on demand transportation, enough value to justify owning these assets even with their expenses and when they depreciate (real estate doesn’t always go up all of the time).

RK has built an empire around packaging ideas that sound good but are completely hollow. His advice is akin to telling you to only bet on the winning horse. Well, duh! It sounds good, but reality does not work that way.

Gee thanks Mr. Kiyosaki!
I never realized my health insurance was a liability. I should get rid of that straightaway! I should just choose to never get sick or in an accident.

I'm not going to totally defend Kyosaki because he's a tool, but I do think there's value in refuting the argument that "your home is the biggest asset most people will ever own." My savings account and investment portfolio are assets, housing is an expense. There are benefits and drawbacks to both buying and renting, both financial and non. But especially during the housing bubble I hear too many people talking about how their house had gone up x% since they bought it. Some even use it as a justification to take on more debt. But the thing about capital gains is that you only realize them when you sell, and they only matter if you can bank the profit. With housing, the market generally moves in lock step. Unless you move to a different city, you will have to pay a similar price for a similar property, so even selling will not truly realize the capital gain unless you go back to renting or downsize, which most people don't want to do. They're much more likely to upsize and take on a bigger mortgage. Which just extends the amount of time they'll be paying for shelter.

What really matters is not the "value" of the house, but the outstanding balance on the mortgage. A lot of people seem to get starry-eyed over an increase in the former, and then go and increase the latter. Apparently unaware that the value can go down, but they'll still be left with the bigger mortgage.