There has got to be a better way to save & invest

[soupcxan]

As others have mentioned, there are plenty of headwinds for equity returns just looking at the situation for 401(k)s:

• Baby boomers will eventually have to start taking distributions, (though that money will be returned to companies as revenue as it is spent)
• Lots of companies eliminating the 401k match, making 401ks less attractive
• 20-30 year olds may have so much education debt to service that they can't afford to use their 401k, even if it's offered

All of this translates to decreased demand for stocks. Although 401ks have been around for my entire life, they are a relatively recent invention. Is it possible that the last 30 years of increasing 401k popularity has increased demand for stocks above their long term average - and now we're seeing that unwind? Could the 401k and the equities that it usually holds go out of favor? Again, not saying that "it's different this time" but I do think macro factors are worth considering when you decide to pay your money and take your chances. I still own a lot of equity mutual funds, but I am wondering where to commit new funds as they come in the future.

When your target retirement fund is down 35% in a year, you need a 54% gain the following year just to break even, and then you're still underwater after inflation. Does anyone really think we're going to get a 54% gain in 2009? It's very frustrating to work hard to save and LBYM so you can fund a Roth for a few years, then see a third of it wiped out, and you can't even harvest the tax losses.

 

[honobob]

AND it will be inherited at the cost basis at time of (what's the term?) decedents death. assuming tax law stays the same.....

Sweet mother of God, now that's free money. Even better than that $500,000 free money they give couples who sell their principal residence! Did ya ever wonder why they capped that at $500,000 if real estate only appreciates at 4% a year?

 

[honobob]

Starting today, how practical is this scenario for the average 30-ish investor and saver? I mean, congrats on timing RE well and the appreciation, but banks are tightening up credit and most requiring 20% down on cashflow investment properties. I'm guessing you were highly leveraged (maybe 20 to 1) using a 30-year or ARM which works when prices are appreciating. Again, congrats on the purchases.

But when RE prices are flat or decreasing, this is not a time to be leveraged in investments like real estate. Its equivalent with going 'all-in' in the stock market not just with the 20K you have in the bank, but another 80K that the bank loaned you at 5% interest. So you're in the market all-in with 100K and subject to market forces. You have to pay back you bank 5% interest over the next 30 years on that 80K you borrowed. You have to hope that investments appreciate and not stay flat or decline.

This is as doable today as it was in the 70's for my first purchase, and subsequent purchases in the 80's, 90's, early 2000 and just this last September 2008. My 2000 purchases are all 20% down, 30 year fixed mortgages. I'd leverage 100% if they'd let me at a fixed rate. Wouldn't bother me if appreciation was flat or declining as long as my payments are fixed. Hell you're better off being heavily leveraged because you have nothing to lose if you think the sh*t is hitting the fan. How are you better off if the first $100,000 lost is yours? I'd rather it was the banks. But then I've never had that problem because most any property in the US in a decent area appreciates 10%+ over time.

 

[Meadbh]

I haven't read it, but Moshe Milevsky's recent book "Are you a stock or a bond" might be worth a read.

To quote from the jacket notes on Amazon.com:

In an era when traditional corporate pensions are disappearing, Social Security’ s sustainability is in question, healthcare costs are skyrocketing, and society is dumping more and more financial risk squarely onto your shoulders, Moshe Milevsky helps you comprehensively integrate all the opportunities and risks in your life: your career risks, your portfolio risks, your housing risks, and even your personal inflation and longevity risks that could lead you to financial regret and a ruined retirement. Then, he introduces a powerful, new framework for thinking about and managing your financial future that you can use to systematically reduce your vulnerability to each of these risks and, thus, generate long-term financial security.

To maximize your investment returns and protect yourself and your family, you must learn to think of yourself as a small company, with assets, liabilities, a balance sheet, an income statement, and real shareholder equity. The composition and choices you make with your financial capital should reflect the nature and security of your career or job, which is your unique “human capital.” So, for example, if You, Inc. is like a “stock,” make sure your retirement savings are tilted toward “bonds.” If your job is more secure and You, Inc. is essentially a “bond,” then make sure your retirement savings are tilted toward “stocks.” Get personal with your investments and make your financial capital serve and protect your human capital. Factoring in your unique “human capital” adds a new dimension to financial planning which is a critical next step for sound and effective investing.
​

</I></B>

 

[ziggy29]

The composition and choices you make with your financial capital should reflect the nature and security of your career or job, which is your unique “human capital.” So, for example, if You, Inc. is like a “stock,” make sure your retirement savings are tilted toward “bonds.” If your job is more secure and You, Inc. is essentially a “bond,” then make sure your retirement savings are tilted toward “stocks.”

I can see some merit to this thinking, but it's still a bit flawed.

The problem is that the people who are "bonds", with steady, stable and secure finances -- probably with very secure jobs and pensions -- are BOTH more able to take stock market risk AND less in need to do so. So it's kind of a conundrum for people who are "stocks" (less secure jobs, no pension, et cetera); they NEED to take more market risk but yet are also less likely to be able to withstand heavy market losses and still have any hope for retirement.

 

[leftbucket]

All,

There's also still ways to get a pension from just a part-time job.
My dad retired 6 yrs ago at age 52 with just investments and a
paid off house. He started to get concerned a few years later
about rising health insurance costs and his lack of a pension, so he
got a part time job driving a school bus in his county. He does
have to get up early on weekday mornings, but he still golfs six
days a week, has summers and long holidays off and should get about
1k/mo + partial health insurance benes when he hits 65.

Cheers,
LB

 

[brewer12345]

Of course what the RE fans don't bothermentioning isthat RE is a PITA and effectively a second job. If you have limited alternatives, I suppose that's what you do, but for those of us with a day job RE would have to be very attractively priced indeed to make it worth it. At least where I live, it ain't there yet. Maybe in another year, maybe never.

Soup, I hate to tell you this, but there are no free lunches. Either you live with the greater volatility of equities and other risky assets, or you stick with TIPS and I bonds and work/save a lot longer. It is what it is. But before you make a decision, go take another look at the historical data.

 

[FIREd]

The one thing that I have learned on this board is that we are all different and our circumstances are all different as well. There is no one-fits-all path to early-retirement. Advice from strangers who know nothing about you can only go so far. Each one of us has to find what works for ourselves.

I know people who made a lot of money with stocks (because they started investing in the 70's or 80's), people who made a lot of money with bonds (buy 30 year treasuries in the early 80's), people who made a lot of money in RE, etc... And they all seem to think that their way is the best (if not the only) way to prosperity. In the end, their experiences are only anecdotal. They are merely a reflection of the past, not the future.

Ultimately, you have to come up with a plan you can live with, execute it, and hope it works.

 

[honobob]

Of course what the RE fans don't bothermentioning isthat RE is a PITA and effectively a second job. If you have limited alternatives, I suppose that's what you do, but for those of us with a day job RE would have to be very attractively priced indeed to make it worth it. At least where I live, it ain't there yet. Maybe in another year, maybe never.

Soup, don't believe this poppycock! I don't remember brewer54321 mentioning how many rentals he's managed and for how long but I've been doing it for 25+ years in three different states and currently have five rentals 3,000 miles away!!(not that I specifically recommend this) and I have a full time professional career. The few actual hours I spend barely qualifies this as a hobby unless you count all the time I spend counting the money, making graphs showing the pay down in mortgages and increases in income and appreciation! Conservatively $10,000,000(if historic rates drop by 50%) to $21,000,000 in 27 years with about $4,000,000 in rents over the same period

Why would anyone say there is anything wrong with people like calmloki that have turned their investing into their day job. At least he has a good boss. A lot of people here would kill for that. And to infer that he was forced to do that because of "limited alternatives" is bull. Not that it's rocket science but there are obviously many here who couldn't do it successfully. And if you can't make it with 40% return on your equity unless RE is "very attractively priced" you're really just saying you(in the Royal sense) don't have the bill$. not that there is anything wrong with that but don't go bashing on something you don't know alot about.

 

[pasadenaDC]

Soup, don't believe this poppycock! I don't remember brewer54321 mentioning how many rentals he's managed and for how long but I've been doing it for 25+ years in three different states and currently have five rentals 3,000 miles away!!(not that I specifically recommend this) and I have a full time professional career. The few actual hours I spend barely qualifies this as a hobby unless you count all the time I spend counting the money, making graphs showing the pay down in mortgages and increases in income and appreciation! Conservatively $10,000,000(if historic rates drop by 50%) to $21,000,000 in 27 years with about $4,000,000 in rents over the same period

Why would anyone say there is anything wrong with people like calmloki that have turned their investing into their day job. At least he has a good boss. A lot of people here would kill for that. And to infer that he was forced to do that because of "limited alternatives" is bull. Not that it's rocket science but there are obviously many here who couldn't do it successfully. And if you can't make it with 40% return on your equity unless RE is "very attractively priced" you're really just saying you don't have the b*lls. not that there is anything wrong with that but don't go bashing on something you don't know alot about.

RE appreciation rates over the past 25 years have truly been historic. How do you project the next 25 years given macro trends? hono, perhaps you can provide some guidance for us young-ins on this board instead of sounding like Robert Allen or similar RE tout as to how we can wisely leverage RE to create a positive cash flow that will outpace inflation. Especially considering the capital restraints and gradual deleveraging of all credit, mortgage and non-mortgage alike. I have done the research myself and may be purchasing a couple cashflow properties in the spring. But I am nowhere near as optimistic entering this type of investment as others and long term I hope that my RE portfolio comprises only 25-33% of my NW.

Maybe I'm coming across as a bit harsh but this is classic fallacy of composition. Not everyone can wisely make money in RE just because you did it.

 

[soupcxan]

The "are you a stock or bond" book looks interesting, I'll check it out. Based on nothing at all, I would say I am definitely bond-like.

Soup, don't believe this poppycock!

Hono, I hear what you're saying, but you do have to admit that RE:

• takes up more of your free time (if you're going to manage it yourself) compared to just buying a bond or a mutual fund and letting the dividends roll in
• can offer great returns, as it has in your case, or can blow you up, as can any investment that depends on a high degree of leverage

I don't doubt your success in RE and your enthusiasm for it, but I know we have seen posts on this board from others who bought RE as investment and got hosed by it. Maybe they were noobs who drank the Kyosaki kool-aid and didn't know what they were doing, but still...RE is not a low risk / high return proposition. I would also challenge your statement that RE in any "decent" area appreciaties +10%/year...at that rate, the majority of my generation would never be able to afford a house, because I can assure you our salaries are not increasing at 10% YoY in perpetuity.

But before you make a decision, go take another look at the historical data.

I agree, it is convincing, and I think that it is still very likely that equities will continue to compensate investors for their higher risk over the long term. But there must be some non-zero probability that things DON'T work out that way. Governments can change business regulations, the world can change, etc. Maybe that risk is 0.01%? 1%? 10%? I don't know. But my hopes of ever retiring on a stock-heavy portfolio would be dashed if we have a 20 year period of sideways movement. Or a 50% decline the year before I decide to jump.

Before putting too much faith in historical results...I was reading my finance textbook yesterday (published in 2006) and it said something like, "although we can calculate stock market volatility for the last 100 years, the last 40 years is more appropriate for future estimates of excess returns, because kurtosis is not present." OOPS! Maybe they should've included the 1929-1935 market after all! Those fat tails never really go away...they just lie in wait.

 

[honobob]

RE appreciation rates over the past 25 years have truly been historic. How do you project the next 25 years given macro trends? hono, perhaps you can provide some guidance for us young-ins on this board instead of sounding like Robert Allen or similar RE tout as to how we can wisely leverage RE to create a positive cash flow that will outpace inflation. Especially considering the capital restraints and gradual deleveraging of all credit, mortgage and non-mortgage alike. I have done the research myself and may be purchasing a couple cashflow properties in the spring. But I am nowhere near as optimistic entering this type of investment as others and long term I hope that my RE portfolio comprises only 25-33% of my NW.

Maybe I'm coming across as a bit harsh but this is classic fallacy of composition. Not everyone can wisely make money in RE just because you did it.

Historic appreciation rates over the last 25 years! I got a suit older than that so listen up. Prop 13 was voted on 30 stinkin years ago cause Grandma was being taxed out of her house because the values were doubling every couple of years in the ancient 60's and 70's. It's not that hard to determine a high demand area and generally for that to change quickly something drastic has to happen. What area are you purchasing in and what appreciation do you expect, 50% less than historic, historic, or 50% less, or are you just buying and hoping things are all good? I'd like to hear more about your research and your less optimistic view of the future. I don't even know who Robert Allen is as I'm not about "deal of the day". It may work but I'm happy with what I'm doing. So I'm invested, I know what my fixed expenses are and can reasonably predict my future variable expenses and income. It's all good!

And I never said everyone can make money like I did. But everyone that bought in the places that I did in the times that I got the same results. Another advantage of being older is that I heard your arguements in the 70's, 80's 90's, 00's from people that are sorry they didn't listen then. Hey, maybe you'll be lucky and get horrible results. Then you'll be able to tell me "I told you so!"

 

[samclem]

But everyone that bought in the places that I did in the times that I got the same results.

And everyone who bought MSFT in 1986 and sold in Sept 2007 did really well, too. How hard can this be--just find a good stock, put all your money into it, and get rich, Rich, RICH!. Just like real estate.

 

[honobob]

And everyone who bought MSFT in 1986 and sold in Sept 2007 did really well, too. How hard can this be--just find a good stock, put all your money into it, and get rich, Rich, RICH!. Just like real estate.

And why would the average person know that MSFT would be a winner? I was here in CA and probably never heard of it.

However,

I purchased in CA in 1986 and anyone that purchased then had a pretty good idea that NOW was a good time to buy CA real estate.

 

[pasadenaDC]

Historic appreciation rates over the last 25 years! I got a suit older than that so listen up. Prop 13 was voted on 30 stinkin years ago cause Grandma was being taxed out of her house because the values were doubling every couple of years in the ancient 60's and 70's. It's not that hard to determine a high demand area and generally for that to change quickly something drastic has to happen. What area are you purchasing in and what appreciation do you expect, 50% less than historic, historic, or 50% less, or are you just buying and hoping things are all good? I'd like to hear more about your research and your less optimistic view of the future. I don't even know who Robert Allen is as I'm not about "deal of the day". It may work but I'm happy with what I'm doing. So I'm invested, I know what my fixed expenses are and can reasonably predict my future variable expenses and income. It's all good!

And I never said everyone can make money like I did. But everyone that bought in the places that I did in the times that I got the same results. Another advantage of being older is that I heard your arguements in the 70's, 80's 90's, 00's from people that are sorry they didn't listen then. Hey, maybe you'll be lucky and get horrible results. Then you'll be able to tell me "I told you so!"

If you're still around in 30 years, we'll talk. Looks like I touched a nerve there grandpa, so I'll leave it as is. No one can doubt your RE success, but for someone who spends his days counting money perhaps you should handle yourself with a modicum of class and perhaps a teaching spirit, neither of which I've seen here on the YD boards.

Old guys flashing cash to under 30-year olds who have already seen two boom/bust bubbles since they entered the workforce, hmmm, not sure what kind of reaction you should get here. RE investing will become a part of my investment portfolio but not all of it. Not going to put all my eggs in one basket.

 

[honobob]

• can offer great returns, as it has in your case, or can blow you up, as can any investment that depends on a high degree of leverage

I don't doubt your success in RE and your enthusiasm for it, but I know we have seen posts on this board from others who bought RE as investment and got hosed by it. Maybe they were noobs who drank the Kyosaki kool-aid and didn't know what they were doing, but still...RE is not a low risk / high return proposition. I would also challenge your statement that RE in any "decent" area appreciaties +10%/year...at that rate, the majority of my generation would never be able to afford a house, because I can assure you our salaries are not increasing at 10% YoY in perpetuity.

Again, there is NOTHING wrong with leverage. It is a powerful tool! Do not confuse the concept with being "overleveraged"! Yeah, there are some people on this board that don't seem to have a clue about what they're doing and some have been successful despite themselves but let's not name names. Check out neighborhoodscout.com You'll find your double digit NBHD's there, don't take my word for it. In SF they have below market housing for people that can't keep their salaries up with housing. I think $85K is the cut off now.

You were the one looking for a better way. I mentioned one. Maybe try lottery tickets.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Lots of ways to skin the cat, Soup. DH and I have no RE exposure beyond our own little home and a little piece of land we'll build on one day. Perhaps in the future we might move a little into an RE fund but not now, for us.

Good friends jumped into active RE ownership of several properties about five years ago and as you might imagine they are drowning about now--cannot rent the places for anywhere near the mortgages, never mind the day to day stuff. I think anyone who is successful at this would tell you it's not for everyone (just as other investments are not for everyone--one size does not fit all). Also, I don't know how one dollar-cost-averages into active property ownership, say $100 a paycheck, to spread the risk and return over time. But I'm sure someone will enlighten me .

 

[honobob]

If you're still around in 30 years, we'll talk. Looks like I touched a nerve there grandpa, so I'll leave it as is. No one can doubt your RE success, but for someone who spends his days counting money perhaps you should handle yourself with a modicum of class and perhaps a teaching spirit, neither of which I've seen here on the YD boards.

Old guys flashing cash to under 30-year olds who have already seen two boom/bust bubbles since they entered the workforce, hmmm, not sure what kind of reaction you should get here. RE investing will become a part of my investment portfolio but not all of it. Not going to put all my eggs in one basket.

I'll be here in 30 years and that's Mr. Grandpa to you! Thanks to my real estate investments I'll be able to buy some 30 year old body for a transplant or clone a new one. But why wait 30 when I am confident that in less than ten anyone not buying now will wish they had because in the 80's everyone said I was "lucky" cause I bought in the 70's and in the 90's everyone said I was "lucky" I bought in the 80's blah blah and now everyone says I'm "lucky" I bought in 2003/2004. Do you see a trend here?

If you think I'm trying to teach it's only by example but you seem to be distracted by all the obstacles thrown your way. Two boom/bust. In my day we had those with two feet of snow, no internet, and no boomer parents leading us to believe we were entitled to better. Try graduating in the 70's. All we are saying is give real estate a chance!

If you go back through my posts you'll find a lot of info. Why won't you be the bigger whippersnapper and share your research?

 

[Koolau]

As a young person starting out in their career, I have a lot of years of saving for retirement ahead. I don't expect to receive a pension, nor do I think that SS will provide any meaningful standard of living. So I have to save this money myself if I ever want to retire. Not to mention other long-term savings for things like kids' education and whatnot.

This raises the question of what to do with all those long-term funds that I need to accumulate. Short-term/emergency funds are easy: bank or money market fund. Until 2008, I followed conventional wisdom that the market was the place for long-term investments. But even my conservative mix of dividend stock and bond index funds was down 20% last year. Diversification? There was no place to hide. REITs, commidities, etc. all had a good run then blew up. Treasuries were up, yes, but that option is less appealing when the 10 year note is yielding 2.4%.

A buy-and-hold investment in stocks that can drop 30% for reasons that you have nothing to do with is not such a great long-term investment in my book, especially when your dividends get cut along with capital losses. I don't think I'm smart enough to time the market or daytrade my way to profits. You can argue that stocks will come back over the long term, but if the next 10 years is anything like the last 10 years, that's far from guaranteed. You can stretch your investment horizon out as far as you like but that still doesn't ensure you'll eventually make your money back. Obviously the risk/return tradeoff exists. But for risk to be real (and for investors to be compensated for it) sometimes investments will blow up. If we all agreed stocks were risky but you could get around this risk just by never selling when they were down, they wouldn't really be risky after all. I'm not arguing that "this time it's different" but I am skeptical that patience solves all of equities' problems.

So what else is there? I haven't found a whole lot of good options for long-term savings.

CDs/MMFs: low yield, inflation will eat me alive over the long term

Annuities: the fees make me want to barf, the vendor is as likely to go bankrupt as I am, and I can't get to the funds when I need them anyway.

Muni bonds: low expected return, crazy spending by municipalities with falling tax revenues may put them next in line for a bailout.

Real estate: <cough>

Start your own business: time consuming, not a good fit for my personality.

TIPS: Looks good today at CPI+2.5%. But inefficient to hold in a taxable account. CPI may not match personal inflation over the long term.

Soup,

This isn't advice, so don't sue me if you listen to me.

I would have been roughly your age, I think, back in the big bear of '74 to '82. I primarily went to cash as a result and would never have FI/RE except for company stock in my 401(k) which eventually went nuts in the late '80s through '90s. My point is that you are probably young enough to just wait for the next bull market. I should have. If I had, I'd now be "rich" instead of FI. I'm thankful for my company's policy of not letting you cash out their stock (long since been changed - I did cash out before it "crashed") So, not giving advice, but either get lucky like I did or pick an AA and stick with it. Your choice!!! Oh. And don't forget. YMMV

 

[brewer12345]

I agree, it is convincing, and I think that it is still very likely that equities will continue to compensate investors for their higher risk over the long term. But there must be some non-zero probability that things DON'T work out that way. Governments can change business regulations, the world can change, etc. Maybe that risk is 0.01%? 1%? 10%? I don't know. But my hopes of ever retiring on a stock-heavy portfolio would be dashed if we have a 20 year period of sideways movement. Or a 50% decline the year before I decide to jump.

Well, there are other ways to skin the cat, of course. An example:

One of the interesting things I ran across in my research efforts of the last few years was a bunch of companies (reinsurers) that have a pool of assets sitting around and who generally earn very solid returns but cannot afford to take too much risk (owing to the scary nature of their core business). More than one of these companies made the point that their approach generally offers a lot of juice without that much volatility. Generally, they have about 80% of assets in pretty conservative fixed income stuff: high grade corporates, agency MBS, treasuries and agencies, developed country sovereign debt, TIPS, etc. The remaining 20% is the risk asset part of the portfolio: junk bonds, bank loans, equities, more esoteric stuff (pools of life insurance settlements, leveraged credit funds, etc.). It might not look pretty in firecalc, but these guys generally earned quite attractive returns.

No doubt there are other options. Its a free country. If the choice of the annointed doesn't suit you, try something else. And let us know what it is: I might not agree with your choice or wish to do it myself, but I would be interested in hearing about it.

 

[honobob]

Good friends jumped into active RE ownership of several properties about five years ago and as you might imagine they are drowning about now--cannot rent the places for anywhere near the mortgages, never mind the day to day stuff. I think anyone who is successful at this would tell you it's not for everyone

I'm not saying everyone should but anyone with reasonable business skills CAN do it. Your friends invested the same time I did. The difference is that I did not "jump" into multiple properties. I'd guess they bought in a new development that had no rental history and did not have a fixed mortgage and were counting on short term appreciation. I bought in an established area with mortgages I could afford and where I knew the rental market. I have not had a day of vacancy and rents are stable plus as a bonus I'm up almost $400K.

Now if you go to your spouse saying "little Billy won't stop using my best 9 iron to bang on my porsche" then you probably shouldn't be a landlord. You probably shouldn't have kids either but I don't see anyone advocating that here. YMMV

 

[pasadenaDC]

I'll be here in 30 years and that's Mr. Grandpa to you! Thanks to my real estate investments I'll be able to buy some 30 year old body for a transplant or clone a new one. But why wait 30 when I am confident that in less than ten anyone not buying now will wish they had because in the 80's everyone said I was "lucky" cause I bought in the 70's and in the 90's everyone said I was "lucky" I bought in the 80's blah blah and now everyone says I'm "lucky" I bought in 2003/2004. Do you see a trend here?

If you think I'm trying to teach it's only by example but you seem to be distracted by all the obstacles thrown your way. Two boom/bust. In my day we had those with two feet of snow, no internet, and no boomer parents leading us to believe we were entitled to better. Try graduating in the 70's. All we are saying is give real estate a chance!

If you go back through my posts you'll find a lot of info. Why won't you be the bigger whippersnapper and share your research?

I'd be willing to donate a kidney for some good investment advice

You're right though, sometimes us Gen-Y types are too focused on fast information and in fact, we've grown up being too overloaded with it to correctly process much of it (not to mention two boom/bust cycles where many of us lost our employment). RE investment is not a matter of IF but WHEN for me, so I'll try and share more especially through the spring of this year. My investment group (we don't pool together resources $$$ but rather information) having been putting things into place nicely, we'll see what happens. I have my F-I-F-U money in place and have a pretty long horizon of 30 years, so its time to take some risk and see what happens. Call it cautious optimism!

 

[REWahoo]

Call it cautious optimism!

Well, there is "cautious optimism" ...and then there is the other kind.

I'll be here in 30 years...

 

[honobob]

Well, there is "cautious optimism" ...and then there is the other kind.

Oh just for that I'll make sure my freeze-dried self comes to your town!

 

[pasadenaDC]

Somehow I am getting a Kiyosaki vibe here. Is bragging about your supposed success some kind of mental disease acquired from too much time spent evicting deadbeat tenants?

RDPD is a liar, cult of personality, and tout.... but

This being said, some of his principles do make sense to me and I have read a couple of his books. If nothing else, it does get the discussion going because most either love him or completely despise him. I'm in the minority that just tolerates him enough to not turn off the TV when his botoxed face starts yapping about something.