kiyosaki has reached new low - unbelievable

[runchman]

Now the genius is comparing lottery tickets to mutual funds, and implying the lottery is a better deal.

what a total moron.

How about someone write book, "Smart advisor, Idiot advisor". Unlike kiyosaki's mythical 'rich dad', the 'idiot advisor' will be clearly identifiable as kiyosaki.

Ugh.

 

[4EAXFM]

I just saw his article on Yahoo myself. Judging from its rating, it appears the majority of the readers agree he's full of ca ca. I'm dying to know what investment he thinks has a big payoff with less risk than mutual funds.

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/richricher/30687

 

[4EAXFM]

Ok, someone's going to have to show me how to post a link without it looking so retarded. How do you make the link text something different from the URL itself?

 

[crazy connie]

I just saw his article on Yahoo myself. Judging from its rating, it appears the majority of the readers agree he's full of ca ca. I'm dying to know what investment he thinks has a big payoff with less risk than mutual funds.

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/richricher/30687

He wants us to invest in him!!! NOT with my dime!!! How do you spell idiot KIYOSAKI

When the H*** will the investing rags stop publishing his crap? They lose credibility with the drivel he spouts.

 

[Mwsinron]

Like that book him and Donald wrote? :

 

[lswswein]

I just saw his article on Yahoo myself. Judging from its rating, it appears the majority of the readers agree he's full of ca ca. I'm dying to know what investment he thinks has a big payoff with less risk than mutual funds.

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/richricher/30687

Idiot Kiyosaki

use the quote function to look at my post and you will figure out what I did; Simply after ] in the url function add the text you want

 

[4EAXFM]

Much obliged, lswswein!

 

[FinanceDude]

Further proof that I would be a LOT richer if I was totally clueless but had a GREAT PR person..............

 

[Nords]

kiyosaki has reached new low - unbelievable

Every time I think he can't go lower he exceeds my expectations.

He's also living proof of the aphorism that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

 

[FinallyRetired]

He wants us to invest in him!!! NOT with my dime!!! How do you spell idiot KIYOSAKI

He writes:

"If you really want to retire, look at other investments and work with someone who's willing to put in the time to help you retire soon and retire rich..."

He left out a word:

"If you really want to retire, look at other investments and work with someone who's willing to put in the time to help you retire soon and him retire rich..."

 

[Milton]

Wow. What a crazy article. He is doing real damage to those poor souls who listen to him.

In a sense, he is correct: an individual investor has no control over the ups and downs of the stock market, or the individual stock picks of the fund manager. But history shows that over the long-term, 'gambling' on the equity mutual funds has an infinitely better chance of success than playing lotteries.

I found the following statement (which appears to be the only 'evidence' offered in support of his claim that "mutual funds [are] a government-sponsored program that you have little chance of winning") very difficult to believe:

"I once heard a radio interviewer ask a representative of a large mutual fund about the fund's performance. The rep said it had risen in value by an average of 20 percent per year for the prior two years. But when the interviewer asked about the average return to the average investor in the fund, the representative responded that the average investor had actually lost 2 percent per year."

Point One: it strikes me as nearly impossible that when a particular mutual fund is returning 20% per year, the average investor in that fund is earning negative 2%;

Point Two: if the average investor was losing money in the fund, the fund's representative almost certainly would not volunteer that information, especially on public radio.

 

[d]

kiyosaki has reached new low

my initial reaction to the subject heading was: not possible. but after reading the "article" i must admit that i was wrong. indeed, a new low.

 

[FinallyRetired]

Point One: it strikes me as nearly impossible that when a particular mutual fund is returning 20% per year, the average investor in that fund is earning negative 2%;

That seems a bit extreme, but remember the bubble years and the internet funds? Few bought at the beginning and most bought chasing returns. I can believe that the fund reflected a 20% annual return but investors who jumped in after the fund had most of its gains probably wound up losing.

Doesn't support his point of not investing in funds, only supports a well allocated long term portfolio.

 

[REWahoo]

...it strikes me as nearly impossible that when a particular mutual fund is returning 20% per year, the average investor in that fund is earning negative 2%;

Soon is correct.

Although I loathe to think this will be interpreted as coming to the defense of that worthless piece of pond scum, I do think he has a grain of truth behind his statement. [Edit: Hey, I'm speaking of K here, not Soon. ]

I could not find the source, but a while back there was a study that showed something similar to what he reports. While over a two year period a fund may show a total gain of 20%, that gain was not linear. In all the ups and downs during that period, the natural tendency of the average investor to chase performance, buy high and sell low, results in much worse performance than that of the fund itself. I'm not sure it was as bad as K reports, but it is significantly worse than you might expect.

 

[Alex]

Clearly the fastest least riskiest way to riches is via Multi Level Marketing scams. schemes. :

 

[FinallyRetired]

Edit: Hey, I'm speaking of K here, not Soon. ]

Thanks REW, that distinction has not always been made for me

Here is the actual data, which exposes what a biased lying POS that guy is (K, not you)

http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/value/archive/2006/va1030.htm

"In one set of data, Morningstar divided up funds by volatility. In the one-fourth of funds that were the most volatile, investors earned an annualized 5.3% over the past ten years, while the funds themselves returned 8.1% annualized (all returns in this article are for the ten years that ended September 30). That's leaving a lot of money on the table. But in the one-fourth of funds that were the least volatile, investors and the funds returned exactly the same amount: 8.9%."

 

[Olav23]

I also love how he opens the article giving a CPA the "credit", to give his thoughts more weight:

According to Tom, and contrary to popular belief, none of these are wise investments. So here, in his own words, are his thoughts on the subject.

 

[Milton]

Here is the actual data, which exposes what a biased lying POS that guy is (K, not you)

Ah, but that's only half the data required ... I bet the historic returns from lotteries are much more impressive!

 

[Nords]

I could not find the source, but a while back there was a study that showed something similar to what he reports.

Isn't he referring to the Dalbar study?

The 2003 version seems a little closer to Kiyosaki's numbers.

 

[aenlighten]

Well, the average mutual fund has expenses over 1.5%, frequently has hefty commissions front, back, and sideways, large turnovers, loaded directors, advisors, and managers. Fees get heavier with size at the same time performance suffers due to size. Worse than the lottery is an exaggeration, but there are a lot of bad ones out there which conveniently disappear once their record becomes too bad and are folded into a better performing fund. Read Arthur Levinson or David Swensen for the pitfalls all too present among many.

 

[Milton]

Worse than the lottery is an exaggeration, but there are a lot of bad ones out there which conveniently disappear once their record becomes too bad and are folded into a better performing fund.

Absolutely correct. Most people are better off with ETFs or individual stocks. But mutual funds are currently the default option for novice investors, and scaring them away with nonsense about lotteries is hardly likely to encourage savings and investment (can't you just hear it: "It's a rigged game, Tom/Megan, you can't make any money so why bother? Let's just get a new car!").

 

[bssc]

After reading this, my conclusion is that the only logical investments are Amway and Phoenix real estate.

I think that the lottery returns 50 cents to the dollar while the stock market returns 110 cents to the dollar. But it seems a lot of people can't convert cents to dollars.

 

[Mwsinron]

Maybe Kiyosaki is making a new career field. We could call it comedic financial entertainment.

 

[NinjaPigeon]

my initial reaction to the subject heading was: not possible. but after reading the "article" i must admit that i was wrong. indeed, a new low.

You read my mind This article is so amazing I wish I could show it off!

 

[rockyj]

...But it seems a lot of people can't convert cents to dollars.

Or perhaps "sense to dollars"