'Rich Dad Poor Dad' Author Says He's Racked Up More Than $1 Billion in Debt (marketwatch.com) 196
A bestselling personal finance author and entrepreneur admits that he has more than $1 billion in debt -- and he doesn't think that's a bad thing. From a report: "If I go bust, the bank goes bust," said "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" author Robert Kiyosaki in a Nov. 30 Instagram reel. "Not my problem." That's because his debt has been used to purchase assets, he said in the video. He compared that with using debt to purchase liabilities, such as his Ferrari or Rolls-Royce vehicles -- expenses he's paid off in full, he said.
"I'm a billion dollars in debt because debt is money," Kiyosaki said during an interview on the "Disruptors" podcast. It connects to his strategy of using cash earnings to purchase precious metals like gold or silver, which Kiyosaki argues will retain their value while the U.S. dollar fluctuates: "toilet paper," he called it. Kiyosaki is one of the country's most well-known personal finance personalities. His 1997 book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad," which was originally self-published, has sold more than 40 million copies.
"I'm a billion dollars in debt because debt is money," Kiyosaki said during an interview on the "Disruptors" podcast. It connects to his strategy of using cash earnings to purchase precious metals like gold or silver, which Kiyosaki argues will retain their value while the U.S. dollar fluctuates: "toilet paper," he called it. Kiyosaki is one of the country's most well-known personal finance personalities. His 1997 book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad," which was originally self-published, has sold more than 40 million copies.
If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:4, Insightful)
...then It becomes the banks' problem to keep you afloat, because they don't want to write off that kind of money. Also takes a lot of chutzpah. This is pretty much the story of Donald Trump's business empire - it seemingly swims in a sea of red ink, but no one dares stop the merry-go-round.
That said, this guy's company filed for bankruptcy in 2012. If banks have lent him more money since, they are throwing good money after bad.
Re: If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:3)
As long as you are paying the interest it doesnâ(TM)t really matter to the bank. Companies like Apple also have billions in debt. That is how investment works, you buy an asset with the hopes it produces more money than it costs you.
Banks will repossess the asset if you stop payment, they wonâ(TM)t fail over a billion dollars. Generally they have investigated and think that if they ran the asset such as a factory or housing complex then they could still make a profit and the reason you donâ(T
Re: If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as you are paying the interest it doesn't really matter to the bank.
True, but only as long as the bank believes you'll continue to make the payments and you have collateral they can seize should you not make the payments.
That gets to what I found misleading about the headline. Sure, he may have $1 billion in loans but TFA didn't explain what assets he has. If he used the $1 billion to buy gold which is now worth $2 billion, they it looks like it was a good move. I assume that's what he's talking about making the distinction between buying assets and liabilities. Sure would have been nice for the article to get just a bit more explicit here.
Re: If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:4, Interesting)
"I assume that's what he's talking about making the distinction between buying assets and liabilities."
Yes and no. That is where the criticism of him comes from. He uses his own semantics when it comes to assets and liabilities and traditional finance doesn't like the way he redefines the terms. Basically he doesn't define these terms based on "worth" but instead based on positive versus negative cashflow. If something carries a negative cashflow, like a home or a car, he considers it a liability regardless of 'value' whereas if the net cash flow is positive he considers it an asset.
These definitions might not sound good to traditional finance who wants you to think of the million dollar piece of real estate you own as a million dollar asset rather than a $65,000/year tax and maintenance liability.
Re: (Score:2)
Then he isn't $1B "in debt". He may be $1B in debt to SOMEONE. But to use that term without qualifiers is to suggest a total net worth of -$1B.
I currently have about $7k in credit debt,but I have more than $20k in cash, then more in stocks and other liquid assets. I would not say I'm $7k "in debt".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well it depends on time scale. Over short periods of time you are seeing the both dollar volatility of gold-to-dollars and dollar-to-commodity as you suggest.
Now zoom way out, and take the dollars out of the picture. How many oz of gold purchased how many ounces of wheat in 1924, how about in 2024?
Gold really works as an inter-generational wealth store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If you can get banks to lend you $billions.. (Score:2)
"gold", not "folks", folks.
Spellfsck.
Re: If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:4, Informative)
He clearly stated that debt was used to asset purchase. Which almost certainly means that these are asset-backed loans. If he defaults, he loses the asset to the bank.
Re:If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:5)
Maybe things work differently in the US, but what he is saying sounds like the opposite of how things actually are.
He describes his cars as "liabilities", but they are assets. If he goes bankrupt, they will be sold off to cover his debts, right?
And as for investing in precious metals, isn't it always better to invest in the stock market with a diverse portfolio? Over time the market always out-performs metals. In fact, even a decent savings account does, because it pays interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd have done better with metals.
Gold yes +11%
Silver no -1%
Platinum no -8%
Re: If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Check out Ally or SoFi. They'll get you 4.6% or so.
Re:If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:5, Informative)
"assets" = appreciating assets
"liabilities" = depreciating assets
But, this whole article is playing with words to create a story. If somebody says "I'm $300k in debt" what they would normally mean is their net worth is -$300k. Somebody with a healthy income who takes out a mortgage for $300K doesn't say "I'm $300K in debt." But that's precisely what this is. His debt is in real estate, which has so far been and is expected to be an appreciating asset. It might turn out to be a bad investment and get repossessed, but there's no particular reason to expect that.
Re:If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't what Kiyosaki says. It has nothing to do with the 'value' but rather cash flow. If it carries a net negative cash flow he considers it a liability, if a net positive then it is an asset. A million dollar property with maintenance costs alone is a liability no matter how much it is 'worth' because you lose money by owning it, the same property used to generate enough revenue to result in a net $1 gain per cycle is an asset because you gain money by owning it.
He might not be the greatest financial
Re: (Score:3)
He should stop playing with terms on this stuff. Asset and liability already have clear meanings. There's no value in his alternate definitions.
Re: (Score:3)
He should stop playing with terms on this stuff. Asset and liability already have clear meanings. There's no value in his alternate definitions.
Oh, there definitely is value... It lets him appear smart and savvy so he can sell books and seminars to the rubes.
He really lost me when he mocked the US dollar for being a fiat currency, which is true. Then he sings the praises of crypto currency... which is also a fiat currency.
Hell, at least you could still plant the tulip bulbs when that craze went bust.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes he is but he's usefully correct here. His definitions are helpful to the financially illiterate person who views anything that can be sold (has value) as an asset and ends up wasting their money on depreciating items. For them his books are a revelation.
For others his books are rambling, motivational fluff. I suspect all of his anecdotes are fiction and most of his wealth came from books sales and the talk circuit, not actual investment.
Re: If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:2)
"with land in your hand
you'll be happy on Earth,
then invest in the church for your heaven..."
Re: (Score:2)
"I think the decoder ring for his personal definition is:
"assets" = appreciating assets
"liabilities" = depreciating assets
Sort of, at least for his core financial advice it is about cash flow rather than 'values' but I've really only read his original book played his game. Gold itself would be neutral but a business trading gold which generates positive net revenue would be an asset until or unless its revenue goes negative.
Re:If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole assets are liabilities thing has been his shtick to sell books on infomercials in the 1990's. In a sense he's not wrong. You may own your car and could sell it for money, but as long as you keep it you are probably losing money on that car paying for insurance and registration. Real estate on the other hand can increase in value and you could rent it out and you can write off many of the expenses in real estate through a tax mechanism called depreciation. It's not universal but it's not a concept exclusive to the US.
Precious metals are usually garbage in my opinion. But they can't go to zero. While a stock can be pink listed and is effectively worthless. But most people would have pulled out before that happens, so it's not a fair comparison. I do invest in precious metals in an indirect way. I invested a little bit in companies that sell futures, because I figured there are a lot of dumbasses buying precious metals whenever the economy goes south. I ended up never selling that investment because it kept up with inflation, unlike my savings account. (those are a huge scam in the US. banks are really useless for average people here)
Re: (Score:2)
"The whole assets are liabilities thing has been his shtick to sell books on infomercials in the 1990's. In a sense he's not wrong. You may own your car and could sell it for money, but as long as you keep it you are probably losing money on that car paying for insurance and registration. Real estate on the other hand can increase in value and you could rent it out and you can write off many of the expenses in real estate through a tax mechanism called depreciation. It's not universal but it's not a concept
Re: (Score:2)
inflation rates briefly went above my current mortgage rate. I imagine if someone picked up a billion in debt before the pandemic that even doing nothing they are still in good shape. And if they used that cash and got a 10% return on investment? they're doing great.
Devil is in the details with finances and investing. My problem with most of what Robert Kiyosaki is quoted as saying is it is only the catchy truisms used to sell books. Most people haven't heard his financial advice but only his sales pitch. M
Re:If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:5, Informative)
For quite a few years the interest in Euros were negative. While most consumers managed in various ways to avoid ever paying negative interest (yes, the bank would take money for having money with them!) bigger entities couldn't do that. The ones trying to avoid the negative interest (including relatively rich cities from Germany!!!) actually lost their money when the bank just went bust from just having too many deposits! Because a fraction of the deposits had to be with the central bank and they had to be paid this negative interest! Imagine that, for the safety of the deposits and to avoid the bank going bust some of the money sits with the central bank AND THEY HELP THEMSELVES FROM THEM of course making the bank completely unviable. You can't make these things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely this, they went to a bank that wasn't charging this negative interest (but I'm sure was meeting all the requirements, not only in general for banks in Germany - which I guess are plenty of requirements- but also to keep lots of public money there). The ironic part is that the whole mechanism was built to prevent bank runs and generally help banks with liquidity. Instead it took away money constantly, for no good reason, just the opposite.
Re:If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:5, Informative)
In Kiyosaki's analysis, a luxury car (those were the kind he mentioned) is a liability because it is not being used to generate income. Also its value decreases over time (rapidly, in fact, compared to other things), so it is not a good store of value. On top of that, luxury cars are quite expensive compared to normal cars that can get you where you need to go just as well.
It is still true that a luxury car of a few years of age, well-maintained, can be sold for a good chunk of money (to cover debts if necessary), but it is still significantly less than what it was bought for, so there is a significant net loss.
Something like precious metals tends to hold their value over time, and in many cases increases value over time, so they are a much more reliable way of storing wealth. They still aren't great assets though, because they still aren't generating income.
True assets generate income. The diverse stock portfolio is an example of such a thing. Though owning businesses and/or rental real estate is even better, in Kiyosaki's analysis. He is much more interested in things that generate "passive income" than in things that could be sold later for more money than they were bought for (though both still qualify as assets).
A savings account only barely qualifies as an asset, because the interest is something like 3%. It barely keeps up with inflation, which means it isn't generating wealth (even though it is generating money). And often it falls behind inflation, making it a liability again. On top of all that, the saving's account is just a pile of dollars (unlike a stock which is a share of a profitable business that is merely measured in dollars when calculating net asset value). Dollars are very bad stores of wealth because their value is based on nothing (fiat money) and fluctuates a lot.
The quotes given in the summary here were given without any context, so they are bound to be misunderstood. Also, most people are not billionaires or even multi-millionaires, and as such most people don't think of wealth in the same way that such people do. Some of the things that are sound and reasonable to a billionaire seem really strange to ordinary working people, due to this gulf in education and experience.
And about debt (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry for responding to my own post but there is a bit more to say about debt.
Normal working-class people usually borrow money for one reason: to live beyond their means. This ultimately makes them less wealthy and keeps them trapped in debt, which works out badly for them.
Rich people borrow for two reasons: 1. to reduce the cost of the item purchased, 2. to leverage someone else's money for one's own profit.
In the first case, a rich person might borrow money to buy a house because they wind up spending less that way over time. It is sometimes hard to understand how that works out without running the numbers. Basically, if the house costs half a million dollars and you just pay for that in cash, that half a million dollars is now stagnant. It's just sitting out on a field doing nothing. If, instead, I borrow that half million from someone else, and take MY half million and invest it in pure bonds, that half a million will generate me a steady income stream of 5% of its wealth (about 25,000 a year). So if the interest rate I must pay on the house is less than 5%, I am actually making money on my debt (though not very much, in this case).
The above is the analysis when you buy things that you intend to use yourself (house, car, yacht, etc.). The better use for debt is to borrow other people's money to buy a business or other thing that will make a lot of money (much more than 5%), without you having to do a lot of work. Leveraging other people's money for your own profit is the fastest ladder you can climb for upward social mobility.
So that's why being a billion dollars in debt doesn't matter. Even though he is paying interest on that debt, he is making much more money off of that debt than what he is paying for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those two meanings are not "the same reason stated differently."
Living beyond one's means is done by buying things one can't afford. People get the thing they want by borrowing, and now they have a lot of debt to pay off over many years, and if they ever actually DO pay it off, they have spent more than they would have spent if they had just saved up for it and paid cash.
In the second two senses (reducing the cost, leveraging other's money for profit) the person making the purchase might actually have enou
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point but perhaps others don't, about living beyond your means. I'll use my sister and her husband as a explanatory example.
They choose to always have two newish cars, too large for their means. Right now, a newish SUV and a pickup. Probably paid 30-40k for each. I have a 2010 Kia Soul bought used for $9k, paid off 8 years ago and still running fine. No car payments in those 8 years. Their house cost much more than mine - difference of 150k (350k vs 500k).
Together, they make less money than
Re: (Score:2)
This is an accurate summary of what Kiyosaki's preaches. His own personal success or failure in its application is just an anecdote, firstly because one can always fail to account for all costs when considering cash flow and secondly because all investment carries risk. One can make what are absolutely the right investment decisions based on current information and still end up holding a bag of steaming horrible decisions in the bright light of hindsight.
I tend to think Kiyosaki's system has merit but the m
Re: (Score:3)
Your understanding is correct in business accounting terms, but Mr. Kiyosaki asserts that things are slightly different in terms of personal finance.
If I not-hypothetically bought a $100,000 Cybertruck with debt tomorrow, I'd receive an asset arguably worth $100k and the loan would be a $100k liability.
The value of that Cybertruck is unlikely to appreciate as a function of time. In five years, it might be worth 20% of its original value. (Call me an optimist.) By Mr. Kiyosaki's definition that represents
Re: (Score:2)
Except that 99% of everything you buy will decline in value. You might get lucky and find something which turns out to be worth far more than you bought it [theguardian.com], but that is the rarity. Even the forks and spoons you buy to eat will decline in value if you try to resell them.
If you're going to use debt, either pay it off before the interest hits (such as credit cards) or pay it down as quickly as p
Re: (Score:2)
... Don't use debt to buy things that decline in value is not the worst personal finance advice I've ever heard.
Anyone with decent credit can use leverage. For example, if you take on debt to purchase a vehicle, you have a predictable cost for transportation that you use to get a better job and improve your standard of living - if you limit your view to the future value of the vehicle, you miss how leverage can be applied elsewhere in your life.
(and of course, stay away from $100k cybertrucks lol).
Re: (Score:2)
"If I not-hypothetically bought a $100,000 Cybertruck with debt tomorrow, I'd receive an asset arguably worth $100k and the loan would be a $100k liability."
Yes! And, conversely, for the bank (instead of you) - the 100K loan you took out with them is considered an asset to the bank. It makes them money. And, if you deposited 100K in that same bank, they consider that a liability (cause they have to pay it back to you at some point, or at least be able to pay it back to you).
Kind of like relativity - it
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe things work differently in the US, but what he is saying sounds like the opposite of how things actually are.
He describes his cars as "liabilities", but they are assets. If he goes bankrupt, they will be sold off to cover his debts, right?"
That is where criticism of him comes from. He redefines the terms asset and liability on the basis of cash flow rather than 'value.' If something carries a negative cash flow and costs money to own it a liability under his system whereas if it generates positive ne
Re: (Score:2)
"He describes his cars as "liabilities", but they are assets" - That depends on how you define an Asset. To Kiyosaki, an asset is something that puts money in your pocket every month. For example, a savings bond that pays interest, a rental property that produces monthly rental income.
When it comes to cars, I think it's more accurate to describe them as depreciating assets. If you buy a car for $30,000 and a year later the bank repossesses the car how much will the car be worth? Likely around $24,000 or so.
Re: (Score:3)
...then It becomes the banks' problem to keep you afloat, because they don't want to write off that kind of money. Also takes a lot of chutzpah. This is pretty much the story of Donald Trump's business empire - it seemingly swims in a sea of red ink, but no one dares stop the merry-go-round.
That said, this guy's company filed for bankruptcy in 2012. If banks have lent him more money since, they are throwing good money after bad.
At that level, it's more about having high level contacts within banks who will just rubber stamp whatever you want.
For all the talk about the Epstein name non-event, thats exactly the kind of place where bankers and wankers schmooze. The epitome of "fake it until you make it" but a lot never truly make it.
Trumps recent antics have cost a few higher ups in certain finance organisations their jobs (DB, Mazars).
Re: (Score:2)
"At that level, it's more about having high level contacts within banks who will just rubber stamp whatever you want."
Nonsense, the banks rubber stamp whatever they want because they generally make the banks money. It is that simple. If someone has a history of finding/creating stable revenue generation it is in the bank's interest to facilitate that even if the margins are very low, the more stable the lower the needed revenue because ultimately you are competing with the laughably low rate of treasuries.
Re:If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Donald Trump is in real estate. There is nothing wrong with debt there. If you identify a property that will pay out $1.2b over ten years and get the bank to loan you the $1 billion both you and the bank have made a very sound decision and they'd be fools not to lend you the next billion when you find a similar opportunity in six months. It really doesn't matter how much debt you rack up, if the debt is backed by assets and the cash flow is positive or will be once the borrowed funds are used/debt is restructured.
That is why as long as the debt is backed by assets the bank can borrow (and lend) another multiple of their value in the fractional reserve banking system. This is what we call 'good' debt and it grows the economy.
As for the Rich Dad, Poor Dad guy... he did file bankruptcy in one of his many companies but it was due to an award of $27 million filed by a guy who claimed he was owed a cut in the speaking engagement revenue. That particular company only had about $17m and Robert had no obligation to pay from his other companies or personal assets so the company folded. It had nothing to do with financial mismanagement.
Re: (Score:2)
Since he was awarded 27 million I'd say his claim was pretty strong. Having liabilities(real, not this
Re: If you can get banks to lend you $billions... (Score:2)
If you default they will repossess and liquidate your collateral.
Debt is money.... (Score:2)
Failure is success!
Freedom is prison!
Man is woman!
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is not truth
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Debt is money. That's what power players do, they rake up debt and keep trading that debt around. It has the additional benefit of, in most case, being tax free, as nominally you're perpetually going from -$x to -$y to -$z, and there's no tax on debts.
Taxes are for the middle class, people who keep moving around the positive side of the axis. Rich folk know how to be efficiently, richly, wealthily "broken" 100% of the time.
Oh, and just for the record, f**k your transphobia.
Re: (Score:2)
How many loaves of bread will the grocery store sell me for my $500 credit card debt?
Unless the answer is a positive number, debt is not money.
Re: (Score:2)
You're poor or middle class, and deals only with other poor or middle classe people, so you don't know how to use a situation of permanent indebtedness to avoid paying taxes. Google something like "rich people avoid taxes by borrowing money" and you'll find dozens of articles explaining the exact techniques rich people above a certain wealth level have to switch from using positive to negative money as the preferred way to protect themselves from taxes.
Notice that's not for someone who has a few millions at
Re: (Score:2)
"Debt has some counterintuitive financial uses for the rich" is not the same thing as "Debt is money".
Re: (Score:2)
That misses the point completely. Money is a facilitator for the exchange goods and services, it has no value of its own outside those relations. A $100 bill, for instance, is basically a promise -- of being able to acquire a certain range of goods and services in the future. No more, no less.
A debt certificate has the same "power" of working as a promise of goods and services being exchanged in the future. The arrow of the promise is inverted compared to a $100 bill, but as long as the promising parties ar
Re: (Score:2)
I know his statement sounds silly. I think what he's getting at is "it takes money to make money." If you don't have a pile of cash lying around, you can borrow the capital instead. Lots of people and corporations do this all the time (e.g. when the Ghostbusters mortgaged Ray's house to fund their business).
Personally, I'm not going to borrow money to buy gold. I'm even too risk-averse to borrow money to start a company. I'll just work for a paycheck and invest any salary I don't need to spend right now.
He's not wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Lots of people take on debt for profit. At the lower end of the scale, how many people drop cash on a car? Most get financing - debt - and then use the car to get to and from work to make money. Starting a small business usually starts with a trip to the bank for a loan.
If you have a billion in debt, you probably have enough income from whatever you purchased with that money to cover the payments on it... or it's not terribly likely you'd have reached the billion-in-debt level. I know if I walk into the bank and ask for a billion dollars I'm going to get nothing but odd looks and a firm 'no'.
Re: (Score:2)
>>If you have a billion in debt, you probably have enough income from whatever you purchased with that money to cover the payments on it.
In the era of low interest rates and high investment returns, that was pretty easy. Now that we're into high interests rates and lower returns, it's much harder and you could lose big if you're over leveraged.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but that mostly impacts NEW capital, the impact on existing debt that was issued with low rates is less.
This is the general strategy of the administration. Declare class mobility potential doesn't exist. Adopt policies which make capital more expensive and reduce opportunities to eliminate the potential for class mobility. Pump out welfare so the growing pool of people falling into poverty [because of them] are actually grateful to them and think they've helped them because the welfare benefit is simp
Re: (Score:2)
If your investment portfolio is reasonably well-constructed, then yes, low-interest debt can be a good thing, because you're earning more on your investments than the bank is charging you in interest on your debt. But this is pretty much entirely irrelevant for ordinary working-class people whose investment portfolio is generally rather limited and not nearly diverse enough for investing borrowed money to be safe.
It's
Re: (Score:2)
"But this is pretty much entirely irrelevant for ordinary working-class people whose investment portfolio is generally rather limited and not nearly diverse enough for investing borrowed money to be safe."
You mean like their mortgage?
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of people take on debt for profit. At the lower end of the scale, how many people drop cash on a car? Most get financing - debt - and then use the car to get to and from work to make money. Starting a small business usually starts with a trip to the bank for a loan.
If you have a billion in debt, you probably have enough income from whatever you purchased with that money to cover the payments on it... or it's not terribly likely you'd have reached the billion-in-debt level. I know if I walk into the bank and ask for a billion dollars I'm going to get nothing but odd looks and a firm 'no'.
One of the problems exacerbated by the kind of nonsense published in this morons book is people getting into debt they don't need, debt on depreciating assets or even worse, debt for consumption. Too many people, particularly in the US are getting more debt than they can handle in order to get a car they don't need. As long as they make the monthlies at time of signing and the sales arse can get his commish, it's all golden. However people were getting into debt up to their eyeballs getting the latest truck
Define "assets" (Score:2)
In his book he defined "asset" as something that brings cash in. Liability as something that causes cash to be spent.
The main route to financial freedom he proposed was to become a landlord or otherwise find "assets" on the cheap to get passive income.
That's how the Rolls Royce becomes an example of "liability".
Re: (Score:2)
While agree that the definitions sound quite sensible, it is NOT a exactly sign of an actual expert if the first thing he does is redefining widely acknowledged technical terms.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, he was right for his (non-technical) audience.
For most people, cars are liabilities: they cost money, provide little to no income, and deprecate rapidly. If you need one to work it's an investment, but not really an asset: most cars are not worth what you paid for them.
So while technically the term is correct (it's an asset because it is worth money), for most people it is much better to call it a liability.
Re: Define "assets" (Score:2)
"not really an asset: most cars are not worth what you paid for them"
Which is called a depreciating asset. Still an asset.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is called a depreciating asset. Still an asset.
If I remember what my accountant spouse told me, the depreciation gets treated as a cost. So most cars are assets which generates costs, not income.
Unless, of course, it does generate net income, e.g. a contractor who bought a truck to haul around his tools and material. This is not earth-shattering stuff. People borrow money to fund businesses all the time. Near as I can tell, Kiyosaki's important point is that you should borrow money to buy assets which generate passive income so you can go out and play g
Why is antisocial behavior becoming the norm? (Score:5, Insightful)
The silent majority needs to speak up against corruption, lies and anti-social behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
The attitude that it's the bank's problem ignores the fact that banks get bailed out by the taxpayer. It's basically saying "It's not my problem if I fail, because you will pay for my mistakes." In Trump-speak he's smart.
The silent majority needs to speak up against corruption, lies and anti-social behavior.
There is a reason they're silent... when they speak up they are viciously beaten down.
To withstand that you need to be unified and we've had 40+ years of any form of collective power wielded by average people being demonised, everything from unions to municipal projects to people getting together to share a resource is now considered wrong and immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
everything from unions to municipal projects to people getting together to share a resource is now considered wrong and immoral.
Thing is in america every collective seems to immediately go to corruption. Unions, HOAs and any kind of "temporary levy for the construction of.." which become horrible, abusive, permanent and increasing every year. In order to get people on board you need to provide them assurances of how this can't and won't happen otherwise they'll just look at the endless examples of their fears coming true and vote based on that perceived reality. It makes it trivial for Amazon et. al to union bust when they barely ev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What quantifies a "worthless college degree"? Getting a law degree would be considered to be worthless if the field is already flush with law degree recipients. Getting a teaching degree is pretty much "worthless" because teachers get paid bupkis. Getting a degree in gender studies, I guess, would be worthless because practical application outside of academia is nil. But then, a lot of the social sciences also falls under that category. As well as archaeology and anthropology/ Most of the pure sciences, suc
Re: (Score:2)
Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=... [google.com]
How does the old saying go? (Score:3)
When you owe the bank 10 thousand, that's your problem.
When you owe the bank 10 million, that's the banks problem.
Re: (Score:2)
When you owe the bank 10 million, that's the banks problem.
True, but what people in that situation have found is that sometimes the bank's solution to the problem is to call in the debt. You were quite happy with your appreciating assets and the debt that bought them, but the bank gave you the loan contingent on being allowed to re-evaluate your credit worthiness at any time and if they decide you're not good for it anymore, they force your hand. Smaller debts tend to be completely unsecured and the bank can't change their minds, but the big debts that companies op
Small update (Score:3)
If he goes bust, the banks will seize his assets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's a scammer (Score:2)
There's a lot of evidence out there that Kiyosaki has misrepresented his assets and other successes.
Gen X coming of age financial classic turned sour (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gen X coming of age financial classic turned so (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
#ad (Score:2)
Thanks, slashdot, for posting an ad for this guy to get even more money.
Gotta sell more books!
Brain dead liar dad (Score:2)
Half of what Robert Kiyosaki says is BS (Score:2)
Why anyone would take what Robert Kiyosaki says on IG or TikTok as gospel is beyond me.
US$ 1,000 in debt (Score:2)
Nothing beats having shy of $ 1,000 in debt that will be paid by the end of the month.
Re: (Score:3)
I am so proud of you!
A latte, a latte, my cattle for a latte! (Score:3, Funny)
From the article, "He’s told his followers that “cash is trash” and that he doesn’t trust the U.S. dollar, calling it “fake.” Instead, he’s recommended investing in assets like precious metals, bitcoin or Wagyu cattle."
I thought this was great advice, so I tried to pay for my Starbucks' caramel apple spice espresso macchiato with a Wagyu steer. It was a bit awkward getting that bull over the counter, but otherwise, no problem. They tried to give me change in gold bullion, but I saw that the spot market of gold prices was dropping that morning, so I asked for Dogecoin instead. Et voila! 90 minutes later I was sipping my (by then) cold coffee. Easy peasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Precious metals, really? (Score:3)
I agree that holding cash is a bad idea simply because inflation is pretty much always going to be positive. But there are better things to own than precious metals. Those are commodities and go up and down due to speculation. Yes, they have a floor, unlike something like bitcoin, but gold e.g. is almost always over-valued compared to its true industrial value. The only reason to hold precious metals is because you believe you can trade them to someone else for something you want in the future. But while they're sitting there, they do nothing of value, and in the worst case they cost you to store them (if you own enough of them).
What you want to own is a machine where you can feed in something of lower value and it pumps out something of higher value. In layman's terms, this is a business. The entire point of a business is to produce profit. The "proper" value of a business is all the future earnings of the business with a suitable discount rate applied to convert it into today's money. A business not only generates profit (and presumably pays dividends) while you're holding it, but it'll probably still be an ongoing concern in the future and you can sell it, again for the net present value of its future profits at that time.
He is everything that is wrong with capitalism. (Score:2)
I will say one thing about his book (Score:2)
Economic Terrorism (Score:2)
money IS debt (Score:2)
Old joke (Score:2)
If you owe someone 10 grand, he got you by the balls.
If you owe someone a billion, you got him by the balls.
Was anyone here planning on buying his book? (Score:2)
If so, I have a bridge for sale.
Basics of trading (Score:2)
Borrowing assets, in particular cash, is at the centre of any kind of trading.
Why is that a revelation?
Re: Buy gold & diamonds. Aren't they good to e (Score:2)
If there's no society, there are no people. If there are no people, there's no demand for food. So food won't be very valuable either. Stockpiling anything in migrant apocalypse is counter productive, including food or gold.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dude is delusional (Score:3)
He doesn't need an army. Just an LLC.