Intresting Read on Mutual Funds by Kiyosaki

[dazraf69]

Robert Kiyosaki Why the Rich Get Richer

Mutual Funds Get Greedy

by Robert Kiyosaki
Posted on Monday, February 5, 2007, 3:00AM

http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/arti...chricher/23654

[plomahaaaa]

So I guess Bogle is implying that Vanguard funds aren't "greedy."

[wdcbooks]

That is one of the worst arguments for a position that is otherwise defensible that I have ever read. Kiyosaki is such a moron. Why not read Bogle directly, rather than strain it through Kiyosaki's bastardization and simplification?

[skierdude1000]

kiyosaki = trash conman

[DesertCat]

I'll bet having Kiyosaki as a "supporter" makes Bogle's skin crawl.

What Kiyosaki doesn't say is that Bogle is making these arguments in favor of index funds vs. actively managed funds. Kiyosaki won't simply summarize that reason because directly contradicts the snake oil Kiyosaki sells.

Bogle says active management isn't worth the extra fees, that passive investing is the best option for the vast majority of investors. He also counsels against activity, that buying and holding will beat the active investor over time. And he presents very compelling statistics that this is true.

Kiyosaki tells people that all mutual funds, including index funds, are for suckers, and that active investors get rich (IPO'S! Copper Mines! High Yield Certificates, Real Estate! Start your own corporation in order to commit tax fraud!).

Kiyosaki is really the anti-Bogle.

And And Bogle is basically a pariah at Vanguard, because he is so militant against active management and excessive fees that he tends to dump on every new product they come up with. Mutual fund managers hate a guy who points out how overpaid they are.

[dazraf69]

[ QUOTE ]
kiyosaki = trash conman

[/ QUOTE ]

I think some of his suggestions have some value to them. The vast majority of this country has driven themselves into debt. His suggestion for financial education can't be denied. He presents his ideas in a fashion by which the common person can atleast begin to gain intrest in finacial security. To say he is a conman or an idiot seems ignorant in of itself.

[wdcbooks]

No, he is still a conman. You can prove he really likes puppies and Dickensian orphans, but if he writes books that directly suggest people commit illegal acts then he is a con man.

How is the 'common man' supposed to figure out what part of what he writes is criminal and what part is good financial planning? There isn't even a way to figure out what part of his own life story is true or false.

[Acein8ter]

Kiyosaki's first 2 books are worth reading, RDPD and CFQ. The rest is a regurgiation of material. You don't even need to buy them, just go to the public library.

He thinks a little bit 'outside' of the box as far as investments. A bit on the aggressive side - Investing in IPO's and penny stocks. Focusing your investments into a few w/higher returns rather than spreading out your money that produces medeocre returns...

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Kiyosaki's first 2 books are worth reading, RDPD and CFQ. The rest is a regurgiation of material. You don't even need to buy them, just go to the public library.

He thinks a little bit 'outside' of the box as far as investments. A bit on the aggressive side - Investing in IPO's and penny stocks. Focusing your investments into a few w/higher returns rather than spreading out your money that produces medeocre returns...

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read the first book, as has been described on this thread, it was full of hot hair and non specific advice, beyond recommendations to commit tax fraud.

The problem with his advice for 99% of people is, they already get worse than mediocre returns. Most people try to actively managed their funds when they don't have the time, ability or even inclination. They'd be much better off in index funds, where they'd get the market returns without being ripped of or making huge mistakes.

Kiyosaki's investment advice is akin to trying to kill lice with a blow torch... Dangerous and painful...