Posted by Mark (SDCA) on May 01, 2000 at 11:35:16:
You hit a home run with this one. I couldn’t agree more. It is interesting that on a site like this one which is about being creative and thinking outside the box, we see all these posts with words like always and never in them. Dangerous. I get the impression that people take Robert literally in terms of his definitions of assets and liabilities like it is gospel or something. I think taking the spirit of what he wrote is much more valuable. Specifically, that you can’t work 24 hours a day so you better get your money working for you.
I must admit I was a little disappointed. I read all his books and he apparently is a much better writer than speaker. He came across as muddled and inarticulate and I could see Oprah’s audience getting frustrated. He seemed to throw out alot of soundbites without properly explaining them. For example he kept emphasizing that one’s house is not an asset but a liability (fair enough, unless you paid cash for it) but then at one point he said one of his key ideas was to start paying himself first before bill collectors and then put the money toward assets, like his HOUSE! I’m curious to know what others thought.
I think HR hit the nail on the head when he said Kiyosaki is trying to shock people into thinking differently. He is forcing re-examination of their old-school definitions, goals and means of achieving them and like that old cliche says “getting off their assets”. No matter what the final individual outcome, just by stirring up new debate on “long-settled” principles Kiyosaki HAS truly achieved his goal. We have proved that right here. Thanks for all the responses.
given the amount of time he had to speak. I was, however, disappointed that he wasn’t given more air time.
I agree with what David Alexander said about there being too much clip and save $ air time.
I did like the fact that Paul Rodgers helped to reinforce what Robert said prior to his spotlight. Paul really hit a lot of what Robert said in his book.
I didn’t see the segment, so my comments are directed towards the other comments on this board.
It’s seems apparent that Kiyosaki was nervous or inarticulate for some reason.
The other point may be that the ideas presented in his book are so foreign to most of us regular folks that it’s hard to get the point across. We were brought up to think of our house as an asset, all the while knowing the bank owns the house. An asset isn’t an asset if it doesn’t produce income, equity or not.
My take on his book is that you build up enough income-producing assets to cover your debts and provide enough money to live on (whatever “enough” is to you). Once the asset side of your balance sheet far outweighs the debt site,you’re on the way to financial freedom. When all your assets are producing income to buy more assets, you’re the Rich Dad.
The flow charts in his book said more than his words, in many cases, and it’s hard to explain the concept without them.
Re: What did you think of Paul Rodgers? - Posted by J.P. Vaughan
Posted by J.P. Vaughan on April 29, 2000 at 06:43:11:
I think you misunderstood, Ben. He paid himself first
and then purchased investment real estate (remember the
picture of that first kittle house?).
Robert looked nervous - and was much more toned down than
usual. National TV, xx Million viewers…
In any event, I thought Paul Rodgers was a great example
of someone who actually implemented Robert’s ideas and
changed his life for the better. From $48K to $100K in
one year is pretty astounding. And they met each other
at our 1999 Convention in Dallas!
I didnt catch what you fully said until Brandi brought it up, so blame this on her, Lol.
Where do you get the fact that when he pays himself he pays off his assets. The first thing you do after paying yourself first is use that moeny with as high as leverage as possible to buy more assets, and so on.
Maybe you eventually pay off your house but that’s not necessarily a first priority.
Since it will always be a liability, then there are better things to do with the cash than to pay off what are generally low interest loans.
Slight adjustment in your translation… - Posted by Brandi_TX
Posted by Brandi_TX on April 28, 2000 at 18:43:15:
I agree that Robert’s segment was seriously lacking, and being that you have read his books, I would like to make one slight adjustment in your interpretaion.
In your post, you said, “For example he kept emphasizing that one’s house is not an asset but a liability (fair enough, unless you paid cash for it)…”.
I would like to point out that even if your house is paid in full, it is still a liability. (According to Robert’s definition.)
To follow his teaching, think of a liability as something that takes your money, and an asset as something that makes you money. So, along those lines, even if you own your house free and clear, it still costs you money to own it, thereby making it a liability. (Taxes, maintenance, etc.)
Now, if that same “paid in full” house was a rental, and all your expenses were paid from the rents recieved, and you have $$ leftover - THEN it is an asset.
I’m sure most of the people in the audience and who watched on TV aren’t going to make any changes in their lives. But there might be a few that were interested and will start reading and searching the net and probably end up right here! So let’s get ready to welcome them
It’s fine for us, though, that most people will continue to be good little bill payors, so we can get rich from their hard work LOL!
Majorally dissapointed. The show should have been titled “How To Save and Coupon Your Way to Save some Money”, not How to Get Rich.
I dont think it was Robert’s fault. He wasnt given the stage or any lead way to say what needed to be said. The only good exchange he was able to get out was pay yourself first. He was never able to hit the point home of Buy Assets, instead they kept going back to people that wanted to save their way to wealth.
I think there is problem with the translation when you are talking way over someone’s head, to much to close the gap.
Re: What did you think of Kiyosaki on Oprah? - Posted by Warner(ATL)
Posted by Warner(ATL) on April 28, 2000 at 17:08:28:
Ben,
Unfortunately, he was given very little time to go into the explanation of his ideas. It was clear that many in the audience were confused or needed more information to really understand his ideas. To his point, its hard to change and understand when you’ve learned about finance a certain way all of your life. This clearly was not going to happen on a talk show.
However, there were those who were shown bobbing their head up and down who understood what he was saying.
Re: What did you think of Kiyosaki on Oprah? - Posted by Matthew Chan
Posted by Matthew Chan on April 29, 2000 at 10:40:09:
I sensed that Robert tried to make every second count in conveying the message. It was kind of amazing. Some say they didn’t like his “sound bites” but at the same time, when he did develop the idea further, people were resistant.
I don’t think he was inarticulate. I just think his biggest challenge is having to dumb everything down to high-school level talk so that everyone can understand. But if one refuses to come out of that level, how can anything more be taught? What a dilemma. So I thought Robert did a good job given the conditions that was presented.
Yes, I agree. The charts are nice but I suspect that for many people, it will be the first time they ever saw a financial statement and even understand the ramifcations of the flow.
I was Thinking The Same thing - Posted by Scott (AK)
Posted by Scott (AK) on April 29, 2000 at 13:04:15:
I’ve taught an audience of around 200 before but never had the “priviledge” of sitting in front of some untold 30MILLION +. I think he had the right to be just a bit nervous.
Also, what I noticed, Robert seemed to be in the “defensive mode” in that I mean THEY were asking HIM the questions. That’s EXACTLY why I shoot for the seller to call ME. So I am in control.
The segment that caught my eye and required an entry into my journal was the segmant about the gentleman with the group of boys who set up the moving company. It caused me to do a lot of thinking about what I could offer my community once I retire from the Army. I think it would be very rewarding to take a young church group and teach them the “Art of The Business”.
I thought he was inspirational. Even a regular guy like a fireman could hit the big time. anybody know what his $300 home-based business is?
The other couple, Perry and Darla, were good too. (We were at the same table at Atlanta CREO “dress-up night”). Their video segment, however, may not have had the mass appeal of Paul’s. After all, they must have already been raking in big bucks to be able to have an expensive house and car to get rid of in the first place. I doubt there are a whole lot of “Oprahphiles” in that category.
Now that wedding segment, that was really something. Maybe I can get a contractor to sponsor a rehab??
he provided some real world answers to a demanding audience member who clearly wasn’t satisfied with Kiyosaki’s theories and sound bites. His ideas to start a home based business and find motivated sellers and properties in foreclosure was right on target.
(I just hope nobody was paying attention LOL !!)
I didn’t videotape it so I am going off memory but I recall when he was asked how paying himself first helped him, he said he put the money into assets, one of which was his house. This was just moments after his
spiel that a house was a liability not an asset. As to Brandi’s point she is right according to Robert’s overly simplistic definition “an asset is something that puts money in my pocket, a liability is something that takes money out of my pocket”. Of course my house costs money to maintain (liability) but it is owned free and clear by me (one hundred percent equity and no interest payments) and is worth 30% more than I paid for it three years ago. I can walk into any bank and pull out that appreciation and put it in my pocket. Therefore my house is something that puts money in my pocket (asset). Maybe Robert is referring to an asset as something that only generates LIQUID cash.
I love this debate. A house is an asset or is it a liability. I do agree that many times a house, especially with a big mortgage and minimal equity can be a liability.
On the other hand most of us don’t live in a tent or a cave so we must make some type of monthly or annual payment for our shelter. (Yes I could live in a cave and invest all my money in mutual funds at 20%, but let’s get real.) Taking that fact for granted that money that is invested in a personal residence (1) builds up equity by paying down a loan, (2) appreciates in value, and (3) has up to $500,000 in capital gains that are exempt from taxation, generally makes most personal residences in middle-class neighborhoods an asset.
I do think most of what Robert said about this issue is because so many people are taught to get the biggest house you can afford. Kind of like maxing out all your credit cards because you are able to borrow all that money.
Posted by Scott (AK) on April 28, 2000 at 20:41:55:
What about the fact that you could take that same money you bought a home with, invest it for a say 15% return on your investment. Then if you had a home loan paying 9% you still are making 6% over the cost of the home. So unless you have little knowledge of investing it’s not ALWAYS rule of thumb that the wisest thing is to have a home with no mortgage.
All I am saying is you might have that money tied up when you could be investing it. That’s a thought huh?
