Talk:Robert Kiyosaki/Archive 1

Older comments
The MLM bit is out of place. It seems as if Kiyosaki is being faulted for his association with a perfectly legal and actually quite impressive business model. 81.159.175.61 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * MLM is considered sketchy by a lot of people, I think it is appropriate to list it under controversies and let the reader decide for themselves what to make of it. TastyCakes (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This page seems more like a bashing feast than an actual informative wikipedia page. Godgeddoe 14:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In several of his books he makes claims about his accomplishments which appear to be exaggerations, fabrications or misdirection.Some have questioned Kiyosaki's status as a successful investor and businessman prior to the formation of his present venture, CASHFLOW Technologies, Inc...."Some of these items do not agree with records and may have been stated for "dramatic effect". In several of his books he makes claims about his accomplishments which appear to be exaggerations, fabrications or misdirection."

Any accomplishment in particular that appears to be false?

"Some have questioned Kiyosaki's status as a successful investor and businessman prior to the formation of his present venture, CASHFLOW Technologies, Inc. They claim that his wealth has come only as a result of selling books and audio presentations about topics he has not personally succeeded in and that he is probably worth far less than the $50 to $100 million USD he once claimed in an interview. They note he has claimed to be bankrupt as recently as 1985, a high school dropout and a deserter from the military."

Perhaps we can fix this up, as while it is important to show these things, I really think this bit is a put up job.

1. He has admitted he went Bankrupt, almost in every book he has written. 2. He is not a high school dropout (although he has called himself that), he failed two semester of English, which then he passed and then went to a Military College. Passed up a job that could of earned him over $80,000 a year and went and fought with the US marines in Vietnam as a helicopter gunship pilot. 3. As for a deserter can we back this up please?? - I doubt this to be true. As he seemed to be in the military when he came back to Hawaii from Vietnam according to my information. 4. As for not being worth the amount he is worth - He closed on US$10M worth of real estate investments in 2002 within one month.

This note has been up for a while, so here is the deal. If no one is going to fix it I will edit some postings, but I will still try and keep it objective.


 * Evidence that he has ever been a real estate investor?

---

There's a lot of interesting information about Robert Kiyosaki. I'm trying to add some of it, while still keeping things NPOV and factual.


 * Wow, I can't believe we have such a diminutive page on this guy. Much expansion is possible. Paul 05:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There are a bunch of books (4-5) that have come out since the ones listed in the article. I added blurbs on a couple of them. Can someone critique and/or expand my entries, and add the rest of the books? I found out the new titles by searching on Amazon. Syd Barrett 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

From the article:
 * Ironically, it is probably his radically different viewpoint, going against the time-honored grain of "go to school, work hard, and invest in a safe, diversified portfolio of mutual funds", that has made him the target of the mainstream financial base.

I fail to see how this is ironic in any way. I've removed "ironic" from the sentence although I think the whole thing could go. TastyCakes 16:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Lordmac, I see you have removed the link to John T Reed's criticism of Kiyosaki and his book again. I don't want to make this a revert war so I'm not going to put it back in right now. But I believe the Reed page gives some valid and well thought out criticism of Kiyosaki that people aiming to learn about him should read (although Reed can be somewhat acerbic at times). Reed does promote his works (in limited fashion) elsewhere on the site, but it is very limited in the Kiyosaki article (have you read the entire article?). Please flesh out your reason for not wanting the page as an external link here. For reference, Reed's article is here TastyCakes 18:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged, to be fair I'll re-research today (both Reed and Kiyosaki). I admit I haven't reread Reed's site in a couple years, since I realized that he trashes all popular RE infosellers, in order to get free web traffic to sell his own wares.  But since you vouch for it, I'll reread the whole thing.
 * I'll even leave all those IMO questionable changes you just made to this article until I do. =]  I don't mind a link to criticism per se, but I feel Reed's motives and methods are suspect, since he denigrates so many authors (who should be his peers).  I'd rather hear from someone more reputable... whether it's someone without a profit motive, or a site that is just anti-Kiyosaki, not anti-competitors.  I'll even search for some as part of my research, along with seeing what I can dig up on Rich Dad's identity..   I don't think he really exists either, I just don't think that's a bad thing because it makes a great literary device.
 * Have you read RDPD? If I have to read Reed's crappy writing, it's only fair you read some good writing in return.  Oh wait, that's not fair.  Nuts.  LordMac 19:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Although Reed is critical of the majority of Real Estate guys mentioned on his site, he endorses a handful. Included are Robert Abalos, Bob Bruss, George Coats, Jay DeCima, Joe Dominquez, Gary DiGrazia, Jane Garvey, Bill Mencarow, Kevin Meyers, Bill Nickerson, Jon Richards, Leigh Robinson.. I'm sick of cutting and pasting these names, you can see the rest here in green.  Somewhere on the site he says he believes there are only a handful of truly useful books for real estate investing, which perhaps I'm being slightly naiive in thinking.  If you're going to read his page, I suggest you start here to get an idea of his criteria for judging real estate gurus.
 * I would feel more comfortable hearing criticism about Kiyosaki from more than one source as well, so I'll look into it further too.
 * I read about half of Rich Dad Poor Dad before becoming skeptical of Kiyosaki and lost interest in continuing. I admit that I have been put under the impression that he's more confidence man than succesful real estate investor.  TastyCakes 19:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been looking round and although I've found a lot of "This book is merely motivational crap" pages, Reed's page is certainly the longest and most thorough of the reviews (positive or negative). There are all sorts of sites that link to John T Reed as a sort of warning about Rich Dad Poor Dad in particular and Kiyosaki in general.  Here are a few of them., , , , ,.  No mention of slander as you suggested before that I've seen.  I looked through the review again and still believe that it is not there to simply try and sell the reader anything.  Unless you can give some concrete reasons that the page shouldn't be linked to, I'm going to add it again.  TastyCakes 18:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Beat you to the revert. I haven't had time to do my research, so you win (at least till I get more time, heh).  Two points offhand... first, the green listings are people that I've never heard of, despite the tons of REI info I've consumed.  I'll research their notability later and post results here (hey, maybe I'll find some new authors to read).  Second, I can vouch that the book worked in at least one case...    mine.  Long story short, I retired at 29, thanks to reading it when I was 27.  I mean money didn't fall out of the book or anything, but I was on the track to working for others till I was 65-75 till his insights woke me up.  I made some slight shifts in my attitude, and soon I was making myself rich instead of my ex-employers.  I don't want our happy community to miss out on the same benefits because of some crank like JTR.  =]
 * Speaking of slander, insider trading? No sir...   if you want to say that, post the relevant passage from Kiyosaki's writing.  I'll stipulate  the "it's too simplistic" arguments, because he's more a teacher and philosopher, he certainly does not give step-by-step instructions (because people's situations are different).  More later, keep it on your watchlist!  LordMac 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * re posting the passage, I meant as part of the article, not necessarily here. Hell if you're right I'll even expand on it.


 * Hi Lordmac. I'm happy Kiyosaki's advice worked out for you and I wish you continued success with it.  Please note, however, some of the emails on Reed's site have letters from people who dropped their jobs and tried to do what Kiyosaki recommends and wasted years of their life getting back on track.
 * Thanks for being open minded about leaving the link in. I'm happy toning down what I inserted to an extent, but I think there are some things in there that don't make sense and I'm going to change them.  If you don't like the changes, revert them and we can discuss further here.  Also, why did you remove your Yahoo link?  I mean I didn't like it.. But I was fine with it being in there.  I hope you check out some of the books Reed recommends, you may find them a little dry but they are very informative.  TastyCakes 21:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and when I was talking about slander I meant your accusations against Reed. I have no reason to believe Kiyosaki is guilty of it.  Well except this of course ;).
 * Oh, and when I said he suggests pursuing insider trading I was referring to this line in RDPD: "Frequently, my broker will call me and tell me [to buy] a company that he feels is just about to make a move that will add value to the stock, like announce a new product." TastyCakes 23:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh, I'm guessing you don't have a stockbroker (or at least not a full-service one), because that's exactly what they do...  practically their job description.  It's only insider trading if someone acts on information that is not publicly announced yet.
 * For example, the original accusations against Martha Stewart were because she and her broker were friends of ImClone CEO Waskal, who (improperly) gave them information on Erbitux's FDA problem before ImClone released this info to the public.
 * Full-service brokers are supposed to research publicly available info for hints of such activity, and advise their clients of their recommendations based on this research. Else, they'd be useless compared to discount brokers (who don't research or provide such advice, they merely fulfill transactions at far lower commissions than full-service brokers).  LordMac
 * I'll take your word for it ;) TastyCakes 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding why I removed the Yahoo Business link, there's an easy explanation... I fucked up.  I'll readd it later.  LordMac
 * I don't see what you're referring to in the bizjournals article you linked to, the Kiyosaki family's statements on JTR are correct IMO (more so, and nicer, than JTR is in reverse). LordMac
 * I find they're like Reed's comments without any backing. Reed doesn't criticize everybody, Reed has been a succesful real estate investor (and provides addresses and details for all the places he has owned) and Reed is apparently succesful financially and has been for some time.  The fact that he was a broker for a time in my mind gives his views more credibility, although Kiyosaki's wife uses it as a slight.  But again, Reed made some pretty hard hitting complaints about them so I understand that they were on edge..  TastyCakes 22:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In the article you cited, Kim Kiyosaki claims that JTR doesn't own any property and hasn't done any real estate deals, but used to be a real estate broker. LordMac says "the Kiyosaki family's statements on JTR are correct IMO"--is he referring to the statement that JTR owns no property and hasn't done any real estate deals?  Does that mean LordMac has found that the claims on the page http://www.johntreed.com/Aboutauthor.html are false? Lippard 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding people who quit their jobs after reading RK's books...  c'mon.  First, RK never says such a thing, in fact he extols the virtues of working jobs just to learn skills.
 * But even if he did say so, you would fault him instead of the idiot reader who screwed their own family by quitting with no financial backup? That's like blaming Marilyn Manson for Columbine...   I know you know better than that. (quick judgment based off you watching Futurama, my POV is that only smart people like that show)  =]
 * I'm not saying some people aren't idiots, because of course they are. I just don't think it's RK's fault that they're that way.  At least he addresses it in his latest book, which makes him better than me, because I'd just write a book titled Don't Quit Your Job, Stupid.  I figured I'd be nicer by 30, but I'm not...  maybe when I'm 40.  LordMac
 * I never said people aren't idiots for throwing themselves into Kiyosaki's teachings whole heartedly. ;) I do think Kiyosaki appeals to a lot of low achievers that want a way to succeed that doesn't involve working hard, however.  Whether that reflects his actual message, I haven't read enough of him to know ;)  TastyCakes 22:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I've reread JTR's site, and I believe it has gotten more legal since he got sued (he at least presents his unfounded accusations as opinion instead of fact now). I won't remove it again, I don't think the type of personality who would buy into his rants is the type who could succeed in business long-term anyway, so it's prolly best if JTR convinces them not to even try.  Those people can keep working for the RK/RD fans, and make us richer.  =]   I got sick of the "Attitude is everything" cliche when I was a kid, I didn't realize until much later how true it is.  LordMac
 * The list of errors in the book and the list of things that are highly unlikely seems more fact than opinion to me, but I agree Reed makes certain personal attacks which are uncalled for and not backed up all that well. TastyCakes 22:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the errors and implausibilities pointed out by JTR are closer to fact than opinion. LordMac's reference to JTR being sued should be clarified--JTR was not sued by Kiyosaki, he was sued by Russ Whitney.  The suits were settled out of court, and JTR's page on Whitney is still up, and still shows that Whitney has been in lots of legal trouble in multiple states, has an unsatisfactory rating from the BBB, and so forth.  It's quite illuminating to see what JTR still says about Whitney *after* the lawsuit settlement (http://www.johntreed.com/ReedonWhitney.html) vs. Whitney's page about Reed (http://www.whitney-facts-vs-johntreed.com/). Lippard 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will update the article (later, I spent my wiki time today reading JTR and writing this) to add accomplishments to the opening rather than messing with the criticisms. Well ok, I'll mess with the criticisms sometime, but first there's quite a few RK achievements and awards missing that I'll add (community, please add yours too...   I know he's done a lot of work in Australia and Asia that we in the US don't hear about).  LordMac 15:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Kiyosaki did a 1997 Australian seminar at which another speaker was John Burley, who has received some similar criticisms (the most in-depth can be found at http://einzige.blogspot.com/2006/07/index-to-my-john-burley-posts.html). Lippard 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just removed references to Richard Kimi, an unsupported anonymous comment on a message board is not a proper source. Added his quote about rich dad being a myth from the Feb 2003 issue of SmartMoney --TK (not logged in)

Kim Kiyosaki
The part that mentions that he is married to Kim Kiyosaki--just links right back to Robert Kiyosaki. Amnion (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversies Section
I'm taking the last paragraph out of the Controversies section and will incorporate it into the intro. TastyCakes 21:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it very much. The repeated (practically verbatim) criticism on both the RK and RD pages, I like less.  Could you split and put just specific RD criticism on the RD page, and general RK stuff on the RK page?  LordMac 15:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'll give that a try when I've got a bit of time TastyCakes 21:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

His association with multi-level-marketing organizations should be pointed out. It is up to each individual reader to make up his/her own mind about Robert Kiyosaki, but important and notable facts should be pointed out so that the reader can better judge Robert Kiyosaki.

^^That isn't an important or notable fact. He's associated with various business organizations, which is why this page needs clean up. Godgeddoe 20:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This section smacks of both POV and OR and needs cleaning up. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Its apsurd to say that he said that nymex sells pork bellies. Thats nonsence, ofcourse they dont its obviouse, point is about what he meant to say with that, not with the actual statemant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.198.82 (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

MergeRich Dad, Poor Dad and Cashflow Quadrant to Robert Kiyosaki
There isn't enough substance in these two related articles to justify separate entries and this topic would make more sense in the context of Robert Kiyosaki's work generally. Wikipedia is not a place for book reports or advertisements and this will only be of interest a hundred years from now as it relates to Kiyosaki. Trim it down and merge it in. Rorybowman 19:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Rich Dad, Poor Dad is a ground breaking book and merits its own article.  Over time the article will increase in size. --nirvana2013 20:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Kiyosaki helping people?
There was a claim in the article that he had helped "many" people go from worker to entrepreneur. I don't see any real evidence backing that up, and his critics point out that some of his advice is unsound. Since it's arguable whether he actually made money in real estate in the first place, I removed this claim. --Mr. Vernon 05:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A few years back I was working as a Business Studies lecturer having an Economics degree and read a couple of the Rich Dad series in the college library. The work was a bit basic and lacked detail on tax rates, capital gains tax and so on, but it did make me think about the passive income issue. My partner and I, then started to clear debt and bought a two bed flat near the local train station, I can't say Kiyosaki was the only influence, but he was a strong part of it and with the exception of the fact that I think the cashflow game is over priced he does a good job. I now work part time in a University and earn more than the Head of School, as I have three rental houses, which are geared up (60%) to cover a good spread of blue chip high yield shares. Beat staying late for ten years to be Head of School and driving an old car, bought my latest new one on the prfit of the last sub-division. Stuart ````

Heresay
I removed the following comically obscure piece of heresay "An anonymous person on a message board once alleged that "Rich Dad" was actually Richard Kimi, of the Sand & Seaside Hotels in Hawaii."

What the hell?
I can't believe this article is so incrediblly one-sided. Whoever wrote this obviously didn't like Robert Kiyosaki very much. There's a big section for criticism, but in almost EVERY section you can find negativity. This entire article is ridiculous.

I happen to have listened to a great deal of Robert Kiyosaki's teachings myself. Can you say the same? I find his advice to be very wise and useful. I have a lot of respect for the man. He's probably changed my life. I especially agree with everything he has to say regarding the cashflow quadrant and the importance of passive income as a means of obtaining financial freedom. If you step back for a moment and analyze what exactly he's saying, it makes perfect sense. If all you do is search the Internet looking for criticizm, you'll be getting a very one-sided narrow view. An opinion, in fact. Which I would disagree with.

Again, Robert Kiyosaki is a great man. Try listening to his actual advice, instead of what someone says about him.

I have re-written some of the article. I have not gone over all of it.


 * With the exception of the criticism section I can't see anything that's "incredibly one sided". Slightly biased, perhaps, but it seems fair to me. Kiyosaki has a lot of supporters, and some even claim to have found success with his teachings, but there are a lot of people who think he's more or less a con man.  Balancing these two views is not a trivial matter.  I have read rich dad poor dad and John Reed's criticism of the book.  Can you say the same?
 * Some of your changes to the criticism section seemed ok. But other changes, like deleting the part about not having made his money in business, seems important and should remain, and in others you inject positive things which if are to be included shouldn't be put in the criticism section.  Therefore I have reverted.  TastyCakes 21:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? When a Wikipedia page has a link that goes directly toward a "criticism blog", it's called incredibly one-sided. This is more of a bashing frenzy than anything else. This page needs to be cleaned up. "Slightly biased?", If the bias on Robert Kiyosaki was jet fuel, you would have enough juice to fuel a fleet of Boeing 747's. I've read his books, as well as John Reed's criticism as well, and frankly the criticism doesn't hold up. Kiyosaki always reiterates in his books that it takes a different level of thinking, and if you are not up to it, then stop reading further. Godgeddoe 14:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to keep in mind that this page keeps swinging from one side to the other. You wrote that 13 months after the original discussion and the article has again swung into more one sided, opinionated territory.  I still think Reed makes some valid points and a link to his site should remain.  Some further balancing would appear to be in order for this page again, however.  Tastycakes

I AM YOUR NEW LORD AND MASTER
MWUHAHAHAA!!! I have wasted hours of my life which I shall never regain! For I HAVE NOW CREATED THE MOST AMAZING, MOST COMPLETE GUIDE TO ROBERT KIYOSAKI THAT HAS EVER BEEN!! GAZE UPON IT WITH SEMI-EROTIC WONDER!!! RAHHHH!! BOW BEFORE ME, MORTAL INSECTS!

If you look at the new version of the Wiki bio on the saki himself, you will see the undeniable truth. You all owe your lives to me now. For I have brought forth giant garbage loads of information. Specially crafted by my masterful hands for special viewing by Wiki eyes.

....If you change it to screw it up I may or may not hunt you down and murder you slowly. And then I shall return the article to it's proper state.

Of course that is not to say that people shouldn't contribute further, I'm simply warning you not to defile it's beauty with lies and slander or arbitrary deletion and such.

Okay well.. enjoy!

the sloth_monkey 6:00 AM (Central Time) Wednesday, April 26, 2006


 * A lot of this reads like a puff piece... I also suspect 2 or 3 of the pictures you added are copyrighted and can't be put here... TastyCakes 18:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that's a jackass thing to say. You obviously dislike Kiyosaki, considering how very negative this article was before I got here. So apparently you hate to see anything good written about him.

Anyway, if you care about this article at all, which you seem to since you've spent so much time on it spreading your negativity, then really you should be thanking me for providing such an enormous amount of information here. I put a lot of work into it and everything I've written is factual. Obviously I've also cited many sources along the way.

the sloth_monkey 11:46 PM (Central Time) Wednesday, April 26, 2006


 * I think you've got a lot to learn about Wikipedia.. The article as you have written it is not even close to neutral.  It will have to be changed. You added some good information, and it'll probably remain, but the article can't look like it was ripped out of Kiyosaki is awesome magazine.  I honestly don't see why you thought it was so negative "before you got here", I thought it was pretty balanced.  Do you have any examples of what you mean?  As far as the images, you can't just take a picture off the internet and put it into wikipedia.  It has to fall into free use criteria, which I doubt some of those do.  And for the record, I don't hate to see anything good written about Kiyosaki.  I just don't like reading irrelevent fluff and NPOV opinion about him.  TastyCakes 08:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed your so called "hard work" involved cutting and pasting material you found from various internet sources. You can't do that..  That is copyrighted material.  Not to mention cutting and pasting from the "Rich Dad Poor Dad" web site is obviously going to be slanted..  TastyCakes 19:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Teaching section
I think the teaching section is too long and rambling. I think it should be heavily condensed into one or two paragraphs and then a more fleshed out version be put in a seperate article. What do you all think? TastyCakes 04:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ...What do you suggest would be the subject of such an article? Where could there be a more appropriate place to put the teachings of Robert Kiyosaki than in an article talking about Robert Kiyosaki?  It is directly related to knowing about the man.  Talking about the things he preaches to his students is arguably more important than other things having to do with him.


 * Think a second about what you're complaining about. That there's too much information.  Too much information?  This is an encyclopedia!


 * sloth_monkey 05:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me put it this way. Would you really think it appropriate for us to take each section of this article and replace it with a link to a different article focused entirely on that one topic?  i.e. Kiyosaki's Teachings or Kiyosaki's Books.  ...If it would get you to lay off me and stop deleting things, I'd consider it.  But I do think of the idea as being a bit ridiculous.


 * sloth_monkey 05:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This "ridiculous idea" is done in Wikipedia articles all the time. Why do you think a long article is a good article?  It is suggested Wikipedia articles remain under a certain length (31 kb or something), to make them readable.  Before I deleted your "timeline" it was over that, and for no good reason.  You could sum up most of Kiyosaki's teachings in one paragraph.  If people want more information they should have access to it, but if they just want to learn about Kiyosaki they shouldn't be overloaded with all this stuff.


 * I wouldn't have to delete your stuff if you weren't filling the article with non-public material, cut and paste text from kiyosaki's own website and fawning articles about him, and your own hastily written, unconcise material. I'm sorry, but I honestly think you are degrading the quality of this article rather than improving it.  As I said before, you have added some good information.  But you haven't boiled it down very well and you aren't writing it like an encyclopedia entry.  I know you're trying to improve on these things, and I appreciate that.  But that is my rational for reverting some of your stuff.  TastyCakes 06:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ESBI
Why is the ESBI cashflow quadrant mentioned twice in the article? Is the redundancy necessary?

The Teachings of Robert Kiyosaki article DELETED
Well I have just about lost my faith in Wikipedia and sites with user-generated content. To me this inherently means the content of a site will be controlled by people who often have too much power and not enough sense to use it wisely.

I can't believe that I could pour such a ridiculous amount of time (over the course of a few months) into writing such a thorough, elaborate article explaining things about Robert Kiyosaki and what he teaches, only to have it amazingly underappreciated and ultimately destroyed. All my work has been deleted.

Why? Because people have their own biased opinions on things and think that they should impose their opinions on others, rather than leaving it up to the reader to decide things for themselves. Meaning, someone may look at an article and think it’s bad advice coming from a manipulative S.O.B. who just wants to rob people of their money; whereas someone else could look at the article and be ecstatic that they are being exposed to what they view as useful information. Which person has the right idea here? Is it a useful article with helpful information, or is it a load of crap that no one should listen to?

Well here’s the thing. It doesn’t matter if the article is good advice or not. It doesn’t matter if people like it or not. It’s just information being presented to those who wish to read it. It’s up to the reader to decide how they feel about it and to think for themselves.

The point is that information should not be censored like it has been here. Some people come along who dislike the article and think no one should read it? Well too bad it isn’t for them to decide. …Oh gee wait yes it is. Because Wikipedia is run by morons. That’s user-generated content, folks. --sloth_monkey 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a site with user-generated content. Try everything2.com if that's what you want. 203.218.141.70 03:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * sloth_monkey, ultimately I agree with you. I suppose I haven't been on this site long enough to become that disillusioned. But, yeah, there are too many wikinazis on this site who think they know what belongs in an encyclopedia and what doesn't.Isaac Crumm 05:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

His math is correct
Kiyosaki's claim that you lose 80% of your money over the long term in a mutual fund with a 2.5% maintainance fee is not, in fact false. I have removed the wording to this effect. FYI, the blog (are blogs really valid sources to cite?) which was linked to in support of this was only pointing out that his 2.5% number is high (no comment there, as I haven't researched it), not that his math was faulty, and redid the calculation with a fee of 0.87%.

This is a simple calculation to do. The returns from $1000 invested for 65 years at 8% are given by (assuming yearly compounding): R = 1000*(1.08^65) = $148,779. If you reduce that to 5.5% after fees, you get R = 1000*(1.055^65) = $32,464, which is a difference of around $116k, or 78% of your money. This is why index funds are good, and most actively managed funds are bad. Duketg 23:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand SEC requirements are such that a fund's advertised rate of return is AFTER expense fees. A 10% return on a mutual fund is a 10% return. Yes 2.5% is unusually high, but likely irrelevant. Kiyosaki's projection will hold true if and only if the fund never generates any return, not many people would leave their money in such a fund for any period of time...

Whether or not the fund's advertised rate of return is before or after expenses isn't really the issue. You still have to pay them. The effect of the fee will be the same, it's just a matter of what numbers you start with. If a fund advertises 10% after fees, an investment of $1000 will get you $665,000 after 65 years. But if you're paying 2.5% in fees, the fund is actually returning 12.5%, and your earnings have been reduced from $3.3M, which is still an 80% reduction. This will always be true, no matter what rate of return you start with. If the fee is 2.5%, after 65 years you'll have 20% of what you would have had otherwise; it's the law of compounding. Duketg 18:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Why We Want You to be Rich"
Robert Toru Kiyosaki & Donald John Trump have coauthored a book. I have nothing else to add to that.

hopiakuta 19:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't believe this article
Honestly I can't believe this article its so negative against Kiyosaki. I also went to that John T Reed site (http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html). Personally I could have put up a cleaner HTML webpage with my eyes closed. Upon seeing this I did some research on John. Google gives the 2nd link when you type in his name containing information on how shady he is (from www.ripoffreport.com).

(If you read the entire report mentioned above - including the rebuttal - you will appreciate that the above statement is not true - John T. Reed comes across as being a fairly neutral observer of RE Gurus --PeterMarkSmith 08:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

(Redacted) Read for yourself:

Consumers need to be aware that John T. Reed is the seller of Real Estate investment books and his sole way of selling these books is through his web site. He will not take phone, fax or mail order and will not issue refunds or allow returns.

His site is almost entirely dedicated to putting other companies and individuals down who sell Real Estate books. He is known as a Consumer Advocate because of the way his web site is set up but the truth is that his site is designed to sell his own product.

He is being sued for libel among other things for his practices on his web site of posting untrue and unverified claims of other gurus in addition to using these other gurus names in a way to divert web traffic from their sites when consumers are doing searches.

In the latest suit against him, he has responded by launching a personal attack on the plaintiff on his web site and posts many untruths that can be checked out at http://www.whitney-facts-vs-johntreed.com/

It is easy to read Reeds page and believe he is trying to help people when you search on a particular Real Estate investment course but what one needs to do is read his entire site to find he put downs almost all of them and actually calls many fraud and rip off artists while then trying to get you to buy his real estate courses.

By reading his entire site, you will find many contradictions (lies) and find out that he has no very first hand knowledge of these other RE investors. In fact, he states that he gets emails from people who make money off these other course but refuses to publish them because he says these people are stupid and only think they make money.

John Reed has gone on to investigate family members of his competition including 74-year-old women and visiting the grave of a guru's father. This is all one his web site including how he states that a guru probably deserved the abuse he received as a child that included being burned with an open flame and says such practices were acceptable in the 60s.

I urge you all to read his site completely to see what a sick individuals this man is and what extremes he will go to including lying, stating opinion as fact and telling half the story in order to slant your views to think he is a consumer advocate rather than a Real Estate Investment Book seller.

Consumer should be concerned and check out Real Estate Guru's before buying their products but being tricked into thinking you are reading unbiased information is not right nor is it not right to pretend to be a consumer advocate when the only people you are reporting about is your competition.

There are too numerous lies and false information on the John Reed site to post here but he makes statements even regarding the law that are wrong including where he says one can only file for bankruptcy if they have a negative worth and that a company is insolvent if they are in the red. He uses this to say his competition is insolvent or to say that somebody is cheating if they legally file bankruptcy protection. He continues to say one of his competitions was arrested for a hit and run accident when he knows this person was never arrested and never brought to trial. By reading his site you can see all these and many many more contradictions and lies.

This is a not a man you want to do business with in my opinion but if you choose to, please read his entire site to see how his statements change completely regarding issues depending on what information he is trying to sell you.

You should also realize that his books are printed from his computer and then he comb binds them together (like a shcool report) and ships them out via US Post office only and refuses to give you a delivery date. He also states on his site that the US Post office is unreliable but says this is the only way he ships and don't bother calling him to ask when you will get your product.

This page is in need of clean up. I took out the "endorser of Quixtar" comment, due to the fact that he "endorses" all the various legal business concepts such as invention of product, franchise and network marketing. Futhermore, he never names franchises other than McDonald's. Any name of any network marketing franchise is irrelevant. Godgeddoe 20:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

--- Why are we even considering putting links from this guy on the wiki page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ctj951 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

We should probably remove the John T Reed section.


 * I disagree--John T. Reed's page on Kiyosaki is quite detailed and accurate. The unsigned rant above says that there are "too numerous lies and false information on the John Reed site to post here."  I love how people use "too many falsehoods" as an excuse to avoid naming a single one.  The above link regarding Reed "lies" about Whitney (http://www.whitney-facts-vs-johntreed.com/) has been removed from the Internet.  Whitney did sue Reed, and the lawsuit ended with a confidential settlement.  As for who won what in the settlement, note that the following page by Reed about Whitney is still up and live, unlike the one above:
 * http://www.johntreed.com/ReedonWhitney.html


 * John T. Reed's critique of Kiyosaki is probably the most extensive one on the Internet, and comes out as the #2 item on Google if you search for "Kiyosaki" after this Wikipedia article. It is worth referencing as a source of criticism.
 * Lippard 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

John T. Reed's critique is extensive, however the man is selling books about real estate himself, is this not questionable? Also, Kiyosaki is called a hypester in the first line. In general this article is just a large negative criticism of him and goes against everything 'neutral.' Also, stating that Casey Serin "followed Kiyosaki's advice to a T" is a joke and a fallacy. Oh well, this is what happens when anyone can edit, typical wikipedia bull#@$#.

Interestingly enough, the now-dead Russ Whitney page whacking John T. Reed is dead for a reason - the US District Court dismissed Whitney's lawsuit against Reed WITH PREJUDICE on May 23, 2006. The case is styled "Whitney v. Reed" C.A. 04-cv-00395-VMC-DNF (M.D. Fla.). Reed's website describes the settlement which led to the dismissal with prejudice. If you read it carefully, you can see he is quite pleased with it. In addition, the fact that Reed's site continues to post negative remarks about Whitney's business methods makes it plain who the winner was in this dispute - it was John T. Reed. http://www.johntreed.com/ReedonWhitney.html If there were any untruth in Reed's critique of Kiyosaki's methods, you can be sure Kiyosaki would have successfully sued. As you can see, Russ Whitney sued, and lost. 6 Mar 07 -Not Dilbert

---ctj951's Response:
 * Well it seems a few people are for keeping the John T Reed's criticism website in the article and as of yet I have seen no actions of removing it. Though if we are going to continue to list John T Reed's site (http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html) on the page then we should also include Kiyosaki's Rebuttal to Reed's article as well.  The rebuttal can be found here: http://www.mastermindforum.com/kiyosakiresponsetoreed.htm
 * Also, to keep with Wiki's fair and balanced approach I'd suggest that each time the John T Reed URL is sited in the article the rebuttal URL should also be given at the same point rather then listing it at the end of the page. Since otherwise this would not give fair and equal exposure for both parties.
 * April 25th, 2007 Ctj951

There's an extremely simple reason why John T. Reed deserves to have a critical link on this page. He is perhaps the only real estate "guru" that actually lists every property he has bought and sold, making it possible to essentially verify any claim he makes about profitability. I'm sure if anyone needed further information for research, Reed would provide it, because he obviously has no inflated sales claims to cover. Since Kiyosaki, Whitney, and all the other "gurus" make excuses for *not* providing this information by which an *objective* reader could verify claims of success, it should be clear that they *do* have something to hide, despite testimonials by allegedly sincere and disinterested (not paid by the guru to make up a nice story) parties of how successful their programs are. If anything, this article panders to Kiyosaki. 67.183.83.234 (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Circular References
So many of the references - when you check them out are circular - meaning they cam from Robert Kiyosaki himself or his own records. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterMarkSmith (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Mutual funds section should be corrected
I'm tempted to completely revert Therainman58's changes done at the beginning of March. A MER of 2.5% is not calculated from the fund's return, but from the fund's assets, reducing the gross return (pre-MER) to the net return, as published in the newspapers.

The following is also unsubstantiated and incorrect, IMO:

''According to most industry experts, Bogle's work was intended to show how investor emotion plays a huge part in investing. The average investor doesn't earn nearly as much as the index, but not because of management fees. It is due to the fact that investors enter the hot funds at the top, but leave when funds are at the bottom (essentially buying high and selling low).''

Bogle's succint credo is "Costs matter". Management fees are the culprit and there is no debate about it - see also prof. Sharpe's arithmetic. Evaluating the extent of the other matter raised is controversial and can be overcome by weighing funds returns by assets, but it does not belong in a Kiyosaki article. Adrian two 01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Casey Serin rants do not belong here
I just made an attempt to put the Casey Serin related material in one place and correct it. No matter how sad that story is, lying about what happened here is thoroughly irresponsible. Casey Serin has stated a number of sources of inspiration. Robert Kiyosaki only figured prominently rather late in the Casey Serin story and was never the sole source of inspiration for what he did. Every repetitive and boring lecture that Robert Kiyosaki give has cash flow and managment of cash flow as its focus, so saying that Casey Serin was a follower of Robert Kiyosaki even though he only ever manage to generate massive negative cash flows makes no sense whatsoever. It does appear that following Robert Kiyosaki's advice has been and continues to be one of Casey Serin's goals, but there is no evidence that this is his exclusive motivation or that he actually managed to succeed in even the most basic of ways. Just because someone makes a big, fat target of themselves does not mean that everything you might want to say about them should be stated here without references. And advertising Casey Serin's web site with external links here is right out. Wikipedia is not about free advertising for businesses in trouble! -- M0llusk 18:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rich Dad's Existance
I would like to bring up and make a separate part of the discussion the topic of Rich Dad's existence. While none of us knows for sure or not if Rich Dad existed I'd like to point out that Robert has on several occasions affirmed that Rich Dad was a real person. There is a lot of online discussion on it and people come to Wiki as the answer on this so I think there probably should be some internal discussion section devoted to it.

In Robert's latest book written with Donald Trump "Why We Want you To Be Rich". Robert again affirms that his "Rich Dad" did exist. I'm quoting from pages 24-25 verbatim:

---Begin Quote---

"Most rich people don't want others to know how they got rich...much less tell people about their failures...and that includes my rich dad's family." "How So?" I looked to Kim, and she smiled reassuringly. "After I wrote Rich Dad Poor Dad," I said, "I took the book to his family, and the family asked that their family name not be disclosed in the book...even though I said nothing bad about my rich dad. They simply didn't want anyone to know how they got rich.  So to respect their wishes, I have not disclosed the name of my rich dad." "And has that caused you problems?" asked Meredith. "Yes," I replied. "Some people have even called me a liar, saying there never was a rich dad."

---End Quote---

Meredith in the above quote is one of Donald Trump's assistants, Kim is Robert's wife. In that section of the book they are discussing the project which eventually became the book.

Lastly I should note that Google answers has also looked at this question and they post their response here: http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=399942

They seem to lean towards there never being a Rich Dad. In any case it seems to be a topic of discussion one way or another. The links in the article are also interesting.

The topic was also discussed on Yahoo Answers here: http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060614123616AAFppVB

I do like the answer one commenter gives: "Wow, now that is a question. As of now the standard line is that he will not reveal his identity because of privacy issues. I did read an article that the author was able to talk to someone over the phone, but "Rich Dad" has never been exposed. If you look in his Rich Dad Poor Dad book, there is a fictional disclaimer. My guess is that Rich Dad is real, just not as amazing as he makes him sound in his books."

Again there is a lot of online discussion as to Rich Dad's existence and people come to Wiki as the answer on this so I think there probably should be some internal discussion section devoted to it.

Also, so its not overlooked I have also added new comments to the section on John T. Reed called "I can't believe this article". April 25th, 2007 Ctj951

Reading his books, I'm beginning to think that "Rich Dad" was actually a metaphor of a select group of people he has known. That would be a reason why it makes no sense for it to be one existing person. For instance, he states in his books when his actual father died, but not "rich dad". Probably because "rich dad" was just one of the many guys he talked to for advice and guidance. Just a theory Godgeddoe 15:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me if kiyosaki had a company before his book series or not
I don't know how to check and look up some one's bio (something I am working on right now) I did read kiyosaki's book and they are very motivational but lacks technical details but enough of that. In his book, kiyosaki claimed that the "rich" avoid or rather "is saved" from being taxed by starting a corporation and that he has personally started or "taken" 2 different corporations to go public. Now, could someone find some evidences to back up his claims? or maybe shoot him down? He stated that he formed a corporation in 1974 while he was an employee for Xerox is that true? What did his corporation do? How was his business? He also claimed that in 1989 that he purchased a house in Portland Oregon for $45,000 and sold it for $95,000 and brought a 30 unit apartment building in Phoenix, Arizona with a friend. Could someone verify that account and get in touch with this friend of his. I know that these are or rather most of these are private records but some information should be public like infromation on the two Publicly traded corporations that he took to public. btw, just because Donald Trump trust him and writes a book with him, doesn't mean that he is trustworthy. We want the fact, not what anyone says. Even if you believe kiyosaki's or Trump's and wish to defend them, then at least follow their advice in their books~ think on your own damn it! and if you don't believe them, then there is more reason to ask questions. If you don't want to think...well...You're FIRED! lol (god, I wanna say that!)--Wxyrty 23:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Reed site claims to have looked into a lot of his claims. He did work for Xerox and he did have a company that sold nylon wallets which went under, probably due to competition.  As for his success as a real estate investor, there seem to be plenty of reasons to doubt his grand claims.  TastyCakes (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Cleanup
Two paragraphs in the Criticism and Controversy section need some attention. The first is the paragraph about his blaming poverty on laziness. The only link is to the article in which he states this. This is not sufficient. Did any legitimate publication call him out on this?

The other issue is the last paragraph, the one about his books being popular with Amway. This paragraph talks about criticism and theories and yet offers no reference. There's plenty of criticism about Kiyosaki to go around, so there's no excuse for not referencing these things. As it stands now, these sections come across as a hatchet job.--Sm5574 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Richdadpoordad.jpg
Image:Richdadpoordad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)