'Rich Dad, Poor Dad's' Robert Kiyosaki Says He's $1.2 Billion In Debt Because 'If I Go Bust, The Bank Goes Bust. Not My Problem'
'Rich Dad, Poor Dad's' Robert Kiyosaki Says He's $1.2 Billion In Debt Because 'If I Go Bust, The Bank Goes Bust. Not My Problem'
You're viewing a single thread.
So, ah, that's not how that works.
If he "goes bust" and can't make repayments the bank will take his cars and silver and gold.
This guy is a great author, and those four words "rich dad, poor dad" are masterfully crafted. The book basically says borrow money to buy houses not boats. It's not revolutionary, it's just packaged in a way which is appealing to... poor dads.
No bank in the world is going to hand anybody millions (never mind over a billion) without some reasonable assurance it can be paid back one way or another.
If he was in real estate, they’re taking his property.
IIRC, the advice was basically a recipe for overleveraging yourself in debt trying to make money with “throw everything and see what sticks” (and then blaming them for not being “savy” enough when it becomes apparent they can’t manage the debt.)
Which is what happened to a friend of mine that kept bouncing from one self help book to the next (he was a big fan of what’s-his-but-zero-debt-guy until his church group read it.)
“It really resonated with what you said… I have a responsibility to my kids!”
“Uhm, I was talking about not having a third when you already need help with two.”
“No no. I get it now…” (and now we’re not friends because he asks for advice, doesn’t listen to it and blames you for when it doesn’t work. It also wasn’t about finances per se.)
No bank in the world is going to hand anybody millions (never mind over a billion) without some reasonable assurance it can be paid back one way or another.
You say that, but Deutsche Bank and others have been very happy to loan Trump money over the years and they must know he won't pay it back.
… but Deutsche Bank and others have been very happy to launder payments from Russian mobsters via unpaid loans …
FTFY
Some of those loans are predicated on extremely inflated business dealings. For example, in the NY fraud trial, the collateral was Trump's properties. Some of those loans, as already mentioned, were also straight up bribes.
also its extremely unlikely this guy is going to be somebody that people want to bribe. Remember, mortgages count against networth, so this guy isn't that rich.
They likely make him pledge something as collateral. I doubt they're just giving him unsecured loans just for fun
He was committing fraud. That's why Deutsche Bank no longer does business with the Trump organization.
No that's because the fraud got discovered. Else they would still do business with Trump. They were likely giving Trump Russian money as "loans".
Tell me you have no idea what's actually going on without saying you have no idea what's actually going on...
Please do educate me.
RestrictedAccount already did, kiddo.
Kiddo? What an asinine way to reply to someone.
It was basically instructions on how to become a grifter, with very little actionable advice. Here is a podcast the breaks down books like this.
https://pod.link/1651876897/episode/1a9316ba1134a0c2484e8fc6e416b978
To be fair, a lot- probably most- of the self-help book authors are at least toeing the line of grifter. and a fairly large number straight up are.
Remember we're probably not talking about a single person, but an company. His company is likely over valued because of how famous his books/seminars are. And yes, while he probably has real estate, it's probably not the same business. When they come after him, they probably hit one side of the business and not the other.
It's very possible someone gave him a ton of loans that are undeserved because they overvalued the names. We see it all the time in the stock market.
Given what I understand of his 'advice'... he may not in fact be smart enough to split his assets up like that. Also, if you do split up your assets into LLCs or whatever; then they're loaning to the LLC, and they will be looking at its financial ability to pay back... banks are generally rather careful with these kinds of things.
if he's using [assets of company a] to inflate the [assets of company b] (IE IP on his books etc,) then that's fraud.
You have a lot of confidence in the financial system and I wonder given what is known if it is justified
more like, confidence in human greed.
Banks don't cut people breaks just because they're famous. keep in mind, this guy's net assets are not 1.2 billion- that's his debt. He's over extended and they're taking them up. long-time business partners might get less scrutiny on the inflated values, but this guy? naw. he took out massive loans on proprieties or whatever, they'll be taking whatever collateral he used, and whatever other assets are associated.
if you'll ask a question?
But if you're referring to the 2007-08 financial crisis caused by MBS going tits up, you'll have to do better than that, since MBS's were packaged loans to lots of individuals. Each individual loan was risky because of the sub-prime market being largely unregulated at the time, however, it was assumed the risks were acceptable because the loans that didn't go up were profitable to offset them.
The problem with that, of course, was that the entire industry kept ramping up sub-prime loans building up a slow, but increasingly high risk of total collapse on the value. but this is an entirely different situation than giving one guy a billion dollar in loans. And you'll note, that the MBS's were backed with collateral in the form of houses that they subsequently foreclosed on. (and later sold for much more in profit, while also getting bailed out by the government.)
You got two explainations. 1 the banks didn't know what was going to happen, despite all the obvious signs, in which case they have no idea what they are doing 2 they knew exactly what they were doing and engineered a crisis for a bailout and market dominance.
So do you want your friends to be fucking morons or fucked up?
or do you want to stop confusing issues here?
'07-08 crisis is a fundamentally different scenario that built over time. The toxic assets totaled something like 1 trillion; they were built over time, and the problem rose when home values stopped going up. let me compare the orders of magnitude on the debt that caused that crisis vs this:
1,200,000,000 (Kiyoski's debt)
1,000,000,000,000 (Toxic assets in the great recession)
Do you see the difference now? It's a nice whataboutism, but it's fundamentally irrelevant. the only thing that's going to get fucked is Kiyoski, and the people who work for him. The difference between a billion and a trillion is... about a trillion. more preciesly, .1%.
Gotcha they fucked up and don't know what they are doing.
Thank you, I always assumed it was more capitalism pearl clutching and to know it's another 'get a mortgage' flip answered all my questions.
Yeah it's the common sense stuff we all know to be true. "Save and invest your money! Compound interest magic! Investments increase in value!"
IIRC he makes a case for ripping off his employees. Justification is that if he have them more money they would just waste it, but he will invest it.
Is that before or after the insider trading?
Yeah it’s the common sense stuff we all know to be true.
If you knew how many people in America didn't have bank accounts I'm pretty sure you'd shit yourself, lol
Hmm, maybe... but I'm certain that everyone commenting in this thread does have a back account.
You might be surprised then, to see how many people seem to lack understanding of that apparently obvious concept.
That's his book market.... people too dumb to understand that money begets money. Since you got none, you give it away easily.
Aspirational propaganda. You're only poor because you're not as smart as me and I've found all of the secrets to being rich! Why isn't everyone rich, this is crazy to me.