11 replies to this topic

[OEXCHAOS]

The man is a menace to the public...

http://finance.yahoo...ichricher/30687

M

[NAV]

The man is a menace to the public...

http://finance.yahoo...ichricher/30687

M

This guy must be out of his mind.

Edited by NAV, 26 June 2007 - 02:46 PM.

[Tor]

the guy is plain dumb how can he publish this junk??

[OEXCHAOS]

What the heck is Yahoo finance thinking, is my question... Mark

[Drano]

Maybe he's desperately and unsuccessfully trying to sell his house and his next article will be how everyone should buy rental houses now. Or maybe he just forgot his meds today.

[selecto]

He's Darwin's little helper.

[Mr Bones]

Kiyosaki's claim is given some credence by the founder of mutual fund powerhouse Vanguard, John C. Bogle. In a Frontline episode titled 401(k)s: The New Retirement Plan, For Better or Worse, Bogle, too, claims that management fees and trading costs gobble up approximately 2.5% of an investor's annual returns and approximately 80% of an investor's long term gains. He says management costs reduce the value of a $1,000 investment over 65 years from approximately $140,000 at 8% compounded annually to a mere $30,000 at 5.5% compounded annually. Bogle's solution is to utilize index funds to substantially reduce or eliminate management fees.

[OEXCHAOS]

Dammit Bones! I don't know where Bogle is looking but 1.35% seems to be the going expense ratio for most active funds that I look at. And 10%-12% is the average long term return for equities. And, take a fund like Bill Miller's Special Fund, you're going to beat the pants off an index fund. But even so, buy an etf pay the tiny fee and don't worry about it. The bottom line, however, is that maxing out one's 401-k and dumping it in a reasonable equity mutual fund is vastly superior long term on an after tax and risk adjusted basis to any other alternative. Kiyosaki is just dead wrong...and it's not like this is hidden information. I'd call it malfeasance. Mark

[greenie]

The bottom line, however, is that maxing out one's 401-k and dumping it in a reasonable equity mutual fund is vastly superior long term on an after tax and risk adjusted basis to any other alternative.

So is it what you are doing for your retirement and other funds (saving them blindly in some mutual fund), or are you preaching something, because it helps your business model ? What is your definition of reasonable mutual fund?

I think it is better to take control of one's money and learn how it will grow to support for one's retirement than giving it to some mutual fund/or retirement plan guy, who will distribute it to group of stocks of buddies, fund of funds, hedge funds and so on, and the money being ultimately stolen by wall street. All he is preaching is to cut the middleman, and you sound like one of those NAR agents, who claim it is impossible to sell house without a realtor. All I read in your complaint is "vested interest'.

[OEXCHAOS]

Greenie, I'm shocked by your ignorance of personal finance and what I do. I cater to the do-it-yourselfer. That's what our publications are for. Sure, we manage money for folks, much as lawn services cut people's yards for them--for about the same price for an account typical of a 401k holder. Still, I'm saying that it's a FACT that there are no historically (long term) superior investment options, net of taxes, interest, and risk, than maxing out a (decent, proper) 401-k and investing it in any number of reasonable quality equity funds, longer term. I defy anyone to try to prove me wrong. Mark