- Joined
- Jan 16, 2017
Because Robert Kiyosaki said wasn't an asset. I read RDPD back in the day and there's some weird opinions in it. Kiyosaki's argument is because you have to live in your house, you can't sell it or derive an income from it because then you'd be homeless. If it appreciates in value you can only realise that gain by selling it, but you'd need to buy another house to live in.I skipped a funny one:
View attachment 5803552
A house can indeed be an asset. How did Roy get a bachelor's degree in anything at all while not knowing that a house will generally appreciate in value? Or even a high school diploma?
Of course, Roy does not own a house, so this may be sour grapes. Alternatively, given his recent tweet about his brother having financial woes, it may be that the house Roy lives in is owned by his brother and is depreciating in value. But why would that be? Well, it's possible that Roy fails to maintain the property. If so, this casts his recent tweets in a new light. The problem, in this case, is not owning property. It's renting to lazy, smelly, filthy relatives.
I kinda get what he's on about, not considering your primary residence as part of your asset portfolio and not sinking unnecessary money into it that you could put somewhere more liquid or with a better rate of return, but the way the book is worded it seems to imply you ought to live in your car to become as rich as possible. It's a weird mindset but one I have come across before, where people prioritise wealth above their happiness, Scrooge style. For me at least the point of wealth is that it improves your life in some way rather than just being a number next to your name. Though with his multiple bankruptcies Kiyosaki doesn't have a very big number next to his name anyway.
Basically Roy is parroting bad financial advice from a book written by a proven liar who went broke anyway.