Rich Dad, Poor Dad – Today’s Burbed book recommendation
Last Saturday, Burbed recommended: Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust – And How You Can Profit from It: How to Build Wealth in Today’s Expanding Real Estate Market
Today’s choice?
You’ve heard the controversy – why? Because others don’t want you to know the secrets to success. They want to keep you down, and Kiyosaki will help you defeat them. You’ll defeat them even faster if you buy all his other accessories, and attend his lectures too.
Become rich today!
What book should Burbed feature next Saturday?
February 28th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Read the wonderful (lol!) write up on Robert Kiyosaki on John T. Reed’s website, you’ll want to order Kiyosaki’s books, board game, soap-on-a-rope…. (NOT!)
http://www.johntreed.com
February 28th, 2009 at 9:03 am
LUV THIS BOOK OF THE WEEK IDEA! Burbed you did it again! I had to share this tidy-bit with all of my friends… So bitter-sweet!
February 28th, 2009 at 9:10 am
If this book has no value, it wouldn’t be a NY Times best seller. Even today, this book has value to millions of Americans who don’t understand fundamental aspects of money that the rich families typically pass on to their kids in one way or another. The people who laugh at it maybe beyond help. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the knowledge, but the person who reads it don’t know how to use the info properly.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Mary does Milpitas. A nifty little trilogy about a randy and dishonest used-house peddler with a prediliction for slicked-down Asian real estate ‘developers’ that lease Mercedes Benz automobiles and reside in upscale Milpitas and have a heavy Jones for NAR representatives named Yun…
February 28th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Like most houses on this blog, the price has been reduced. There is a new version coming for $4.95.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:04 am
http://www.amazon.com/Dow-36-000-Strategy-Profiting/dp/0609806998/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235844210&sr=1-12
February 28th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I agree with real estater on this one.
This is an excellent (although somewhat superficial) book. Had people listened to such advices, they were not in such mess.
For example, Kiyosaki mentions “house is a liability, and only the poor consider it their asset”, “buy a house only if it’s cash flow positive”, and “poor often imitate the rich and spend all their money on gadgets they cannot afford; making sure they always remain poor”. How true!
February 28th, 2009 at 10:49 am
>LUV THIS BOOK OF THE WEEK IDEA! Burbed you did it again!
Thanks!
FWIW, this is the kind of book I had in mind last week when I asked for suggestions.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I agree with sv_newbie. Kiyosaki lectures again and again on the need to not ever see your home as an asset, because it doesn’t generate any income. Some on this site have encouraged people to buy RBA real estate because of equity gain. Kiyosaki says don’t bother. Buy rental property instead. He’d perfer you buy a fourplex and live in one unit, then trade up to a sixplex, and so on.
Here are John Reed’s comments on Rich Dad, Poor Dad. Reed says Kiyosaki got involved with the Amway and other MLM crowds to get his book out there. And it appears that the “Rich Dad” in the book was made up of whole cloth. The copyright page admits that parts of the book are fictionalized.
RealEstater, you are committing the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad numerum in comment #2. To quote H.L. Mencken, no one ever went broke under-estimating the stupidity of the American public.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
sv_newbie Says:
>>agree with real estater on this one.
madhaus Says:
>>I agree with sv_newbie.
madhaus also says,
>>RealEstater, you are committing the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad numerum in comment #2.
You agree with me, and you don’t agree with me? Will you work it out with yourself?
February 28th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
#10, there is nothing inconsistent about madhaus’s criticism. now, to my book report…
In 1973 on Fulton near the corner University Ave, 5 (or possibly 6) condo/townhouses were build and sold. They are 3/2s and ~1700 sq ft, and they have the following sales and tax history:
*478 Fulton: at least 2 sales (current tax base $1,425,000)
10/1/2007 $1,425,000
2/17/1999 unknown but at least 660K based on loan
*482 Fulton: at least 2 sales (current tax base $1,625,000)
8/31/2007 $1,625,000
5/11/1994 $348,000
*486 Fulton: no listed resales (current tax base $133,164)
*490 Fulton: no listed resales (current tax base $124,849)
*498 Fulton: 1 listed resale (current tax base $1,428,000)
5/23/2007 $1,428,000 (based on tax records – redfin is wrong)
498 is right at University and it is curently for sale for $1.43M.
I’m not sure why I thought this was so interesting, but there are at least several things to note. First, 2 of the 5 haven’t changed hands since prop 13 (and, most likely never). The total turnover for all 5 units in the last 30 years is 5 transactions. That’s pretty amazing. Second, speaking of prop 13, the obvious point. 482 and 486 own identical property with identical market values. 486 taxes are 90% less. Third, 30 year return through 2007 was 11% (not inflation adjusted) and it beats the DJIA. I’m assuming 1977 value of 75K (based on current assessment on 490) and 2007 value as $1.425.
That said, anyone want to take any bets on how Mr. 482 will do over the next 10 years? Any guesses on the closing for 498? It does seem to be remodelled and it is bigger than the others at 1920 sq ft. Still, I don’t see how anything over $1.2 is possible given the SFH options available now. Which brings me to my last point and the relevancy to the book of the week club:
What would the Rich Dad say about buying 498 Fulton (or any RBA purchase) now when you could rent it for at least half and possible one third the cost? When the original owners made their purchases it was almost certainly cheaper than renting.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Burbed….. how about the book “The Millionaire next door” great read. This is how I became the govenator I PUMPED myself up
February 28th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
#11, steve, of course I wasn’t inconsistent. This time the logical fallacy made in #10 is called Composition. Someone is clearly “here to help” teach by wrong example so the student can supply the right one.
Thanks for the report on the Fulton condos.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
RealEstater, Have you been keeping up with the High Speed Rail controversy? I knew this would be controversial when people actually figured out what the plans were. You voted for it did you not? I don’t remember. I did not, I have no interest in transporting Gilroy or Merced residents to the bay area.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
WG says,
>>I knew this would be controversial when people actually figured out what the plans were. You voted for it did you not?
I’m opposed to it and did not vote for it. When both the state and federal governments are running such huge deficits, I don’t see how this project can even come close to being a priority.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I’m not a fan of Kiyosaki. He is one of these financial gurus like Jim Cramer or any number of them, that dish out a certain type of advice while maintaining the ability to talk out of both sides of their mouth (meaning, what they say is so general that no matter what the market does they can say they were right).
Kiyosaki was all over Florida in 2005 talking about buying investment property just like sv_newbie says. His point is that you should buy investment property and rent it out, ok, but the real issue for investment property is determining what the cap rate will actually BE on those properties. In a booming rental market like now or the bay area in 1999, sure you can rent a Toll brothers brand new home in Danville to some Silicon Valley commuter for $3k/mo, but is that a realistic rental valuation to use on a cap rate? NO. Kiyosaki never mentions that really. The bay area might have many cash flow negative properties that would fail that quad diagram of his and show up as liabilities, but the liability of a bay area cash flow negative rental is much less than a Florida “rental” that somebody bought deluding themselves that it was desirable rental/resale property. Anyway Kiyosaki was red hot as a speaker in 2005 in places like Phoenix and Florida. He willingly aligned himself with the property bubble, instead of doing what Schiller did, profess caution. These days Kiyosaki still has a career but much less of one.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
ah my apologies RE, I thought you voted for that train. It is a high speed 220mph long range commute vehicle that they plan to put on the CALTRAIN TRACKS. Whoever thought that up needs their heads examined, or they are from LA and don’t have any conception that the Caltrain tracks are residential/small towns/light commercial. Of course once the citizens found out what the plans were they are up in arms, especially in Palo Alto where the train goes through a high school and what have you, but it would have been nice if the city councils did some work on this before the November vote. Anyway the state is broke and Palo Alto is suing so that project is probably DOA.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
The bullet train idea is extremely unpopular with the peninsula cities, which were not consulted before a decision was made to run it over the CALTRAIN tracks. Opposition is gathering momenum, as a the cities are now joining forces as a group to voice their concerns. Alternatives have been proposed, such as having it route through 280, 101, or simply stop in San Jose. All of them were rejected, so it looks like they’re going to insist on tearing through the neighborhoods all the way to SF. The tallest tree in Palo alto may even become a casualty. They’ll need to use eminent domain to buy up lots of properties along the way as well, which will be very expensive. Another alternative is to bury this thing underground, which raises safety concerns based on experience in Europe.
I don’t see any good outcome out of this project. It’s just not worth it.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Anyways, like I always say, don’t buy a property with location issues. Stay the hell away from the train tracks no matter how cheap it may be!
February 28th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
WG, thanks! I’ve just been reading up on RBA objections to HSR — what great entertainment! I love the contingent that feel deceived because they thought the trains would run below ground. Just awesome! Maybe I should try to get quoted in a local paper with a line like this:
I feel we were all misled. Since this was presented as an alternative to airplanes, I assumed that they would empley new technology allowing the trains to travel at 25,000 ft.
At the very least they should explore alternatives that do not require El Palo Alto to be trimmed. How about tunnelling under the bay like BART? It can’t be that expensive and, if it is, so what. El Palo Alto is worth it. Or, how about running along the san adreas fault? Portala Valley and Woodside won’t mind. Or, what about not using any tracks at all, sorta like a really fast bus that was also silent and invisible and had sprinkles cupcakes for snacks. How come out leaders can’t think out of the box!
February 28th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
This just in: California residents are disappointed that the train approved is not magical.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
“Anyways, like I always say, don’t buy a property with location issues. Stay the hell away from the train tracks no matter how cheap it may be!”
Even if you try to stay away from the train, it may come to you.
There is no RBA in the south bay or the peninsula.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
At the very least they should explore alternatives that do not require El Palo Alto to be trimmed. How about tunnelling under the bay like BART? It can’t be that expensive and, if it is, so what. El Palo Alto is worth it. Or, how about running along the san adreas fault? Portala Valley and Woodside won’t mind.
The current plans call for adding 2 tracks west of the current tracks, El Palo Alto is to the east of the tracks, if you stick with the current plans that is not an issue. I’m guessing RE is just speculating as to what would happen in the worst case scenario. Right now trains run at ground level and University, Embarcadero, and Oregon Expwy run below then and Alma St, the rest are more noisy and dangerous at-grade intersections.
I can’t find any mention of Palo Alto suing the CA HSRA or the state, can someone provide a link please?
February 28th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Steve says,
>>At the very least they should explore alternatives that do not require El Palo Alto to be trimmed. How about tunnelling under the bay like BART? It can’t be that expensive and, if it is, so what. El Palo Alto is worth it.
Tunneling would save El Palo Alto? Do you realize the root of the tree is below ground?
By the way, tunneling is extremely expensive. It has already been looked at for stretches that run next to houses.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
>>The current plans call for adding 2 tracks west of the current tracks, El Palo Alto is to the east of the tracks, if you stick with the current plans that is not an issue.
To my understanding, either you cut the tree, or remove part of the hotel to the other side. There is no current plan that’s workable without demolishing something.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
I know a little about HSR, and I went to one city council meeting out here when it was discussed. People like steve are the people that concern me. Steves post reeks of some sort of peninsula envy that is actually overjoyed that people that live in Atherton and Menlo Park are incensed. But the truth is, this train is not a commuter vehicle, it only takes people from city to city- for the northern part of the state that would be San Jose to SF, or Merced/Modesto/Stockton to San Jose. The only benefit for this is that South Bay companies could hire from the exurbs where it is cheaper, but as a resident here, I say who cares? California just isn’t Europe, there is not much call for intrastate travel. What we need is a good commuter vehicle in both the north and southern parts of the state.
So there is no real value in this high speed rail for the coastal locations – and the environmental damage is through the roof. El Palo Alto is the #2 state historic landmark or something, it is the symbol of Palo Alto, of course no train should ever touch or damage this tree in any way. But there are much more pressing concerns than the tree, because high speed rail on the Caltrain tracks is just a bad idea on the peninsula, since Caltrain is zoned residential and goes through every small town. Also the train tracks are right next to Paly high school and many other mid pen schools, which seems illegal to me (putting electrified rail right next to schools) – Paly and Sequoia high are like that. Anyhow there is so much opposition brewing my guess is the train gets thwarted on the Peninsula.
The alternative is the other route called Altamont. The Altamont route goes on the east bay side and over to SF and does not touch the peninsula at all, it is a much more appropriate route since the train has actual transportation corridors available in the east bay. There is still a san jose stop in that Altamont route but it is a spoke coming down from the Sacramento branch of the train. So with the Altamont passage the peninsula is untouched.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
HSR will never be built in palo alto
February 28th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Plus you can’t mess with a 1000 year old trees root system. You can’t move a 1000 year old redwood, or dig trenches anywhere near a 1000 year old tree that could damage the root system. The tree is off limits.
As for the hotel, this HSR project only has the Caltrain right of way to work with, so any hotel would be emminent domained, but legally taking land/property from a corporation is not the same as some underfunded homeowner, corps will sue. So that sounds like a mess.
In the one meeting I attended, Rod Diridon was there, and my perception was that he was unprepared for the onslaught of objections. He seemed like he thought he was dealing with Urban Renewal evictions from inner city residents in the 60s or something, not wealthy people who are not used to being pushed around like this. He kept repeating “this train will be built”, if you hear Kopp or Diridon interviewed they constantly state that this is inevitable, as if he is dealing with a stupid populace where if he says it enough times people will believe it as fact. Anyway this whole charade with the CA budget what it is, is simply astounding. The parties most to blame for this are the peninsula city councils who did not raise any red flags a year ago and organize opposition which is their job.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
what makes you say that Zanon
February 28th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
cardinal, here are some of the lawsuits.
http://transdef.org//HSR/HSR_Lawsuit/HSR_Lawsuit.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_11745806
http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=3364
that first link has the alternative route they want called Altamont.
Does anybody know if electrified tracks next to a school are a health hazard? that would be my primary concern
February 28th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
re#13 – madhaus, I love the last example on that page!
Sodium and Chloride are both dangerous to humans. Therefore any combination of sodium and chloride will be dangerous to humans.
That reminds me of a quote from “fundies say the darnedest things” – it was something about how DNA can’t exist because it’s an acid and would kill humans. LOL.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Steves post reeks of some sort of peninsula envy that is actually overjoyed that people that live in Atherton and Menlo Park are incensed.
WG, you crack me up. Props for catching the snark RE missed, but let’s correct a few things.
1) I am not enjoying the Atherton/Palo Alto schadenfreude, I’m enjoying the stupidity. Have you seen some of the quotes? Take this one:
Some residents said that when they voted in support of high-speed rail, they didn’t realize the train was intended to be above-ground… “I just assumed it was going to be underground, like everyone else” (from the Merc yesterday)
It’s a frickin train! Maybe they should have gone to some of the Palo Alto information meetings held before the election, like this one.
2) I have no peninsula envy. I’ve resided on the peninsula for 20 years, living either in Palo Alto or Mountain View, so next time you take offense at some position you believe I hold, try again with a different insult. For example, I envy VCs with trophy wives, and sales guys who do lots of high-end hookers and blow.
3) While I have no strong opinions about HSR one way or another, I do know that the folks of Santa Clara County voted 60.4% in favor of it and the good citizens of San Mateo County voted 61.1% for it. Statewide, only San Francisco and Sonoma counties provided more support. madhaus had a great point about popular opinions above, but we must recognize that the residents of these cities and counties have spoken.
4) Finally, I’m sure there are good reasons out there to oppose the supertrain (like extreme cost and lack of substantial benefit), but yours aren’t that compelling to me:
a) proximity to paly hs – is there any evidence anywhere suggesting that HSR is more appreciably more dangerous to traffic than conventional rail?
b) theoretical El Palo Alto impact. I like trees, but the City of Palo Alto just woodchipped about 2000 years worth of growth when it took down 20 healthy mature trees along San Antonio Ave for an expansion project. besides, see cardinal2007′s post.
c) local commuters – ah, the heart of the matter. You write:
The only benefit for this is that South Bay companies could hire from the exurbs where it is cheaper, but as a resident here, I say who cares?
so, at the end of the day, this is about the rent you get for your San Jose house. As an employer, who’d rather be able to pay folks less and have them live beter, forgive me for caring and opposing you on this one.
btw, I belive zanon is corect.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
I’m not sure why you all think any hotel would have to be torn down at all, satellite imagery shows a lot of space southwest of the current tracks for new tracks. Can you provide some links to what you’re talking about?
Regardless if they need to take up the land to the southwest of the tracks in that area of Menlo Park they would have to deal with Stanford. I’m not sure what the university’s policy is with regard to eminent domain, I know they can’t sell the land as far as their charter is concerned if it was part of the land granted by Leland Stanford for the university itself.
From what I understand, the Pacheco pass route was chosen in large part due to pressure by officials from San Jose, Diridon included, who didn’t want the lower number of trains that would arrive by having a spur of the main line. The project seems to have a lot of support from the state and the federal government. The stimulus package included $8 Billion for HSR, which states would have to compete for, and the state is going to issue $9.95 B in bonds themselves, I don’t think they have a choice on the second matter as it was voted on by proposition.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
According to a comment here from a Willow Glen resident:
A 20 ft high concrete wall running through San Jose to Diridon Station (where it would stop, if no peninsula option is build) is also unacceptable, and will create permanent BLIGHT in some of the nicer areas of San Jose, it will ruin Willow Glen, where south bay high tech professionals prefer to live, and needs to be opposed.
WillowGlenner, it looks like it was written from you.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
> [...] it was written from you
Sorry, I mixed “it was from you” and “it was written by you”
March 1st, 2009 at 12:07 am
“it will ruin Willow Glen, where south bay high tech professionals prefer to live”
we learn something new every day on this site
March 1st, 2009 at 12:10 am
steve, as a rampant environmentalist, I don’t like to joke about cutting down 1000 year old trees. If you think any amount of “progress” is worth damaging a 1000 year old tree, well thats just plain un-bay areaish.
There are very few landmarks that rise to the status of El Palo Alto. I suggest you read about it in wikipedia, there is an entry with the historical significance of that tree. The fact that PA just cut down 20 mature trees is hardly a comparison. Really, you seem like a red stater with this point of view. Its ignorant.
At the very least they should explore alternatives that do not require El Palo Alto to be trimmed. How about tunnelling under the bay like BART? It can’t be that expensive and, if it is, so what. El Palo Alto is worth it.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:21 am
WG, steve was making a point about inconsistent concern for the environment. You responded at the landmark and historical level. Rather than throw “red stater” at him, maybe you should realize that he has a point.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s 20x as shameful to cut 20 hundred year old trees as it is to cut a thousand+ year old tree. The historical significance is subjective, the trees’ lives were real.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:37 am
thanks, DreamT. perhaps I can encourage you and WG to consider a donation to the Save the Redwoods League. I became aware of them a number of years ago after being shocked at the number of logging trucks carrying first growth trees I passed on the drive to Mendecino.
For those not familiar with our coastal forests, there was a great New Yorker article in the 2005 anniversary edition, reproduced here:
Climbing the Trees
March 1st, 2009 at 12:46 am
For some reason I thought someone said that PA was suing, instead of Menlo Park, I think Menlo Park has sued before as well.
I think talking about the tree is a moot point at this point. There are no plans to build a trench or a tunnel by the tree currently, that certainly could change as Palo Alto has suggested that either the line go in a tunnel though the city or that they route the line in a way that it doesn’t go through the city.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:38 am
> So there is no real value in this high speed rail for > the coastal locations – and the environmental damage
> is through the roof. El Palo Alto is the #2 state
> historic landmark or something, it is the symbol of
> Palo Alto
What landmarks are you talking about? Is it Stanford or the Fry’s? Or those shabby houses at University? You’re kidding, right? You probably need to visit one of those cities which are trylly landmarks…
March 1st, 2009 at 1:44 am
> WG, you crack me up. Props for catching the snark RE
> missed, but let’s correct a few things.
Steve, you’re wasting your time on these folks. If they were well traveled and educated, I would understand your effort.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:02 am
I don’t support cutting down the trees on San Antonio Road either. The argument goes that the roots from these trees damage the roads, and these type of trees aren’t protected species by any means. I don’t know…when they want to cut trees they make all kinds of ludicrous arguments. They wanted to cut down a bunch of trees on Middlefield Rd where it intersects with Oregon Expressway, and residents complained loudly. The opposition was strong enough to force a change of plan.
In general, my view is that cutting down trees should always be the choice of last resort.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:07 am
whocares, you sound just as arrogant as WG and you make just as many assumptions.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:10 am
apologies for the half dozen rules I just broke.:)
March 1st, 2009 at 2:35 am
“What landmarks are you talking about? Is it Stanford or the Fry’s? Or those shabby houses at University? You’re kidding, right? You probably need to visit one of those cities which are trylly landmarks…”
Despite the redundancy, this guy’s got a point. El Palo Alto is not a landmark.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:44 am
“There are very few landmarks that rise to the status of El Palo Alto.”
Right. So says the guy from San Joser. Maybe you should hang out with RE’s kids for a little more well roundedness.
“b) theoretical El Palo Alto impact. I like trees, but the City of Palo Alto just woodchipped about 2000 years worth of growth when it took down 20 healthy mature trees along San Antonio Ave for an expansion project. besides, see cardinal2007’s post.”
Steve understands. A tree is a tree.
El Palo Alto is special to chumps like our resident bulls because it has a name
brand.March 1st, 2009 at 8:55 am
Anyways, like I always say, don’t buy a property with location issues. Stay the hell away from the train tracks no matter how cheap it may be!
Actually, I have half a mind to buy one of those shacks on Westmoreland in Redwood City, improve it to the gills, and then stonewall for the highest dollar settlement I can from the HSR authority.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:46 am
Imagine my shock in seeing 48 comments on Rich Dad Poor Dad. Faith is restored upon learning that half of those comments are about a tree. Go Bay Area! This place is special.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Thanks for the laugh, CB! I hadn’t realized the absurdity.
(Not that caring for trees is absurd – particularly when they are hundreds of years old – but that you wouldn’t find this sort of argument in the midwest.)
March 1st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
PA will not build a second story on an overcrowded school.
There is no way a HSR will ever be allowed through this area.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
I think that I shall never see
Ten comments just about a tree
Another twenty that prevail
To argue against high speed rail
The topic slid as pucks at hockey
Away from Robert Kiyosaki
And somehow someone took offense
So the comments degraded hence.
Poems are mangled by fools like me
But only burbed can make controversy
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Check this out.
“Comparing high-speed rail along Palo Alto’s transit corridor to the Berlin Wall, more than 50 protestors marched from Lytton Plaza to City Hall tonight to protest the California High Speed Train San Francisco to San Jose Project.”
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:57 am
Goodness. Someone needs a little perspective. Or a history lesson! (Actually a whole group of “someones.”)
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
there is great irony here, especially considering the materials used to build (and for SF, rebuild) the bay area. there’s a reason redwood city has its name.