Guaranteed Returns?

In choppy and down markets it’s natural to be nervous … so, it’s no wonder that investors start to look at funds that purport to ‘guarantee’ your initial capital, your return, or some combination of both.

I have a close friend who is a financial adviser, who works strictly on a fee basis, yet his practice is associated with the products of one major insurance and fund management company.

He was telling me of the rise of these Absolute Return funds that work on the basis of not only guaranteeing the original amount that you invested, but also lock in your returns to date …

– in other words, if you invest $1,000 this year and the market falls, the fund guarantees to pay you back at least $1,000

– then next year is a good year for the market and your fund increases by 10%; now the fund guarantees to pay you back at least $1,100

– but, next year there’s another market crash and the market drops by 15%; but, the fund STILL guarantees to pay you back at least $1,100

– if you remain with the fund and the market eventually totally recovers, as soon as the fund value rises above your new $1,100 ‘guarantee’ then so does your return.

There have been plenty of systems that have produced similar results … they usually do this by some combination of insurance and/or derivatives (e.g. stock options). In fact, you could replicate some of these results for yourself simply by buying the right type and duration of stock option along with the underlying stock (or index).

The problem is that all of these end up costing you money: the insurance premium and/or options are bought out of your initial (or ongoing) investments. The ‘cost’ of these ‘guarantees’ comes as some combination of increased fees or reduced returns when compared to a similar fund that does not offer the ‘guarantee’ …. it’s that simple.

You can provide yourself a similar – or better – result at far less cost: buy a low-cost Index Fund and wait 30 years to cash it out; I can virtually ‘guarantee‘ an 8.5% minimum return 🙂

A little rain must fall …

triffids1We left Chicago just before Christmas … it was one of the coldest winters that most could remember, certainly the coldest that I have experienced. The last day of school was canceled due to the cold, so my children didn’t even get a chance to say a final goodbye to their friends.

When we packed the house, we moved into a hotel down the road for a week – for the life of me, I don’t understand why suburban-Chicago hotels don’t have underground parking lots:

In the morning, ice built up on the inside of the windshield …

… I remember, when the temperature ‘warmed up’ for a day or so back to mere freezing (circa 32 degrees) that it felt quite comfortable: no heavy coats, hats or gloves required.

When living inside a refrigerator feels ‘comfortable’ you just know that something’s screwy with the weather!

So, we arrived in Melbourne on Christmas Day to one of the hottest summers on record. Our children’s first day of school was also canceled just a few weeks later, as the hot spell continued, due to the extremely hot weather … that’s the definition of ‘irony’.

And, I got around to contemplating the various ways to water the garden in our rental house, as Melbourne has been plagued by a drought with strict water restrictions:

The house has a rainwater tank – it fills up from rainwater that lands on the roof and is funneled via the gutters – with a fancy automatic pump that starts up as soon as you squeeze the spray-fixture attached to the hose … I used up the whole tank in just one watering of the garden and it hasn’t refilled itself since (well, it is finally full again now). Needless to say, I wasted my time … without another watering, the garden looked as bad as before.

Then, I noticed that I didn’t really need to water the back garden and most of the grass, because there is a very efficient ‘water dripping system’ in the back (but, not in the front of the house … that part of the garden that now looks, well, dead) that just drips the smallest amounts of water under a timer that is only allowed to run 2 hours twice a week … that seems just enough to keep the plants and much of the grass alive.

Finally – and, this is what filled the water tanks – it rained!

In fact, we had a whole series of rainy days (surprising, since it’s summer) that finally put out all of those horrible bush-fires that you may have heard about …

… not only did it douse the fires, but the whole garden has sprung up, and in the space of just a week or so even the weeds look like something from The Day Of The Triffids … seriously!

So, what I learned it that there are two ways to water your garden that work and one that doesn’t:

– You can drip, drip, drip feed your lawn water in the most efficient way, or

– You can water more deeply, less often, but it must be done a number of times, but

– BUT, you cannot simply dump your entire water supply on the garden once and expect miracles.

And, this story actually has something to do with money …

… you see, I think that there’s only two ways to make keep your ‘financial garden’ healthy, and at least one way to guarantee failure:

1. You can follow the Making Money 101 steps of drip, drip, dripping money into your savings account – being very careful not to soak up too much with excess spending – and gradually find your veggie patch bearing small fruit; enough to live on, if you have spartan needs,

or

2. You can regularly ‘deep soak’ your financial future by large – but, not too large (such that you are left with nothing in reserve) – and regular applications of finances into various Making Money 201 ‘income acceleration techniques – such as small businesses and/or ‘buy/hold, income-producing’ investments – some of which may actually take root and bear an abundance of fruit on their own,

but

3. You must not be foolish enough dump all of your financial resources into the One Big Thing [Insert Speculation of Choice: Lottery; Business Deal; Sports Contract; Stock Market Holding; etc.; etc.] and hope that it solves all of your financial problems in one fell swoop …

… it rarely does, and it’s no fun going back to ‘drip, drip, drip’ once you have tried and failed 🙁

7million7year's April Fools Day Joke!

april-foolOK, I promised myself that after my March Fools Day joke-with-a-message (you know, the horse racing system one) that I would NOT do an April Fools day post …

… apparently, promises are made to be broken 😛

So, yesterday’s April Fools Day Post was another joke-with-a-message: no matter how much you have, you can always spend more.

Yesterday’s post is actually (slightly) rooted in fact; I have made some errors recently, and the market has turned, so let me come clean:

– We bought our current home for about $1.6 Mill.; naturally, we paid cash.

But, after we cashed out on the second part of our 7m7y journey (the part that I have NOT yet written about on this blog, because it’s a business success story, not a personal finance success story like my 7 million 7 year journey), things took a turn for the ‘worse’:

– We upgraded to a $4.5 mill. home (plus $1 Mill. renovations to come: house/swimming pool/tennis court), and again paid cash … unfortunately, the market correction has probably wiped $500k – $1 mill. of value … but, this is ‘value’ that will only be realized when we sell (hopefully, we’ll be there for at least 10 to 15 years).

– We bought $300k of cars (for cash) but also managed to sell the Maserati

– I did indeed lose $600k in the stock market; this is the ‘cost’ of my experiment in letting somebody else manage a small part of my portfolio for me, and trying to time the market (bad AJC … bad boy!)

– And, I was due to receive a $3 Mill. ‘bonus’ from my ex-employer, that was to be delivered in cash, but ended up being delivered in now-reasonably-worthless stock (that 30 pence to 7 pence slide is real).

The two mistakes that we made were:

– We tried to time the market … however, $1 Mill. represents a small’ish % of our total portfolio

– We spent money on a house that we assumed that we would have, but didn’t get (i.e. the UK cash-to-stock thing).

So, right now, we have broken the 20% Rule … but, I counted cash, and after all of this (including completing the renovations) we still have a LOT of cash in the bank, plus the houses, plus equity in a number of apartments / commercial property, not to mention a ‘passive’ business or two floating around … I won’t have to ‘downgrade’ my $7 million 7 year mantle anytime soon [AJC: because, say, $3 million in 11 years just wouldn’t have the same ring to it, would it?] 🙂

Still, how are we going to ‘correct’? After all, we have broken so many Rules, it hurts me to think …

Well, exactly the same way that you would:

Some of it will come from simply waiting for the market to correct (that $600k stock loss will partially reverse, as will the 30-pence-to-7-pence UK stock slide) … some of it will come from making long-term buy/hold investments in this soft-to-recovering market over the next year or three … some of it will come from applying a large portion of the equity in the home (and selling the old one, when the market recovers) to investments (thus bringing us back within the 20% Rule).

But, the lessons are clear: always obey the Rules … do NOT speculate … and, heed Rick Francis’ Making Money 301 advice:

You really should [not] have to worry about affording needs anymore- you just have to control your wants. Also, you can afford to be more conservative in your investments. Making Money 301 should be a lot less risky as you only need to maintain your principle against your spending and inflation.

Where were you when I needed you, Rick? 😛

PS: In case you didn’t get to see the masthead that went with yesterday’s post, here it is … I’m particularly ‘proud’ of the by-line (something to do with noses, white powder, fast cars/girls) … unfortunately, all-too-true for too many people (but, definitely NOT me! Well, the fast car – singular – maybe). I don’t even know who the photo is of? Do you?

picture-1

My 7 million dollar skid off the rails ….

richard-gal-400I wrote a post showing my journey up the steep hill from $30k in debt to over $7 million in the bank in just 7 years …

… but, there’s no amount of money that you can have in the bank that protects you from excess and market corrections; just check out what’s happened to me over the last 12 or so months:

– I bought $8 Mill of property (my current $2 Mill. house plus my new $6 Mill. home) at the peak of the market using the 110% finance available to me (because of my status as a high net worth individual).

– I bought $300k of new cars (the BMW and the Lexus), again on finance

– I stuck most of the rest of my money in the stock market:

=> Gave $1 mill to my accountant to invest … lost $600k in a few weeks

=> Bought $3 mill of stock in my former employer’s company on the UK stock exchange at 30 pence per share … now worth 7 pence per share … lost 70%+

– Spent excessively on trips to Tuscany, around the world, around the US

– Bought expensive jewelery (that’s me in the picture) … also for my wife

– Picked up a nasty poker gambling habit and lost over $3 Mill to Joe Hachem (the Aussie who won the World Series of Poker a couple of years back) over a series of highly publicized heads up matches

Let this be a lesson that there’s NO AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT YOU CAN EARN/FIND/STEAL/MAKE/WIN/INHERIT/PRINT THAT CAN’T BE SPENT QUICKER THAN YOU GOT IT …

… got it?!

Let my pain be your gain …. read my new Net Worth IQ Profile and weep:

https://www.networthiq.com/people/7m7yApril1/

Good luck to you and your families … I quit!

What's your exit strategy?

My Dollar Plan asks: “What’s Your Exit Strategy?” giving the example of his father’s business:

My dad has been sick this week, and I’ve been spending a considerable amount of time with him at the hospital. Since he’s a successful small business owner for 30 years, we’ve spent some time discussing his plans for the future.

Since I’m in a very ‘anecdotal’ mood at the moment [AJC: Don’t worry, I’m sure it will wear off soon. Who could possibly be interested in my boring life? ;)], My Dollar Plan’s brief mention of his sick father reminds me of how I started in business:

I think that I’ve mentioned before about my father who started a little finance company in his 60’s after being unceremoniously ‘booted’ by his former partners, and for some unknown reason, we mutually decided that I should join him in that business as a 1/3 partner [whoohoo!].

A couple of years later, just as I realized that the business was in serious financial trouble, my father fell terminally ill. He was also unfortunate in that I wasn’t able to save the business, but I guess by bringing me in – had things not already been so screwed up (initially, well hidden from my view) – my father was creating the classic family business ‘exit plan’: bring in the children …

… bring one, bring all!

You see, my father’s Grand Plan, unbeknown to be when I joined, was to bring in both of my sisters as well … and, we had a wonderful 6 month period where he actually hired my younger sister and I would fire her the same day, then we would repeat the farce a week or two later, until he eventually gave up. Before you judge me too harshly, let me share two small snippets:

1. The business – as I found out all too late – could not afford me, let alone my sister, and

2. I would sit at my desk in the afternoon working at feverish pace trying to catch up on all the paperwork and phone calls (at the same time, naturally; who has time to ‘single task’ in their own business?!) having been ‘on the road’ all morning rushing from appointment to appointment; only to watch my sister working at snail’s pace on some basic task (I wish I could have taken a video of her very slowly and deliberately unstapling some papers sheet by sheet, by sheet, by …. [yawn] …. and, taking a minute’s rest between each sheet!), which drove me absolutely bonkers given the absolutely frenetic pace that I had to work at.

This also reminds me of the country’s richest families; the business empire was started by two brothers who opened a butcher’s shop together and parlayed that into a multi-billion steel and manufacturing conglomerate: realizing the family issues that would eventually be created upon succession (who would get/run what?), they deliberately broke up their huge conglomerate while they were still alive and in-charge and gave one division of the conglomerate to each child to own and run as their own.

Very clever exit plan: exit while still willing and able to handle the ensuing family ‘issues’ …

So, the point 0f all of this is that I am not a fan of family businesses; some run very well, but others don’t run at all.

Oh, and every business needs to have a ‘succession plan’ before you even go into it (i.e. before you either start it or buy it): work out how much you will need to sell it for, and by when, in order to achieve your Number/Date and go out and find that buyer as soon as you reach that predetermined profit/date target.

My balance sheet doesn't …

financial-fence

There’s an old accounting joke:

Q: What do you call a balance sheet that doesn’t balance?

A: An expensive sheet of paper! 😛

I don’t know if that really is an old joke because I think that I just made it up (actually, I just modified a really old joke about boomerangs) … but, the point is that balance sheets always DO balance; they have to, so once your accountant fiddles the numbers to produce the desired result what do you do with it?

If you’re anything like me, you file it under “who cares?” …

When I ran my businesses, I really struggled with understanding the numbers – as represented by the Profit and Loss (or Income) Statement and the Balance Sheet. My accountant didn’t even bother to run cashflow statements or forecasts for me, and I would have had no idea what to do with them if he did!

Yet, that opened me up to ‘success [or failure] by luck’ rather than by design …

My friend, Andee over at onesherpa.com, being a former Big Business bean-counter-type, understands the problem all too well and has developed a much better way of looking at the numbers in your business – or your life – called The Financial Fence.

Here’s what Andee has to say about the dreaded balance sheet:

You may have seen a balance sheet that shows; Assets minus liabilities equals Equity … [but] here’s how we do balance sheets in the 21st Century.
Working Capital Plus Fixed Capital equals Debt plus Equity.

Think about buying your first home. Probably looked like this:

    Home (which equals Capital).
    Paid for by:
    Debt (borrowed from the banks),
    Plus
    Equity (contributed by you).

That’s how we do balance sheets because they make sense to the average person who has bought a home. It’s very easy for them to understand.

Think about your business for a minute:
You will have working capital (Inventory, accounts receivable, accounts payable, employee provisions etc.

You will have fixed capital (plant & equipment, motor vehicles etc).
And these will be paid for by:

    Debt (borrowed from a bank) and
    Equity (which is your wealth tied up in the business).

When you do balance sheets like this it becomes easier to understand what you’re accumulating and how you can use this to help you run your business.

This is a surprisingly simple yet powerful way to rethink your business/personal finances and I suggest that you learn everything that you can about it … to get you started, Andee has a great game, which I feel is a worthy rival to Robert Kiyosaki’s CashFlow series of games and which will really help you in your personal financial life.

15 seconds to say what took me three posts …

Scroll to about the 3.5 minute mark and listen for 30 seconds: that’s all it takes Warren Buffett to tell you what I’ve been trying to tell you in post-after-post about the folly of buying so-called ‘dividend stocks’ …

… why is he so quick?

First of all, Warren Buffett has credibility; secondly, he has a knack for summarizing things very neatly.

Now, Warren didn’t teach me how to think about dividends – to me, it’s just such clear common sense I can’t even understand the “pro-dividend for dividend’s sake lobby” – but, it’s nice to see that “The World’s Greatest Investor” puts his shareholders’ money where his mouth is 🙂

Building a better retirement account …

If I say “retirement account” what do you say?

“401k”?

Or, is there a better way …

MoneyMonk thinks that there may be, but only once you’re a millionaire:

If you can achieve your investment goals, at the same time taking advantage of the legitimate tax-shelters available to you (e.g. 401k, self-directed IRA, etc.), then you would be a fool not to do so

Agree, 401k is the best way I can shelter tax

Once you are a millionaire, I see why a person like yourself Adrian have no need for it.

Essentially, Money Monk is saying two things:

1. You would be a fool not to have a 401k if you can achieve your investment goals, and

2. You probably don’t need one once you are a millionaire

I’ll turn this over to Scott, who addresses both of these issues very nicely:

I think that’s the big point that many people are somehow still missing. The point is that you did not BECOME a multimillionaire by putting money in your retirement accounts. You BECAME a multimillionaire by focusing on building successful businesses(which required you to put all your available cash into developing those business, not stacking it away in 401k’s, Roth IRA’s etc..), as well as buying stocks and real estate.

I think many folks keep forgetting that the purpose here is to learn how to make 7 million in 7 years, not 2 million in 40 years and then get taxed on it anyhow when you withdraw it at ‘government declared’ retirement age.

And, Scott is right: if I had put money away into my 401k instead of investing it back in the businesses and in real-estate (I invested in stocks, at that time, mainly with what little was in my 401k-equivalents, which were self-directed), I’m pretty sure the blog that I would be writing today would be Frugal Living Until You Are Just On Broke … and, I WOULD be advertising: I’d need the extra $4 a week 😛

But, pursuing tax-savings – as part of a Making Money 201 wealth building program – is a noble, worthy …. and MANDATORY … goal if you truly want to become rich(er) quick(er) … it’s just that the 401k is typically not the right vehicle to foster an ‘early retirement strategy’, and the other government-sponsored programs also have their limitations (how long your money is tied up; what you can invest in them; and, more importantly for the BIG Number / SOON Date brigade: how MUCH you can invest in each) …

…  so, by now, we know what NOT to do … but, what should we do to manage our tax expense (after all, if we pay less tax, we have more to invest)?

Well, let’s turn back to Scott who was your typical 35%+ tax bracket high-income earner:

As far as using retirement accounts to shelter tax,just to help the readers understand a little better, after my wife and I did our taxes at the beginning of the year, we realized that after all business deductions, real estate depreciation deductions and rental mortgage interest deductions, we only paid around 25% tax for the year on our income, which is substantial. This was about 10% LESS in taxes than we paid the previous year when we didn’t own such investments. Needless to say, that 10% savings over last year equals approximately the savings we would have made by putting money into a retirement account, but instead, we now have multiple business ownership and extra real estate. This was simply from our first year of dipping our foot into investing and being part of the 7 millionaires in training.

And this is only the beginning. I wonder how much less in tax we’ll pay next year by buying up appreciating assets and/or small business ventures?

No matter how much tax you pay next year, Scott, by investing in income-producing, appreciating assets – and, holding for the long-term in the right types of structures (trusts or companies) – I have absolutely no doubt that you will (a) pay less tax and, (b) return more than the average Doctor on the same salary who doesn’t …

… and, since you are one of the 7 Millionaires … In Training! I will show you exactly how to do it … and, anybody who wants to be a fly on the wall (better yet, participate in the open discussion) will be able to learn some valuable lessons, as well.

And, you can take that to the piggy-bank!

Debt Snowball, Debt Shmowball … as long as you're RICH!

debtbazooka1Let’s face it, if your whole goal in life is to simply get rid of your debt you are probably reading the wrong blog ….

… but, I am working on the assumption that you feel that paying off debt will help you get rich(er) quick(er).

How?

Well, most people that I talk to say: “I will become debt free then I will have all that money spare to start investing … stress-free because I’ll have no debt to worry about”.

Stress free, until I point out that paying off debt early to start saving up to invest later is the long road to nowhere. You see, they will simply start investing too little, too late to make a dent in their true retirement needs … assuming that living on an ashram, eating rice-cakes three times a day isn’t their ideal future 🙂

When I point this out, they say: “Oh no, I’ll be accelerating my investment plans because I’ll be borrowing to buy an investment property … you see, I’ll have paid off all of that BAD DEBT (on my car, my TV, my house) and be ready to put all of those monthly payments into a big, fat GOOD DEBT loan on an investment property”.

Then they point me to all the methods that might be used to quickly and efficiently pay down all of this ‘bad debt’  – conveniently and cleverly collated in this blog post by my good blogging friend, Pinyo, over at Moolanomey – and:

BANG!

I’ve got ’em right where I want ’em …

You see, the concept of ‘good debt’ and ‘bad debt’ only applies when you are deciding whether to take on debt or not.

Let’s take the following two examples:

You want to buy a car on finance = BAD DEBT

You want to buy a ‘positive cashflow’ investment property by borrowing 80% of the purchase price from the bank = GOOD DEBT

Still with me? Good.

Now, here’s the twist: once you have acquired the debt, there is no more ‘good debt’ / ‘bad debt’ anymore … there’s only EXPENSIVE DEBT and CHEAP DEBT.

I don’t think that this is something that you’ve ever seen anywhere else (at least, I certainly haven’t!), so let’s take a simple example to explain:

You used to have a $25,000 student loan (at 2.5% fixed interest) and a $5,000 car loan (at 11.5%) … and, you cleverly and diligently worked at paying off the car loan at the rate of $150 a month (your minimum payment was $50 a month, so you paid it off pretty quick … good for you!), while maintaining your minimum payment of $25 a month on the student loan.

Now that the car is paid off, you are naturally planning to apply that whole $175 a month to the student loan and have it paid off in only a few years (yay!) … is this the right thing to do?

Well, let’s apply the cheap debt / expensive debt test to the alternatives available to us:

1. Pay down the student loan (save 2.5% interest), or

2. Spend the extra $150 a month on all the stuff we’ve been going without (an effective 0% earned or 100% ‘interest’ expense on the money spent, depending on how you want to look at it), or

3. Stick the money in a CD (earn 1.9% interest).

Clearly paying down the student loan is the best ‘bang for buck’ that we can get, here, and spending the money is the worst.

But, what if we add a fourth option:

4. Use that $150 a month to save up for a deposit, then apply for an 80% loan to buy an investment property (pay 6.5% interest).

Using my ‘cheap debt / expensive debt’ rule, you would immediately work on reducing your most expensive debt, which is the 6.5% mortgage loan … and, the best way to reduce it is by keeping $25k of it in the cheaper (2.5%) student loan.

However, the ‘Ramseyphiles’ would pay off the student loan (BAD DEBT), then save up the entire $175 ($150 + $25) for the deposit on the investment property (GOOD DEBT), and spend a lot more in interest for the privilege.

Now, do you see the sense in doing this?

Well, I can’t!

Why pay down a $25,000 loan at 2.5% just so that you can replace it with another $25,000 loan (plus ‘another loan’ for the remainder of the amount that you will need to buy the investment property) at, say 6.5% or 8.5% or whatever the interest rates will be a few years down the track.

Not, only do you pay more in interest, but you delay the purchase of the ‘cashflow positive’ property which means that you are putting less cash INTO your pocket and missing out on all of that extra appreciation on the property, not for the benefit of being debt free (because you will have a nice, fat mortgage on the property), but for the very minor advantage of only have one larger loan to pay rather than two smaller ones (student loan, plus $25k smaller mortgage).

If you don’t think the property is going to make you money, why buy one at all … and, if you do think it will make you money, why delay?

When thinking about finance, it’s much better to shift your focus from the means (paying off debt) to the ends (having enough passive income to fund your ideal life) …

If you’re interested in understanding more about how this works, read Pinyo’s post to get the basic Debt Snowball mechanics set in your head (he has a nice diagram), then read the Cash Cascade where I explain in video and words how to make this work – even better, in my most humble of opinions – for you 🙂

But, if your sole goal really is to become debt free, why not consider doing it the easy way as the cartoon above, suggests?

Why get your knickers in a knot over Robert Kiyosaki?

Flexo over at Consumerism Commentary is getting his knickers in a knot over Robert Kiyosaki’s definition of “asset” and “liability”:

A house, like any other object that comes into your possession, is classified as an asset. An asset is something you own. A house has a value. Whether you assign the value as the price at which you purchased the house or the price at which you believe you can sell the house, that amount is how much your house is worth.

You can offset the value of the asset with the value of the mortgage, your liability. Your house, an asset, subtracted by your remaining mortgage, your liability, results in your wealth due to your house. That’s commonly called your “equity,” but that has a murky definition, too.

So why do so many people claim that your house is a liability if it’s clearly incorrect from a financial standpoint? Most of this stems from one personal finance “guru.” Robert Kiyosaki, a successful marketer of products, believes an asset is anything that provides cash to you, while a liability takes your cash away. These are not the traditional meaning of the words, but this establishes a framework for the ideas Kiyosaki tries to sell. Kioysaki believes you should strive to increase the assets that provide positive cash flow (Kiyosaki-assets) and reduce the assets that require negative cash flow (Kiyosaki-liabilities).

The concept is sound, but Kiyosaki’s use of the words “asset” and “liability” angers those of us who understand finance and prefer not to confuse the general public by redefining words.

First of all, let me put on the record that (a) I like the general thrust of Flexo’s blog, and (b) he is ‘technically’ correct in what he says here, BUT …

… Robert Kiyosaki is simply trying to make a critically important point (in his famous book Rich Dad, Poor Dad) that I covered in my earlier post on this subject:

Poor Dad vs. Rich Dad

My Poor Dad Says My Rich Dad Says
“My house is an asset.” “My house is a liability.”
Rich dad says, “If you stop working today, an asset puts money in your pocket and a liability takes money from your pocket. Too often people call liabilities assets. It’s important to know the difference between the two.

I guess that Kiyosaki could solve the problem by saying that “My Poor Dad says that my house is an Asset, but my Rich Dad says that the mortgage is a liability” … but, that doesn’t really present the view that you can have a fully paid off house and still live like a pauper (asset rich … cash poor).

Also, I could point you to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition of ‘Liability’ (“one that acts as a disadvantage” “drawback”) and state the obvious i.e. Kiyosaki is using the general definition, not the financial definition, but that’s not the point either …

… regardless of definitions, I feel that the ‘issue’ of taking a technical term and ‘bending’ its use in order to make a point that could mean the difference between your future financial success and failure is a relatively small one … as long as you understand that there is a technical definition of the term as well, just in case you do need to converse with professionals (who are all trained to talk in your lingo, if necessary, anyway) 🙂

So, can you live with two definitions – a technical one and a ‘functional’ one?