Rate Your Finance Titans/Guru's

Archived From: Finance
  • Go to page :
  • 1 2 3
  • Text Only
Barry Ritholtz 10

Keynes was a pretty smart guy but his economic plans are impossible to implement in practice due to human nature.

He thought that governments should reduce spending and run a surplus in boom years... and that never actually happened. No one wants to take the punch bowl away when the economy is doing well.

So we basically end up with some deficits in the boom years and huge deficits during recessions and his ideas are modified to justify huge government.

I am setting the scale from Kiyosaki and working up.

Bill Gross - 4
Clark Howard -6
Dave Ramsey -6
Ed Slott - 7
Jim Cramer - 4
Jim Rogers - 6
John Bogle - 9
Meredith Whitney - 5
MrMoneyMustache - 4
Peter Lynch - 6
Robert Kiyosaki - 1 - what a fraud.
Suze Orman -5
Warren Buffett - 8

AJSutton 10, XOFRUITCAKE 10 & Batman 9

xerty said:   The more I watch macro economics and politics, the more respect I have for Soros. Figure out what the central bankers are going to have to do in the next 6 months and make $1B front running them in the FX markets.

Agreed, but also keep in mind that he also has a reputation for taking the other side of a central bank and winning like his play on Bank of England to throw England out of the European exchange rate mechanism. You know truth be told he did the UK a big favor right there because without that moment there would have been a much higher chance of the UK dropping the pound for the Euro. They got bit by the Euro early and that played a big roll in keeping them out of it.

But the beauty of deals like is that they're essentially near riskless bets for the speculator because if they put massive pressure on the markets and the peg holds they exit their positions at the peg(essentially no loss). If they succeed in breaking the peg they make a killing.

The fact that fixed exchange rates create a situation where you set up near riskless bets for speculators to get you off of the peg is really all you need to know to show that fixed exchange rates are bad policy.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Soros is the worlds most successful currency trader and maybe the smartest. I will say that when the time doesn't afford him the opportunity to make massive bets on currency I do find his equity picking abilities maybe only slightly better than mediocre. You can tell that his views on currency around the world play a huge role in his selections of stocks (preferring to own the stocks of companies in countries he likes the currency in)

debentureboy said:   Oh yeah, please add Elizabeth Warren to the list. Your/her politics aside, she's come up with some fascinating stuff on the incredible difficulties that lower income folks wrestle with.

DB


Politician. Per my comments in the OP I'm refraining from adding politicians and economists to the above list because that is a pretty quick way to derail this thing.

dshibb said:   debentureboy said:   Oh yeah, please add Elizabeth Warren to the list. Your/her politics aside, she's come up with some fascinating stuff on the incredible difficulties that lower income folks wrestle with.

DB


Politician. Per my comments in the OP I'm refraining from adding politicians and economists to the above list because that is a pretty quick way to derail this thing.

That's pretty dismissive. She was in academia and policy making longer before politics. From what I've read, she has a reputation as an independent thinker. Those who lean towards partisan politics (not saying this applies to you) hate that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren

ETA: regarding the below post, Warren has published articles and books about personal finance, which meets criteria stated in the OP and which are referenced in the above link. Like her or not, she's a valid addition to the list.

glxpass said:   dshibb said:   debentureboy said:   Oh yeah, please add Elizabeth Warren to the list. Your/her politics aside, she's come up with some fascinating stuff on the incredible difficulties that lower income folks wrestle with.

DB


Politician. Per my comments in the OP I'm refraining from adding politicians and economists to the above list because that is a pretty quick way to derail this thing.

That's pretty dismissive. She was in academia and policy making longer before politics. From what I've read, she has a reputation as an independent thinker. Those who lean towards partisan politics (not saying this applies to you) hate that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren


Academia and policy making wasn't exactly what I was going for either. We start including those people and this thread becomes a back and forth mostly based on ideology.

If that happened I wouldn't have positive things to say about her(and I know her work well prior to entering the political space). So it's probably better if we just try to avoid going there(even though it seems that a few people are going to do that anyway).

enc0re said:   Rathipon said:   
John Maynard Keynes 1


Firstly, I think it's dumb that this is turning into a pissing contest about economists. Especially since everyone is clearly rating them on agreement/disagreement, rather than having an appreciation for their relative talents.

But giving Keynes a 1 really tweaks me in this thread. He is well known as having been a successful fatwalleteer, dying with about half a million pounds to his name. That's the equivalent of well over $10 million today. He did this despite a lifestyle of H&B (alleged last words: "I should have drank more champagne"), lots of charitable donations, and amassing a collection of fine art and original Isaac Newton papers.

He also went through an interesting transition as an investor. He started out trying to do macro trades, betting on business cycles and policy responses. Soros style if you will. Later in his career he switched to value investing, trying to identify individually undervalued companies at which he was far more successful. Buffett style so to speak.

To rate Keynes a 1 as a financial guru is just ignorant.


I wasn't looking at this thread as an opportunity to rate individuals on their succeess as investors. If that's the purpose then we can just give Warren Buffet 100 and call it a day. I rated several indivdiuals based upon their influence on my own thinking / investing. Granted, I could have left him out altogether, but I put him in as the proverbial other side of the coin. Knowing who and what you reject, imho, is just as important as knowing who and what you agree with.

Rathipon said:   enc0re said:   Rathipon said:   
John Maynard Keynes 1


Firstly, I think it's dumb that this is turning into a pissing contest about economists. Especially since everyone is clearly rating them on agreement/disagreement, rather than having an appreciation for their relative talents.

But giving Keynes a 1 really tweaks me in this thread. He is well known as having been a successful fatwalleteer, dying with about half a million pounds to his name. That's the equivalent of well over $10 million today. He did this despite a lifestyle of H&B (alleged last words: "I should have drank more champagne"), lots of charitable donations, and amassing a collection of fine art and original Isaac Newton papers.

He also went through an interesting transition as an investor. He started out trying to do macro trades, betting on business cycles and policy responses. Soros style if you will. Later in his career he switched to value investing, trying to identify individually undervalued companies at which he was far more successful. Buffett style so to speak.

To rate Keynes a 1 as a financial guru is just ignorant.


I wasn't looking at this thread as an opportunity to rate individuals on their succeess as investors. If that's the purpose then we can just give Warren Buffet 100 and call it a day. I rated several indivdiuals based upon their influence on my own thinking / investing. Granted, I could have left him out altogether, but I put him in as the proverbial other side of the coin. Knowing who and what you reject, imho, is just as important as knowing who and what you agree with.


A bit of both really! And based on whatever priority one or the other takes for you.

For example there are a few people in my list that are(or were) very reclusive. John Arnold(exiting the business) is about as private as it gets. The level of insight you could get into his operations from information online was always extremely limited. But you do know where his background is and his success there. And you can find out that he was one of the few investors in the world who traded in commodity(primarily energy) spot prices because he built numerous large holding facilities that were plugged best he could to the energy supply and would store and release energy(predominately natural gas) as price fluctuated.

Now I doubt that more than a handful of people in the world know much about the specific strategies and ideas he operated off of, but based on the limited information available on him I think I can safely guess that if you ever were able to meet him and pick his brain that he would be an absolute treasure trove of information.

On the flip side TravelerMSY pointed out that I have one person, Dr. Hussman, who hasn't had the most successful last decade managing money. I sincerely doubt I would ever want to invest with him(even if I was the type that put money into funds instead of investing on my own), but at the same time I've found a lot of value in his some of his work for my own use so he gets a bit higher rating from me than if I was purely looking at it from the perspective of whether or not he deserves to be invested with.

Any thread that gives Krugman a negative 5 and Kyle Bass a 10 gets green from me.

What can we do with a list that includes both Suze Orman and Jack Bogle? What to make of a list that includes hucksters like Robert Kiyosaki but not Burton Malkiel?

Jack Bogle
Bill Bemstein
Rick Ferri
Larry Swedroe
Burton Malkiel

Read one or two books from each author, follow their lead, and you will be better off than 98% of investors. The rest is just noise.

How can Dave Ramsey be on par with Kiyosaki? Ramsey is pushing a lot of plain, common sense stuff. You aren't going to get rich following him, but you will lead a financially responsible life, a huge improvement for 90+% of the people out there. RK? He's a fraud and bankrupted people. I can see Suze Orman being lower given some of the commercials she's done (buy a new car every 3 years and save!), but again, not on par with an outright fraud like RK.

psychtobe said:   What can we do with a list that includes both Suze Orman and Jack Bogle? What to make of a list that includes hucksters like Robert Kiyosaki but not Burton Malkiel?

Jack Bogle
Bill Bemstein
Rick Ferri
Larry Swedroe
Burton Malkiel

Read one or two books from each author, follow their lead, and you will be better off than 98% of investors. The rest is just noise.


Well the value in it to me(and hopefully for others) is in:
A) Many people on here can find new people to take a look at any learn from their work even if said person is already pretty knowledgeable
B) If someone became interested in furthering their understanding about any aspect of finance they would have a source of people to look through and the thoughts others had on said person(to help in narrowing down names for a more efficient use of their time).

I would say giving a Kiyosaki a 1 to warn other people to stay away can be just as important as other people giving Bogle a 10 to encourage others to read more about him. Also, me personally I would rather be off the list than having an entire community of people all giving you a 1 out of 10 for your financial usefulness.

Haven't gotten around to Random Walk yet, but I'm well aware that it's appreciated by many. So for that reason I haven't read/heard enough on Malkiel to comment yet.

And also I'm positive that I'm forgetting quite a few more people that I'm particularly fond of for my own list let alone ones that I know are famous enough, but I don't know well enough to comment on for the quick summary list.

calvinandhobbes said:   How can Dave Ramsey be on par with Kiyosaki? Ramsey is pushing a lot of plain, common sense stuff. You aren't going to get rich following him, but you will lead a financially responsible life, a huge improvement for 90+% of the people out there. RK? He's a fraud and bankrupted people. I can see Suze Orman being lower given some of the commercials she's done (buy a new car every 3 years and save!), but again, not on par with an outright fraud like RK.

Short answer:
A) There is a limit to how useful ratings are when everybody gets a 4+ except the one guy who get's a 1 to show how much of a colossal douchebag he is.
B) Dave Ramsey provides absolutely zero value to me and shouldn't provide any value to the vast majority of financially literate people of these forums.

We all have are own different subjective ways of viewing these people. And as I'll point out again the only person I thought of giving a negative number to was Kiyosaki.

dshibb said:   Short answer:
A) There is a limit to how useful ratings are when everybody gets a 4+ except the one guy who get's a 1 to show how much of a colossal douchebag he is.
B) Dave Ramsey provides absolutely zero value to me and shouldn't provide any value to the vast majority of financially literate people of these forums.

We all have are own different subjective ways of viewing these people. And as I'll point out again the only person I thought of giving a negative number to was Kiyosaki.
I see what you are trying to say, but understand that as soon as I saw those people rated equally on that list, it lost any and all credibility in my book. There is a limit to how useful the ratings are when douce bags that should be in jail are rated the same as people giving sound advice for the illiterate masses. If you are only rating people that are truly high end thinkers, then RK, Ramsey, Orman, etc shouldn't even be on the list.

merely my $0.02

John T Reed's Real Estate Investment Guru Ratings

Brash, opinionated, amusing, informative.

Critique of Robert T Kiyosaki and Rich Dad, Poor Dad:

http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html

"Critique" might not be a strong-enough word.

calvinandhobbes said:   dshibb said:   Short answer:
A) There is a limit to how useful ratings are when everybody gets a 4+ except the one guy who get's a 1 to show how much of a colossal douchebag he is.
B) Dave Ramsey provides absolutely zero value to me and shouldn't provide any value to the vast majority of financially literate people of these forums.

We all have are own different subjective ways of viewing these people. And as I'll point out again the only person I thought of giving a negative number to was Kiyosaki.
I see what you are trying to say, but understand that as soon as I saw those people rated equally on that list, it lost any and all credibility in my book. There is a limit to how useful the ratings are when douce bags that should be in jail are rated the same as people giving sound advice for the illiterate masses. If you are only rating people that are truly high end thinkers, then RK, Ramsey, Orman, etc shouldn't even be on the list.

merely my $0.02


On that note I'll change Kiyosaki's rating to the negative 10 he deserves.

I almost did when I first posted it.

dshibb said:   TravelerMSY said:   I'd put a number of those fellows above Dr. Hussman, if we're playing relative value now.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to start to discuss a few of these people.

My appreciation for Hussman is mostly in his work in standarizing aggregate corporate earnings into different baskets of relative strength. I think that concept was a very significant and rather brilliant addition into financial thought. It has a lot of practical use and definitely captured perfectly the mistake value investors were making pre 2008. Those few years prior had the odd circumstance where price was rising in a lot of areas and value investors saw increasingly better values in the marketplace. Why? Because earnings were rising even faster in a lot of areas. Of course the obvious thing in retrospect now that he brought that up(while not so obvious at the time) was that that a lot of that earnings growth was not sustainable. So he went about creating low, middle, and high earnings trend lines so that he could see when valuations were being driven by earnings that were either unrealistically low(temporary losses) or unrealistically high(peak euphoria driving down PE multiples).

I would probably agree that this brilliant insight and several other ones he's had could have been put in better hands than his own. I would also say he's way too much of a permabear, and a bit of a pussy when it comes taking even any unneeded risk outside of the moment when everybody else runs for the exits(which he then finds strength and goes long [mostly] unhedged which I'll admit is a bit admirable on his part to get a definite spine in those dark months). He is definitely the ultimate bear of my personal collection of people I actually appreciate and usually take his bear sentiments with a grain of salt outside using them to be a good test of my own bullish enthusiasm(when I have bullish enthusiasm).

Essentially how do rate someone who has given you some very useful tools for your toolbox, but at the same time hasn't done as well as he should have because he's too much of a pussy and a downer to really be a great success managing money?


I agree. My first reading of your OP was that the ratings were based on their investment success. Dr. Hussman has made many contributions to the field even though his funds results have trailed.

I think Mebane Faber of Cambria Investments is an up and comer, although he's too new the scene to be up there with Buffet, Soros, et. al.

dshibb said:   NantucketSunrise said:   it's just an observation: this comprehensive roster of experts in this field is amazingly male-centric (not to mention that it mainly consists of white folks, mainly of American folks).On that note, I've Googled in the past to try to find new ones to read about and there is a thread out on the interwebs that focuses just on financial media personalities and there was a similar comment about them being almost entirely white males.

Personally, I would have appreciated a few more females up on that list, but honestly they're just not that many out there. Financial services is pretty male dominated for reasons I don't know why.

I will say that Maria Bartiromo is my favorite anchor on CNBC and definitely my favorite female anchor on any news network, but that's a slightly different thing since she's primarily there to ask questions not to provide answers.
I have to say, I really enjoy listening to Jill Schlesinger every weekend on her radio program. Editor for CBS MoneyWatch, a CFP, a former chief investment officer, a former options trader.....

She's not bad, I just started listening to her show.

brettdoyle said:   Milton Friedman 10
Paul Volcker 6.5
Alan Greenspan 1
Ben Bernanke 1
Tim Geithner 1
Paul Krugman -5

That's silly because it doesn't seem to be based on outcomes.

Milton Friedman was right about the Great Depression (money supply was too tight), US inflation (money supply was too loose, fiscal policy couldn't completely eliminate unemployment, and there was no tradeoff between unemployement and inflation), income tax withholding (he invented it when he worked for the US government), negative income tax (AKA the Earned Income Credit), but he was wrong about Brazilian inflation (his recommendation to index all prices did nothing), the Soviet Union (quickly changing to a free market ignored Russian social norms that preferred security over freedom), the military (he said volunteer GIs were no different from mercernaries -- he had no military experience himself), tax cuts (always favored them, regardless of resulting deficits), income inequality (he predicted the free market would make us more equal and admitted in 2000 that it hadn't happened and couldn't explain why). So Friedman deserves to be considered way above average, but he's no 10.

I don't see how you can give Friedman such a high score and Bernanke such a low one when Bernanke was a disciple of Friedman's and pretty much did what Friedman would have prescribed about the Great Recession.

Paul Volcker deserves more than a 6.5 because he saved our economy from inflation and was probably the best Federal Reserve chairman. Similarly, you can't rate Krugman so low when he's pretty much agreed with Volcker, and Krugman correctly predicted that loose monetary policy to fight the Great Recession would not result in hyperinflation and that austerity would be the wrong solution.

brettdoyle said:   Keynes was a pretty smart guy but his economic plans are impossible to implement in practice due to human nature.

He thought that governments should reduce spending and run a surplus in boom years... and that never actually happened. No one wants to take the punch bowl away when the economy is doing well.

So we basically end up with some deficits in the boom years and huge deficits during recessions and his ideas are modified to justify huge government.
But we did have surpluses from about 1997-2000, during many years in the 1950s, and in 1968.

larrymoencurly said:   brettdoyle said:   Milton Friedman 10
Paul Volcker 6.5
Alan Greenspan 1
Ben Bernanke 1
Tim Geithner 1
Paul Krugman -5

That's silly because it doesn't seem to be based on outcomes.

Milton Friedman was right about the Great Depression (money supply was too tight), US inflation (money supply was too loose, fiscal policy couldn't completely eliminate unemployment, and there was no tradeoff between unemployement and inflation), income tax withholding (he invented it when he worked for the US government), negative income tax (AKA the Earned Income Credit), but he was wrong about Brazilian inflation (his recommendation to index all prices did nothing), the Soviet Union (quickly changing to a free market ignored Russian social norms that preferred security over freedom), the military (he said volunteer GIs were no different from mercernaries -- he had no military experience himself), tax cuts (always favored them, regardless of resulting deficits), income inequality (he predicted the free market would make us more equal and admitted in 2000 that it hadn't happened and couldn't explain why). So Friedman deserves to be considered way above average, but he's no 10.

I don't see how you can give Friedman such a high score and Bernanke such a low one when Bernanke was a disciple of Friedman's and pretty much did what Friedman would have prescribed about the Great Recession.

Paul Volcker deserves more than a 6.5 because he saved our economy from inflation and was probably the best Federal Reserve chairman. Similarly, you can't rate Krugman so low when he's pretty much agreed with Volcker, and Krugman correctly predicted that loose monetary policy to fight the Great Recession would not result in hyperinflation and that austerity would be the wrong solution.


I'll resist the urge to reply to what you wrote in your first paragraph(save it for a different thread), but the bolded statement you posted is just completely factually inaccurate. You want to know how I know that? Because 2 of his biggest disciples Anna Schwartz(who co-wrote A Monetary History of United States with Miltion) and Allan Meltzer were very clear from all the way back in 2009 that Bernanke was making a huge mistake and neither of them have deviated from that.

Bernanke absolutely is not a practitioner of the Monetarist approach to monetary policy. He is a person that has fallen in love with the worst kind of Keynesian monetary policy and says things that Monetarists find absolutely appalling and retarded.

larrymoencurly said:   brettdoyle said:   Keynes was a pretty smart guy but his economic plans are impossible to implement in practice due to human nature.

He thought that governments should reduce spending and run a surplus in boom years... and that never actually happened. No one wants to take the punch bowl away when the economy is doing well.

So we basically end up with some deficits in the boom years and huge deficits during recessions and his ideas are modified to justify huge government.
But we did have surpluses from about 1997-2000, during many years in the 1950s, and in 1968.


Can you please stop feeding more politics into this thread? I mean you can ultimately do what you want, but I'm asking you nicely.

If nothing else, this thread got me off my butt and looking to see if Chuck Royce was alive or dead.

I thought he was dead. My apologies to Chuck.

BEEFjerKAY said:   If nothing else, this thread got me off my butt and looking to see if Chuck Royce was alive or dead.

I thought he was dead. My apologies to Chuck.


I thought you were dead

psychtobe said:   
Jack Bogle
Bill Bemstein
Rick Ferri
Larry Swedroe
Burton Malkiel

Read one or two books from each author, follow their lead, and you will be better off than 98% of investors. The rest is just noise.
The above is pretty much all you need for personal investing.

Here are some that haven't been mentioned, all from an institutional trading / asset management perspective:
. Bill Eckardt & Richard Dennis
. Michael Mauboussin
. Jeremy Grantham
. Mebane Faber
. Ed Thorp

Anyone else read the thread title as "rate your fiancées tit$&@@". ?

If you want a lively non political debate, add Bernie Madoff to the list and debate his rank. He sure gets credit for successful affinity marketing, exclusivity, ambition, and using connections/reputation to beat numerous audits by our guardians and porn connoisseurs at the SEC.

Bernie Madoff 6

I could be convinced to go higher.

xerty said:   If you want a lively non political debate, add Bernie Madoff to the list and debate his rank. He sure gets credit for successful affinity marketing, exclusivity, ambition, and using connections/reputation to beat numerous audits by our guardians and porn connoisseurs at the SEC.

Bernie Madoff 6

I could be convinced to go higher.


Don't know if those are financial talents though. They are certainly talents used for evil purposes, but I don't know if any of those are actually financial in nature.

On a different note I did include Michael Milken and gave him a 7. I figured that would raise an eyebrow or 2 by now. The guy was a smart financial innovator; too bad he decided to skirt the rules with it. Although in his defense there technically was no law about insider trading in bonds at the time only in stocks. Still should have known that they could decide to make an example out of him.

Also Edward Thorp is one my favorites(obviously I gave him a 10) if not my number 1 favorite and he was asked to perform some due diligence on Bernie back in 1991. He very quickly realized that Bernie was a fraud and alerted regulators. I believe Thorp was the first one to point out how Bernie was a fraud.

The following economists make themselves eminently accessible to the informed public. They have produced a lot of fascinating research that, while not directly related to personal finance, is interesting in its own right and can result in some inspired decision making.

Stephen Dubner, Steven Levitt:
Freakonomics

Tyler Cowen, Alex Tabarrok:
Marginal Revolution

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Anyone else read the thread title as "rate your fiancées tit$&@@". ?

Well, in that case, 10 here. And she's a dentist. Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.

+ 1000 to Thorp. His books changed my life, although it wasn't for 20 years after reading them. Probably should mention Claude Shannon and John Kelly too. A very good recap of their contributions is detailed in "Fortune's Formula."

Nice OP. Sorting the list by rating, and averaging if 1< for any specific ones -- may help

Alright, so I'm posting this presentation by Bass. I've heard a lot of this numerous times, but there is some very, very additions he's now saying about Japan. It's also shorter than his more than an hour presentations elsewhere.

Highly recommended.

Bass at Chicago Booth

That is what quality research looks like right there. The argument is solid in every respect and this is while you watch major institutional investors rushing into Japan right now thinking that either A) There is no sovereign problem to worry about because look at low those interest rates are or B) They can get out before things get that bad(which hopefully they're right).

And really listen to his 2nd to last question. He has a half a trillion dollars in notional outstanding in his JGB position that some 27 year I-Bankers are selling him for 1 basis pt $5 billion at a time. Literally it's a minuscule fraction of his fund that doesn't even hamper his returns at all to put this trade on and it can likely double his fund again or more over night if it comes true. All because the bank's models sees it as free money so their idiot 27 year old I-Bankers gravitate towards putting the position on. And one of the major banks calls him back to ask him if we would close out those positions because their stress models are changing. Interestingly enough he got the same call right before the mortgage market cracked in 2007. It's seriously unbelievable.


P.S. I find it ironic that he's introduced by Austan Goolsbee of all people. And he kind of wont shut up at the beginning.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Ramsey and Orman have little to offer us but for the majority of financial simpletons , they are helpful

I'd give Orman a 4-6 catering to this group and Ramsey maybe 3-4

As much as ppl love to hate on kiyosaki, myself included , ill admit you could have made a ton of money if you acted on his tips when they first came out - not years after he made them and kept repeating them

He was early to recommend RE and gold at the right times . But you had to be paying attention early


I concur. Kiyosaki had a very positive influence on my life - reading Rich Dad helped convinced me to get into Real Estate early.

Additionally, though I know we were asked to stay away from Economists, Nouriel Roubini, aka DR Doom, saved me half of my nest egg by convincing me to get out of the market in January 2008 before the plunge. Unfortunately almost all of his recent predictions have been off base but I think he at least deserves to be in the conversation for being amongst the first to warn us of the economic challenges we'd face back in 2007/2008.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Ramsey and Orman have little to offer us but for the majority of financial simpletons , they are helpful

I'd give Orman a 4-6 catering to this group and Ramsey maybe 3-4

As much as ppl love to hate on kiyosaki, myself included , ill admit you could have made a ton of money if you acted on his tips when they first came out - not years after he made them and kept repeating them

He was early to recommend RE and gold at the right times . But you had to be paying attention early


I concur. Kiyosaki had a very positive influence on my life - reading Rich Dad helped convinced me to get into Real Estate early.

Additionally, though I know we were asked to stay away from Economists, Nouriel Roubini, aka DR Doom, saved me half of my nest egg by convincing me to get out of the market in January 2008 before the plunge. Unfortunately almost all of his recent predictions have been off base but I think he at least deserves to be in the conversation for being amongst the first to warn us of the economic challenges we'd face back in 2007/2008.

"It's a pleasure to be invited to speak at a school that would have never let me in!" Kyle Bass speaking at Chicago Booth



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014