Adam:

After reading John Reed's views on these supposed real estate gurus, I have discovered...

• Selective editing,
• False Assumptions,
• Out of Context quotes,
• Miss-quotes and,
• Deliberate wrong conclusions drawn...

All throughout his writing.

And by the time you have finished reading this post you will agree with me.

He claims John Burley says he retired at a certain age, then asks, if he is retired why does he still sell stuff and do seminars and workshops. And he says Burley's claims of retirement are on his website.

I've gone to his (John Burley) website and I see no such claim. John Burley has said he realised he was in a position to retire. And realising you are in a position to retire and actually retiring are two different things.

Warren Buffet is certainly in a Position To Retire as well.

Reed shows how Dolf de Roos claims all wealthy people either become rich through real estate or hold their wealth in real estate. Reed than counters with something like - the super wealthy I know of all made their money without using real estate, so Dolf is telling untruths.

STOP. Dolf didn't make a blanket statement. His statement was either or - they EITHER made their money via real estate OR use real estate to hold the wealth. Yet Reed addresses only one element of that statement and attributes it as the only thing Dolf said and compares it only to people he knows of. This is selective editing and drawing deliberate wrong conclusions

This is somewhat like when the news media says, "The public have asked for..." "There is public concern over..." etc., etc., etc. WHO is this public, I ask. The news-reader's spouse? The tea lady?

Who are these wealthy people John Reed knows or is comparing Dolf to? (Not that it would matter because he would select wealthy people who fit his statement anyway.)

And what is meant by the term "investment real estate"? If I buy a company I also buy everything it owns - land and buildings. So I also acquire real estate whether I like it or not. And if I invest in the stock market, I invest in everything the company I have bought shares in, invests in. So my purchase of X number of shares of Microsoft means I also partly own everything Microsoft owns - including the land and buildings of other companies.

I wrote to John Reed and asked him... "From the Proof you offer about your real estate expertise, it appears that you only own ONE real estate property. Is this correct?" (He NEVER replied)

He is selling books on investing in real estate and only currently owns one property. He doesn't say whether it is an investment property or his own residence. But seeing as it is a normal type house, I conclude it is his residence.

John Reed says to be careful of John Burley because Burley has words like "Automatic wealth system" in his writing.

I asked Reed if Burley's system which is: invest part of your income in a high interest bank account or S&P Index Fund using a DRIP (Dividend Reinvestment Program) in combination with regular monthly deposits and over time the compound interest will automatically make you wealthy (and the math proves it is so), is something I should be careful of as he says. Again, I get no reply.

The fact John Reed sells real estate books taints EVERYTHING he writes about other real estate book authors - the good and the bad - because he has a vested interest in the subject.

Of course, if he didn't, people would view his remarks as they should - just someone else's opinion, and we all have our own opinions.

I'll also echo Dien's remarks here: Kiyosaki is NOT, nor has he ever claimed to be, a real estate guru. And yet, Reed reviews his work as though it is the work of a real estate guru.

Reed's page on "Where are they now" (or whatever it is called) shows Kiyosaki as being bankrupt in 1985, and that is all! That is selective presentation of the information. It is plainly obvious that Kiyosaki's 1985 bankruptcy has been overcome - it was not the end of the story for Kiyosaki. Yet, by providing only that bit of information, Reed once again Taints everything.

And I'd like to draw your attention back to something I said at the beginning, "by the time you have finished reading this post you will agree with me."

I have no proof to back that up. Is it true? Do you now agree with me? That's for you to decide. I am drawing your attention to it again now because it is an EXAMPLE of the kind of false statements Reed makes throughout is writing.

It is almost akin to the comedy scene where the big biker asks the scrawny guy if he was looking at his girlfriend. The scrawny guys says "NO" and the biker says "Why not, isn't she good enough?"

In other words, Reed's writing is full of these delibertate mis-interpretations.

Of course, when it all comes down to it, the best advice is simply "Take what you can use and discard the rest."

But alas, the public (HA!) is not like that. Those who doubt Kiyosaki will find solice in Reed's writing. Those who love Kiyosaki will be upset by Reed and attack him. And those who take what they can use, will view both objectively, find good and bad points, and move along their merry way.

My only real problem with Reed are the five things I mentioned at the start:

• Selective editing,
• False Assumptions,
• Out of Context quotes,
• Miss-quotes and,
• Deliberate wrong conclusions drawn...

If he could write without his tainted pen, I'm sure his arguments would be so much better and stronger as they wouldn't be able to be refuted.

As for Kiyosaki? His response to Reed makes the matter worse. He should have kept quiet. By half responding, and selective responding, he casts doubts and shadows upon himself. As you said, a Politician's answer (no answer).

And what is MY opinion of Kiyosaki?

His first three books in the Rich Dad Series were okay. Rich Kid Smart Kid was written to make more money. And Retire Young Retire Rich had so much padding and fluff and endless repetition of sentences, phrases and whole paragraphs it was a struggle to get through it (and what was with the fairy tales scattered through the thing?). After his last two books being such poor efforts he will not get any more of my money.

After seeing a workshop of his (via Pay TV) I was also unimpressed. In fact, he came across like a sleezy Get Rich Quick guy - I live in a big house, with expensive cars and high-priced watches and Love spending money on my Platinum credit card, etc. And didn't really present anything new that he hadn't already mentioned in his first three books. He poured water from a big jug into a small glass. Said how he loved his credit card some more. And encouraged everyone to buy his boardgame Cashflow 101. (Came across to me like an Amway sales meeting thing.)

But like I said, "Take what you can use and discard the rest."

Michael Ross.