Rickson9 millionare at 30 [Archive]

ssimps

2010-01-01, 04:59 PM

I just found this article which states it is "From Canadian Business Online, September 20, 2005":

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/my_money/investing/article.jsp?content=20050921_131231_5836

"
Jim Chuong: "The lazy road to wealth"

Age: 33
Location: Toronto
Profession: Pharmaceutical sales rep
Main portfolio value: $190,000
Net worth: $400,000 (includes main portfolio, RRSP and investment properties)
........
"

If this is the same person as Rickson9, which it seems to be, then the article is suggesting his net worth in 2005 was 400K?

Rickson9, which is correct, that you were a "Millionaire at 30." as your signature suggests, or that you were worth 400K as the article does?

Or am I missing something?

Thanks for the clarification.

high octane

2010-01-01, 05:49 PM

Rickson9

2010-01-01, 05:54 PM

If this is the same person as Rickson9, which it seems to be, then the article is suggesting his net worth in 2005 was 400K?

Rickson9, which is correct, that you were a "Millionaire at 30." as your signature suggests, or that you were worth 400K as the article does?

The former is correct.

Thanks for the clarification.

Welcome.

ssimps

2010-01-01, 06:21 PM

The former is correct.

Of course it is. :confused: It can't be both.

So did you give incorrect information to the writer of the article, or did the writer incorrectly report your net asset. If they misreported, especially given your seeming style of wanting everyone in the world to know how rich and successful you are, can you point us to a correction that you surely requested from the article writer / magazine?

Thanks again.

Rickson9

2010-01-01, 06:25 PM

So did you give incorrect information to the writer of the article, or did the writer incorrectly report your net asset.

Both.

If they misreported, especially given your seeming style of wanting everyone in the world to know how rich and successful you are, can you point us to a correction that you surely requested from the article writer / magazine?

No.

Thanks again.

Welcome.

ssimps

2010-01-01, 06:37 PM

So you are admitting to giving misinformation to a reporter for an article? Why would you do that?

Wow, this is really helping your credibility. :(

Rickson9

2010-01-01, 07:56 PM

So you are admitting to giving misinformation to a reporter for an article? Why would you do that?

Wow, this is really helping your credibility. :(

Yes it is. :)

ssimps

2010-01-01, 08:01 PM

Hopefully the misinformation you decide to give on this site or at your "pay for information" seminar is minimized to nil; but who will really know?

Cheers.

Rickson9

2010-01-01, 08:09 PM

Hopefully the misinformation you decide to give on this site or at your "pay for information" seminar is minimized to nil; but who will really know?

Cheers.

Best regards.

HaroldCrump

2010-01-01, 09:58 PM

IMO, Rickson9's posts on this forum are stinking more and more of haughtiness and nonchalance.
I wonder why he's wasting his time posting here.

yyzvoyageur

2010-01-01, 10:16 PM

The last time I checked his website he wanted to teach us all how to buy stocks. Now, a couple of months later, it's all about distressed real estate. $500 per person? No thanks.

Kalynn12

2010-01-01, 11:09 PM

and be short with ssimps. Rickson9 has been very open on this forum and offered many personal details on this website and offered help to many people. ssimps has just give out Rickson9 real name which Rickson9 clearly did not want or he would have used his real name (or part of) on this site or his website. And now ssimps is calling him a liar.

Wow, I thought I was done with high school!

Berubeland

2010-01-01, 11:20 PM

Rickson's name and phone number was posted on his website a few months ago. Which was linked from his sig.

His website linked many articles which discussed his stock picking success.

ssimps

2010-01-02, 08:43 AM

and be short with ssimps. Rickson9 has been very open on this forum and offered many personal details on this website and offered help to many people.

Based on the article and R9's responses, I have to question how much of his help is based on real experience and success. He has even eluded on another thread that the reason he posts so much on this site is so that he can advertise on his signature. I think it is important that members of this site be aware of this and also question it.

ssimps has just give out Rickson9 real name which Rickson9 clearly did not want or he would have used his real name (or part of) on this site or his website.

He gives all this information, including an address, on his website, so you can send him a $500 cheque. How have I done something wrong here?

And now ssimps is calling him a liar.

Both, he is admitting to being one from his replies to my questions, and therefore I am also. He is admitting to giving wrong information to the author of the article I found.

Don't you find it even a bit odd that he has not stepped up to defend his own integrity about this? Or that he has not posted anything stating that I am wrong calling him what I have? If he would show us how the article was wrong and everything he posts himself is the actual truth, I would be the first to retract my statements about warning people of his integrity.

What should we trust more, a published article about the person that was using information given by the person, or the persons personal website and signature that they can modify as they wish?

Wow, I thought I was done with high school!

So did I.

humble_pie

2010-01-02, 02:02 PM

it's sammy glick didja voo all over again.

bakkaffterthiss.

ssimps

2010-01-02, 02:22 PM

it's sammy glick didja voo all over again.

bakkaffterthiss.

I had to google this one:

sammy glick:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sammy%20glick

;)

humble_pie

2010-01-02, 02:24 PM

it's duddy kravitz didja voo all over again.

bakkaffterthiss.

ssimps

2010-01-02, 02:55 PM

So according to that article and my rough math, at 26 he had a $45k portfolio that grew on average 23% for 7 years

I like the story and I'd love to do something similar but 6 stocks in clothing and apparel?

I'm not risk-averse but it doesn't make sense to me

Another way to look at this:

If we assume the information in the 2005 article is correct, I see no reason not to at this point, then:

In 2005 his net worth was $400K; lets assume that this was at the start of 2005 since the article is from Sept '05.

Based on his own website (lets assume these are correct) here are his returns and net worth for 2005 - 2008:

2005: -3.6% = 385,600 net worth
2006: +8.6% = 418,761.60 net worth
2007: +22.4 = 512,564.20 net worth
2008: -33.4% = 341,367.76

So based on this, and if my math is correct, his net worth at the end of 2008 was $341,367.76, less than when the article was written in 2005!

Math is fun!

But I am sure that 2009 is going to be a great year for him. Maybe he will actually end up becoming a millionaire this year.

I am now also confident he is correct that he has nothing to learn from anyone about investing as he has posted on this forum. :confused:

humble_pie

2010-01-02, 03:08 PM

aww, he just happens to like sportswear & shoes.

mogul777

2010-01-02, 04:46 PM

Who cares. :rolleyes:

ssimps

2010-01-02, 06:35 PM

Who cares. :rolleyes:

Your question is a bit ambiguous (who cares about what exactly?) and maybe just you being sarcastic, but here is my opinion on why I should care about my environment, real or on-line, and the people that I interact in it.

I care about trying to ensure a forum I get input from and I put energy into has members that are honest and not making false claims to me or others. That is why I care.

If you don't care if you live in an world (even an online one) that has dishonest people that lurk in it, make seemingly false claims, perhaps only to potentially profit, and don't want to try to make it a more honest place, that is your choice and your right. I'm not asking you to care and I don't judge you if you don't.

Hypothetically speaking, I bet if you you did something based on false information someone gave you and you lost $ because of it, you would care though; even if you were naive enough to have based the action on the info in the first place. But hey, maybe you would not.;)

At least that is why I care. But maybe I am naive.

Hey, another thought...

R...9 also seems to care, he cares that he gets as many people to know that he claims to have become a millionare at 30, forcing all of us to see it every time he posts, even when it may not even be true at all.

So hey, there are a least 2 people that care. :rolleyes:

dogcom

2010-01-02, 08:13 PM

One thing I have learned is that you can never trust what anyone says especially when investing. Every investment you buy you need to be aware that all or part of it could be based on false information and you just hope that you have done your homework and seen through it. And even then you may still be fooled and not catch it.

John_Michaels

2010-01-02, 08:23 PM

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. ...lots of people claim to have more or claim to have less than they have. Surely everyone here has had to sit through family events the last few weeks?

I've liked many of R9's posts over the months and his tagline credibility regarding what he has or hasn't accomplished I don't think is cogent for the purposes of this forum. I have no interest in what he's selling and thus I admittedly gloss over it. He might have been a millionaire for a picosecond and thus he's telling the truth - who's to say?

I think the internet is a great place for getting ideas, clarifications and opinions. There is a difference between opinion and advice. Advice costs money, this forum doesn't. I act accordingly.

As for trusting his responses? I barely trust my own :) . I don't think he has have been misleading or way off in his and I welcome his thoughts.

Sorry, still at 2.

ssimps

2010-01-02, 09:21 PM

One thing I have learned is that you can never trust what anyone says especially when investing.

This is true and something I have learned first hand, even when the person is a certified financial whatever and is at least saying that your best interests are theirs too.

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. ...lots of people claim to have more or claim to have less than they have.

This is likely also true and a fact that I am likely just going to have to accept. Not many I have seen on this site put it in your face every posting though (unless you turn off signatures which you can do and I have). But I've said this before.

I think the internet is a great place for getting ideas, clarifications and opinions. There is a difference between opinion and advice. Advice costs money, this forum doesn't. I act accordingly.

I'll consider something an opinion if I think that it could be wrong or incorrect; I'll consider something advise if I respect the person or if I think it to be true. Advice does not always have to cost $ and sometimes opinion does. Regardless, IMO paying for either does not mean it is anymore valuable or 'true' than if you got it for free. I think both opinion and advise is given on this forum; and that objectively there may be little difference between the two:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advise

As for trusting his responses? I barely trust my own :) .

Fair enough.

John_Michaels

2010-01-04, 06:38 PM

ah...but what about adviCE versus adviSe?

http://english4today.blogs.com/english/2006/05/advise_or_advic.html

ssimps

2010-01-05, 07:33 AM

ah...but what about adviCE versus adviSe?

http://english4today.blogs.com/english/2006/05/advise_or_advic.html

Based on

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advice, just to keep my source consistent ;), no dif really.

CanadianCapitalist

2010-01-05, 08:49 AM

In 2005 his net worth was $400K; lets assume that this was at the start of 2005 since the article is from Sept '05.

Based on his own website (lets assume these are correct) here are his returns and net worth for 2005 - 2008:

2005: -3.6% = 385,600 net worth
2006: +8.6% = 418,761.60 net worth
2007: +22.4 = 512,564.20 net worth
2008: -33.4% = 341,367.76

But he is almost certainly adding money to his portfolio. The returns on our personal portfolios, for instance, are modest but adding savings provides a turbo boost to portfolio growth. I won't be surprised if it's the same in Rickson's case.

DavidJD

2010-01-05, 09:20 AM

No offence to anyone, but I find this type of banter less suitable for a forum such as this than a member promoting off-site services. Perhaps this discussion can be continued with personal/private messages?

Berubeland

2010-01-05, 09:59 AM

I miss Rickson9 already.

Yeah he is a tad too entrepreneurial with his seminar but if I had a dollar for everytime I was an ass I'd be a millionaire too.

As far being a millionaire at 30 goes he might have assets other than equities. Including his paid off condo.

So come back Rickson :o

DavidJD

2010-01-05, 10:44 AM

Rickson9 left the forum?

ssimps

2010-01-05, 01:16 PM

Rickson9 left the forum?

No idea; has been quite the last couple of days, but probably not; likely just buying time before he has to change his rule breaking signature (say after his pay for seminar). Who knows, and I guess as some have suggested, who cares. Even I'm starting not too anymore!

Since I'm posting anyhow, can't the admin's change the rule breaking sig. for him until he decides to change it himself? ;)

Berubeland

2010-01-05, 04:07 PM

Rickson9 left the forum?

I'm not sure but I hope not. I just haven't seen him around the last few days.

I would not like to be dog piled in public in the forum like we just did to Rickson9 and it doesn't matter if we were right or not about our facts.

I consider it embarrassing to center someone out and castigate them in a public forum. Such things should have been taken to PM and allowed the person a way to maintain their credibility and pride.

I would not want this to happen to me no matter what the reason. Being right does not allow me to shame another or we are both poorer for it. So yeah the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

HaroldCrump

2010-01-05, 04:35 PM

I consider it embarrassing to center someone out and castigate them in a public forum. Such things should have been taken to PM and allowed the person a way to maintain their credibility and pride.

I would not want this to happen to me no matter what the reason. Being right does not allow me to shame another or we are both poorer for it. So yeah the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.Agreed, however R9 started this thing by his claims about being a young millionaire and his real estate gigs and escapades.
Then he began soliciting for his RE investing seminar.
That is what opened him up for further scrutiny and he had his claims challenge.
If he (or anyone else) cannot live with the scrutiny and the challenge of their claims, and needs to leave the forum because of such attention, he/she should not be making such claims and solicitations.

high octane

2010-01-05, 06:07 PM

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. ...lots of people claim to have more or claim to have less than they have. Surely everyone here has had to sit through family events the last few weeks?

I come to forums for useful posts like Dr_V's dogs of dow stock screening or Cannon Fodders excel sheets and FrugalTraders blogs

I think it's easy to tell the difference between useful information and empty claims. Obviously anyone can say they've done this or have that, but not everyone can provide useful free information

I don't believe everything I read on forums but I've found lots of amazing info.

ssimps

2010-01-05, 06:14 PM

I'm not sure but I hope not. I just haven't seen him around the last few days.

I would not like to be dog piled in public in the forum like we just did to Rickson9 and it doesn't matter if we were right or not about our facts.

I consider it embarrassing to center someone out and castigate them in a public forum. Such things should have been taken to PM and allowed the person a way to maintain their credibility and pride.

I would not want this to happen to me no matter what the reason. Being right does not allow me to shame another or we are both poorer for it. So yeah the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I generally agree with you very strongly on the points you make above, and hope R9 is just coming back from his cruise and doesn't have internet access. I think this was a special case though. Someone who continuously publicly screams for attention will get some; good or bad.

If someone claims something on every post they make on the public forum, it is not surprising, or wrong IMO, to publicly question them about it if a published article is found that questions the claim. If the claims that are being made are true, all the better for the person. If they are not able to back them up, then I think it is in the best interest of all members of the forum to know that.

Otherwise maybe we may as well all start just being publicly misleading and making up stories that suite our personal agenda's. But as has been suggested by another member, maybe a lot of people already do.

BTW, there have been several defenders of R9 as well, so I would not say this has been a one sided witch hunt. Some of the defenders have made good and valid points, like for example that maybe he was a millionaire @ 30 but was not @ 33 when the article was written where he indicated a net worth of 400K.

ssimps

2010-01-05, 06:44 PM

But he is almost certainly adding money to his portfolio. The returns on our personal portfolios, for instance, are modest but adding savings provides a turbo boost to portfolio growth. I won't be surprised if it's the same in Rickson's case.

True, this is very likely the case. To me, still does not explain the millionaire @ 30 claim when 3 - 4 years after that he was reported as having 400K. Unless as has been suggested, and may very well also be the case, he was a millionaire @ 30 but not later when the article was written, but that is not backed by his return statements for those years. All very puzzling.

Regardless, I have jumped to conclusions and R9s unwillingness or inability to back his claim when I questioned him on it fueled my fire.

BTW, I'm not completely proud of the way I handled this when I look back on it. I believe I have learned from it, and think I would handle it differently next time. Most likely by just ignoring the crap and focusing on the good stuff like high_octane has suggested.

HaroldCrump

2010-01-05, 07:05 PM

Some of the defenders have made good and valid points, like for example that maybe he was a millionaire @ 30 but was not @ 33 when the article was written where he indicated a net worth of 400K.Froom $1M to $400K in 3 years is a pretty terrible rate of return :eek:

John_Michaels

2010-01-06, 08:49 AM

Four Pillars

2010-01-06, 09:04 AM

I'd suggest the moderators just delete this thread and we'll forget it ever happened.

Berubeland

2010-01-06, 09:42 AM

I'd suggest the moderators just delete this thread and we'll forget it ever happened.

I will send him a private message and I suggest any others who are not happy with what has happened do so as well.

steve41

2010-01-06, 10:30 AM

I would simply suggest that he remove his URL from the signature portion of his CP and use the 'home page' instead. That way, the interested user could find out where his website is and yet the obtrusive signature would not be continually on view.

This is the mechanism I use. I figure if someone is curious about my enterprise, they will click on my name and find out that way.

DavidJD

2010-01-06, 10:58 AM

Perhaps we could trust members to choose if they want to follow a link or look into what is a members signature for themselves. Honestly it does not interfere with our use of the forum does it?

I personally find the direct attack of a member more offensive than if a signature offers a link.

ssimps

2010-01-06, 11:01 AM

I'd suggest the moderators just delete this thread and we'll forget it ever happened.

I suggest that the thread be "closed'', so no more posts can be added to it, but not deleted. I'm requesting this to be done by an admin as the person who started the thread in the first place (rightly or wrongly depending on your opinion). I would do it myself but can not.

This way it will disappear off the radar quite quickly, but still be available for future searches etc since the initial question is a fair one IMO and other members have indicated they agree with that.

As I've mentioned before I would like to stop posts on this thread, as I agree it has gotten out of control.