# Kevin O`Leary



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Pretty unflattering article in the NP

Is Kevin O’Leary a good or bad businessman?


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

That would be National Observer, not National Post. 

I've read much of that several years ago somewhere else. Unflattering is putting it mildly.


----------



## Shlomo (Dec 16, 2015)

Yeah... O'Leary is pretty much a talking head and nothing more. Everything he seems to touch turns to moldy bread. Even the Dragons Den participants veer away from him as his track record for following through on even those meager deals is less than adequate.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sounds like the Donald Trump story.

The key to business success, is finding chumps with more money than brains to finance your failures until you get lucky.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Lol O'leary for Prime Minister. That'll sink the tory ship even quicker.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

I am sure he`s questionable as a business person but he got lucky in the dotcom bubble. Lots of people did. Cant fault him for that.


----------



## Underworld (Aug 26, 2009)

I like him. He speaks his mind, is very simple in how he presents things and helps people by telling them their idea stinks if it does.
It takes a lot of balls, confidence and charisma to do that for an extended period of time without everyone hating you


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It's becoming increasingly obvious to me that KO'L is just using Donald Trump as a model for how to live his own.

- Mediocre businessman, check.
- Reality TV star, check.
- Insincere conservative tough guy persona, check.
- Semi-serious politician, check.

I guess the main difference is that KO'L decided to give in to his baldness rather than endure the the hairspray and spraytan monstrosity Trump is sporting.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

It's actually far worse. O'Leary has a history of sleazy activity in finance. I would never entrust him with my money. Here's an older article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...just-plays-one-on-tv/article4564334/?page=all

If nothing else, read the parts about TLC and the takeover by Mattel. O'Leary ripped off investors.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I agree that O'Leary is a blatant opportunist and has demonstrated no business skills in his career. His primary source of fame seems to be copying Don Cherry in style. I would not trust Don or Kevin with my money.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

I would love to see O'Leary in the starring role of a perp walk, with a throng of reporters trying to push a microphone in his face... "_It's all about the money, mo-ney!_"

I was surprised reading in the article about "grinding the capital". Why is that even allowed?


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

O Leary was barely on the radar until he got that DD gig and a few interviews on CBC. He really used those to parlay his bad guy tell it hard image that a lot of people like. TV shows always need an antagonist otherwise they are boring and he plays it for all he is worth. 

I dont think he did any thin unscrupulous with mattel. These guys could have done all the due diligence they wanted but didnt. If someone was falling over themselves to give you a few billion I doubt you would tell them no.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think all the Kevin hate here is unfounded. I guess most of us are jealous. He would make a great Prime Minister compared to our present one...at least he has shown to have an opinion without coaching.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

tygrus said:


> I dont think he did any thin unscrupulous with mattel. These guys could have done all the due diligence they wanted but didnt. If someone was falling over themselves to give you a few billion I doubt you would tell them no.


I don't know anything about that deal, but having been around in the early days of PCs, I recall the software that he peddled. Convincing the computer companies to bundle that rubbish with their computers, shows he must have sales skills!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

tygrus said:


> I dont think he did any thin unscrupulous with mattel. These guys could have done all the due diligence they wanted but didnt. If someone was falling over themselves to give you a few billion I doubt you would tell them no.


From what I read, it sounded like O'Leary massaged the small company pre-acquisition to make its financial position look much stronger than it was. Shareholders sued him for it, too (O'Leary was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit).


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

tygrus said:


> O Leary was barely on the radar until he got that DD gig and a few interviews on CBC ...


I guess it depends on whose radar ... I can recall seeing him on BNN while being co-host of "SqueezePlay" as well as CBC. I believe DD came after that where it certainly broadened the audience.




Eder said:


> I think all the Kevin hate here is unfounded. I guess most of us are jealous. He would make a great Prime Minister compared to our present one...at least he has shown to have an opinion without coaching.


Unfounded??

AFAICT, most of the criticisms are for exaggerations or abrupt reversals. 

For example, while on BNN I seem to recall him loathing MFs yet he starts his own MF firm in 2008. Beyond the Funds, he has or had a venture capital, storage, books, wine makes and mortgage company.

I say had or has because the mortgage company went under and unlike other Fund companies, his lasted seven years as he sold it in Oct 2015 to Canoe Financial. Never fear though ... after all his talk about dividends, conservative investing etc. - he has started in July 2015 an ETF company, O'Shares investments.


With so much running around ... is he changing what he does? Or is he being opportunistic to jump on whatever he can?



Cheers


*PS*

So yes ... he has an opinion but it seems to change depending on the business du jour.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Eder said:


> I think all the Kevin hate here is unfounded. I guess most of us are jealous. He would make a great Prime Minister compared to our present one...at least he has shown to have an opinion without coaching.


I don't think it is jealousy. He is an insincere provocateur who played a character for reality TV--it's not surprising that that attracts some animus.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

O'Leary is a promoter and he will promote anything that can make him money. He does not care if what he is promoting makes anyone else money. And it seems from his track record that most of his promotions lose investors money. That is what I dislike about him.


----------



## Islenska (May 4, 2011)

Can't stand the guy.................The Don Cherry of biz world or lack there of

Plain rude and a poor haircut!


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I'm sure there was a thread specific to this but the search function of CMF is such abysmal garbage that I couldn't find it.

Anyway, Kevin's wife charged with careless operation and the other boat driver charged for running without nav lights - just as Kevin reported originally.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/nationa...eration-of-a-vessel-over-fatal-boat-crash/amp


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Good to hear that Kevin didn't cause the harm here. It's bad enough he already ripped off shareholders through multiple sleazy business deals... I don't think his brand could have tolerated this on top of that.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

I would never buy his funds. One piece of advice I remember him giving one piece of advice, never own stocks that don't pay a dividend.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

I hope she fights the charges. I find it highly unlikely that they'd be travelling at excessive speed, driving recklessly, etc. Was she driving any differently than another experienced boater would have done in a similar situation, not likely. When driving at night on the water you rely on others to have on their navigation lights, etc. Not sitting in the middle of a channel or open waterway star gazing with no lights on. Grew up on the waterways, these things happen but normally you see it when alcohol is involved and with much younger individuals...

I wonder if the charges would have been any different if there had been no injuries / death.

Just my 2 cents. I could be wrong.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

newfoundlander61 said:


> I would never buy his funds. One piece of advice I remember him giving one piece of advice, never own stocks that don't pay a dividend.


+1


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Synergy said:


> I hope she fights the charges. I find it highly unlikely that they'd be travelling at excessive speed, driving recklessly, etc. Was she driving any differently than another experienced boater would have done in a similar situation, not likely. When driving at night on the water you rely on others to have on their navigation lights, etc. Not sitting in the middle of a channel or open waterway star gazing with no lights on. Grew up on the waterways, these things happen but normally you see it when alcohol is involved and with much younger individuals...
> 
> I wonder if the charges would have been any different if there had been no injuries / death.
> 
> Just my 2 cents. I could be wrong.


There may have been speed limits in the channel , on our lake we can go 60 on some parts but there are speed limits of only 10 in sections.We have seen lots of bass boats flying down the lake at night definitely not going the speed .We too have waterfront cottage and you see it all.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

^ It's definitely possible that they where speeding through a posted channel (over 10km/hr) or within 100 feet of shore. In Ontario, you can't exceed 10km/hr when you're close to shore. No mention of speeding in the media or charges laid but who knows. No mention of boat speed, etc. Someone must know the approximate speed of travel. It will be an interesting case. Maybe boats need a black box or an ECU.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

^ I can’t fond the article but it as mentioned that speed was 17 MPH. That doesn’t seem excessive to me, but I know very little about boating.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

If you are going to spend time on this subject then at least try to get the facts as available. She was charged with a single charge, that is 'careless operation of a vessel'. That is a charge comes under the Canadian Shipping Act, small vessel regulations. 

What she has been charged with covers 2 things only. Easily found using Google.

*1. traveling in a way that could adversely affect the safety of people or property considering the weather, boat traffic, hazards or potential hazards, or the number of people around the boat

2. operating a vessel in a careless manner, without consideration for other people or for the factors listed immediately above.*

There is NOTHING in any of the media reports or Police statements to tell you just exactly how she is accused of having contravened that. Obviously, the prosecutor will have to be more specific in order to prove guilt. It is the equivalent of 'careless driving' of a vehicle vs. 'dangerous driving' which also exists for boating. 

Rather than speculating, I suggest sticking to facts. She has not been charged with SPEEDING, so what does that tell you in regards to what is being speculated about here in regards to speeding? It tells ME that the speculation or any comments about speeding are irrelevant and a waste of time. The same applies to any speculation re alcohol involvement, no one has been charged with anything to do with that either. 

My own take on it is along the lines Snyergy has suggested. Two people died unfortunately and that may have had a bearing on her being charged at all. Her husband's prominence in Canada may also have been a factor. Politics is not confined to politicians after all.

Consider if they had collided and no one was hurt. It would be an accident with the insurers arguing over who was at fault and should pay for damage to the boats and quite possible no one charged with anything. Just another 'fender bender'. You could argue that every time 2 cars are involved in an accident, one of them at least was 'careless'. But a driver doesn't get charged with that after every fender bender do they. If someone dies however, then a drive may well be charged with 'careless' even though they were no more careless than a driver at fault in an accident where no injury or death occurred. 

Take texting for example. One person is texting and runs into the back of your car. No injuries, no deaths. Another person is texting and runs into the back of your car, one person dies as a result. Both drivers were doing the same 'careless' thing, texting while driving. Why would you charge one with 'careless driving' and not the other? But if we are being honest, we know that happens every single day. If they charged every 'careless' driver, the courts would be swamped. So the charge is applied when the OUTCOME is severe, not always when the charge is justified. That in some way is actually wrong I think.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

She will be found 50% responsible for the accident. The fact that the other boat was unlit and contravening the law does not release the captain of O'Leary's boat to keep a competent watch at all times.... she failed to use her radar, AIS and therefore should not be exceeding her night vision...speed would vary depending on moonlight and sea state but 3-4 knots is most likely the fastest safe speed if she is ignoring her instruments. 17mph is almost 15 knots...ridiculous speed trying to use night vision.

(The operator of the other boat is an idiot and shouldn't be on the water)


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Eder said:


> She will be found 50% responsible for the accident. The fact that the other boat was unlit and contravening the law does not release the captain of O'Leary's boat to keep a competent watch at all times.... she failed to use her radar, AIS and therefore should not be exceeding her night vision...speed would vary depending on moonlight and sea state but 3-4 knots is most likely the fastest safe speed if she is ignoring her instruments. 17mph is almost 15 knots...ridiculous speed trying to use night vision.
> 
> (The operator of the other boat is an idiot and shouldn't be on the water)


LOL, radar and AIS, on a pleasure boat on a Muskoka lake? Really? There is no requirement for either of those on a pleasure craft.

I agree that 17kpm would be a foolish speed to be moving at. However, I do not believe the speed of either boat has been confirmed by the Police. I don't pay attention to what speed anyone SPECULATES they were moving at.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

^LOL is right. Just to keep a boat on plane takes a speed of around 10-15 mph (+ or -) depending on the type of boat.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Synergy said:


> ^LOL is right. Just to keep a boat on plane takes a speed of around 10-15 mph (+ or -) depending on the type of boat.


You don't actually have to be on plane. I would rather be alive, then on plane, any day of the week. 17KPH is way too fast, at night, without any moon or head lights. I am telling you it was pitch black that night. Her only hope was that no one else was out there and that was not the case and rarely is. She should not assume everyone will have proper lighting, since it only takes a short while for a cottager to observe that not everyone does. On that evening she would have had a hard time even seeing a dock, let alone a swimmer, log, deadhead, or a night fisherman trying to save their trolling batteries life by fishing in the dark.

At 5kmh, she would probably have just bounced off of anything she hit (except the swimmer) but not at 17kph. In a boat that is a fairly good clip.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The O'Leary boat was going fast enough that it went right over the bow of the other boat. It was going along at a pretty quick pace.

A witness on the other boat said the O'Leary boat approached them "bow up" so something doesn't seem to add up.

I agree with Optsy and have been out on the lake in pitch black. It is a scary place to be and you travel really slow and hope anyone else is paying attention.

People in the city have no idea how dark it gets. Billions of stars hang from the skies. You can't see a foot in front of you and lights just reflect back.

On one trip before we built a cabin we went tent camping, and we got there late and loaded up a 12 foot boat and went to an island across from the marina to drop off the tent and some supplies. We went back to the marina to pick up the rest of the supplies. It was just a short jog away and they had all their lights on. Coming back we "bumped" into the island to find it and got off the small boat and spent the next hour crawling around on our hands and knees trying to find the tent in the woods. Last time we did that. We couldn't even find the pack that the flashlights were in.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

If the other boat had proper lights on there wouldn't have been an accident. Seasoned cottagers have driven in pitch black conditions for years. If you don't have proper lights on and you don't know where you're going you have no place being out on the water at night. 

Bow up means the boat wasn't likely travelling that fast.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In pitch black, I would be traveling at trolling speed which keeps the bow level.

There are too many navigational obstacles in those small cottage lakes to go any faster in pitch black conditions.

Rocks, narrow channels, shallow depth, navigation aids, docks, swim platforms........that you can't see in the darkness. 

It is also very easy to misjudge where you are on the lake in pitch black conditions. You might not even be where you think you are.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Synergy said:


> Bow up means the boat wasn't likely travelling that fast.


Probably just means the motor to the boat was not trimmed very well. In any event it takes power to keep something up against gravity. A very slow speed would have the bow low and in the water.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

That has been my experience too Optsy.

When you power on the boat, the transom dives and the bow comes up. You adjust the trim, tabs and speed to get the bow down level. Normally it should be completed within a short range. The quicker the better.

If they had been driving any distance on the lake ploughing water with the bow still up, someone didn't know how to operate the boat properly.

I am thinking this could be related to the dangerous operation charge. The OPP may believe the O'Leary boat wasn't being operated properly.

The other party is guilty as well if they were sitting on a lake in the pitch black with no running lights. Did they not hear the other boat coming ?

A good guess might be they had the music on or something. If I heard a boat coming I would use my flashlight to warn them where I am.

Of course, with the bow up the driver would not see the light anyways.

The details will all come out. This is considered a very serious charge in Ontario. Similar cases where people were killed have resulted in long prison sentences.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

sags said:


> That has been my experience too Optsy.
> 
> When you power on the boat, the transom dives and the bow comes up. You adjust the trim, tabs and speed to get the bow down level. Normally it should be completed within a short range. The quicker the better.
> 
> ...


That kind of 'creep' in how a story is told is all to common these days. I am referring to your use of the word 'dangerous' sags. No one was charged with 'dangerous', O'Leary's wife has been charged with 'careless operation'. Just like with a car, dangerous is a separate and more serious charge than careless. Careless is not a criminal charge, dangerous is.

All you armchair quarterbacks need to get a life. It was an accident, the OPP have done their investigation and laid the appropriate charges. Now go back out and do some more driving over the speed limit in your cars instead of hypocritically commenting about someone else's misfortune.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Probably just means the motor to the boat was not trimmed very well. In any event it takes power to keep something up against gravity. A very slow speed would have the bow low and in the water.


Yes that is true if it is the norm, but when travelling at night, the bow up mode is because they have not achieved planing velocity. It is very inefficent and slow because it plows through the water. It would have been smarter to go a little slower but I suspect O'Leary's wife was not the normal driver.

Have you seen the video of O'Leary driving the classic old wooden boat with Mr. Wonderful across the stern? Although I think they were on the Bat Boat that night.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

kcowan said:


> Yes that is true if it is the norm, but when travelling at night, the bow up mode is because they have not achieved planing velocity. It is very inefficent and slow because it plows through the water. It would have been smarter to go a little slower but I suspect O'Leary's wife was not the normal driver.
> 
> Have you seen the video of O'Leary driving the classic old wooden boat with Mr. Wonderful across the stern? Although I think they were on the Bat Boat that night.


Agreed. I am beginning to believe that O'Leary's wife might actually have been driving this boat.

As Sags indicated, as you power up a boat, it will simply move forward, fairly level but plowing through water. Not fuel efficient but very safe because if you simply take away the power the boat will slow down to an almost stop, almost immediately, due to the high resistance of the water. Remember boats don't have any breaks. As you add more power to a boat its bow will come up first. With a lot more power and preferably a little trim adjustment, the stern will then come up as well and the boat will now be "on plane". A lot less water resistance, and therefore maximum speed can then be achieved. 

If the O'Leary bow was up, I suspect that it was due to the fact that they were travelling at a medium speed level, for that boat weight, with poor motor trimming.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

kcowan said:


> Yes that is true if it is the norm, but when travelling at night, the bow up mode is because they have not achieved planing velocity. I


Exactly. It's not uncommon to see night drivers speed up, slow down, speed up, slow down, etc. or stay in a plow position. Either they don't know where they are going or they are not comfortable maintaining plane.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> Agreed. I am beginning to believe that O'Leary's wife might actually have been driving this boat.
> 
> As Sags indicated, as you power up a boat, it will simply move forward, fairly level but plowing through water.


As you power up, a boat will only stay level at a very low speed. Once you give it some gas it will start to plow in a bow up position. Many factors effect the level of bow up (# of passengers, weight of the load, type of boat, etc.). Cautious night drivers often stay in a plow position for longer periods of time (bow up), until they slowly get on plane. As mentioned above, they may come in and out of the position as they search for landmarks, lighting, etc. Once on plane you can optimize trim levels, etc. Not sure if economy and speed is priority for people driving at night....


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Longtimeago said:


> That kind of 'creep' in how a story is told is all to common these days. I am referring to your use of the word 'dangerous' sags. No one was charged with 'dangerous', O'Leary's wife has been charged with 'careless operation'. Just like with a car, dangerous is a separate and more serious charge than careless. Careless is not a criminal charge, dangerous is.
> 
> All you armchair quarterbacks need to get a life. It was an accident, the OPP have done their investigation and laid the appropriate charges. Now go back out and do some more driving over the speed limit in your cars instead of hypocritically commenting about someone else's misfortune.


Two people were killed in a collision that shouldn't have happened, and it isn't going to be waved off as an unfortunate situation.

_O’Leary, 56, has been charged with careless operation of a vessel under the Canada Shipping Act. Though the charge carries a maximum penalty of 18 months imprisonment or a $1 million fine, O’Leary’s lawyer stressed Tuesday that it is not a criminal charge._


----------

