Why the fuck is Kevin O'Leary popular?
Okay maybe there was a time when this dipshit had any merit. But now... I don't understand how crushingly popular he is among finance normies and CNBC "professionals" alike. Even night show hosts like that retard Bill Maher just shoved him into the expert area to give commentary about the economy. He is atrociously fraudulent and has the knowledge of an 18 years old at best. He's been just jumping on trends like a prostitute, likely because he got nothing better to do. When covid hit, he realised he cant sell bullshit on TV as effectively anymore, so of course jumped into cryptomania. He literally had nothing of merit to say about it, just repetition of 12 year old shitcoiner ramble all over. Yet, he was still all over the internet swinging his "investments" in crypto. Now again, with the FTX collapse, he's out there LYING to his teeth about his involvement. Dude you literally didn't "invest" shit... you just got handed over other people's money STOLEN by FTX for publicity. You didn't "lose millions of dollars for a worthy venture" fucking thief. God knows how many other "custodians" paid his narcissistic ass for publicity. It's genuinely infuriating.
Why exactly is he popular? He's lying slimy opportunistic intellectually bankrupt buffoon.
[mods plz don't remove I genuinely want to vent x]
For the same reason we elected a game show host to be President of the United States?
Q: Why is he popular?
Simple answer: He was on Shark Tank.
He plays a part of a guy dressed in a suit that Americans "think" knows what he's talking about and is rich. Same thing with other celebrities when they talk about politics or the economy. You always need a front man for everything, that's how a lot of these celebrity investments work. It's like Aston Kutcher invested in Uber and AirBnb; he may have looked at the financials and understood them, but I'm sure he had other finance people look it over more in depth as well.
On a larger scale, getting a bunch of money doesn't necessary mean you are smart, or a good investor, it just means you had an idea worth something. However, a lot of rich people think they are successful at one thing and therefore will be successful at another (that's what gets a lot of athletes in trouble.). You have guys like Kevin O'Leary with Reader Rabbit or Mark Cuban with the internet, just right place right time. Then you have a guy like Marc Lore, sold Diapers.com to Amazon and Jet.com to Walmart, both of those crashed and burned because they were structured to be sold, not to work--thats just Lore understanding how the game works. Then you have a guy more like Steve Jobs who can be looked at as smarter than most with his lane and found a way to do something with that. Does that automatically mean these guys would be good at other things, such as running the economy or politics or other investment, probably not (should mention that Lore is trying to build some future city, idk).
He rejected Ring Doorbell, which ended up being the most successful product to ever appear on Shark Tank. The Founder eventually sold it to Amazon for $1bn and became a guest shark. Some people think he just went on the show for free advertising and never intended to make a deal, but it's still interesting to think about.
True. Every major business right now can probably give you the same story about how people initially turned them down, so you can't fault him for that. Even major trends like computers, cars and the internet had high profile nay-sayers, just comes with the territory (see Ring rant below). I'm sure he's had other successes and other failures (see shark tank rant below). I know going on the show gives you free press, but I think to get on you have to give up some percentage of your company that each shark gets, nothing is free.
Ring rant: I can see why he passed on this, its somewhat a bad idea. The main idea is it makes you feel safer, but I don't think it "super" deters people from taking stuff or breaking in. So you're basically making an investment on that. Yes Amazon bought it, but you can make an easy clone.
Shark tank rant: I've watched enough episodes, I know they need to invest in something, but its always random stuff to me that doesn't seem like a great investment. Its ether some Mom's who have a bakery in a small town, some guy who makes random beef jerky, so someone with a dumb idea to me (this didnt happen on the show to my knowledge, but basically some guy who takes exercise kettleballs and makes them square, not really an improvement.)
My Ring doorbell is ass. It keeps losing wifi signal and I have to reset the thing over and over. I'm literally about to dump it for any other brand.
To be fair, if he made money out of FTX then good for him.
I don't see why we're being asked to sympathize with people who lose money in crypto pump and dump schemes, or other types of fraud like FTX. Anyone investing a dollar into any crypto deserves to lose it, and almost certainly will, and for one I'm amazed we are spending the time and resources as a society even trying to do something about it. If you see some dude running a Three Card Monte scheme on the street and lose money on it, you don't get to complain about how you were scammed - you knew it was a scam going in!
[reposted in right spot]
Wall Street: "Bitcoin isn't real, it's fake money."
Gen Z Liberal: "Shut -up Boomer, Bitcoin is the future, the US Dollar is going to crash. Enjoy being poor."
Wall Street: "Invest in my crypto-fund, we have the lowest fees."
Gen Z Liberal: "Finally! We are the Captain now! Dumb Wall Streeters missed out on big gainz. We are the future."
A few moments later....
Wall Street: "We're liquidating our fund as crypto is going to zero. Thanks for your business."
Gen Z Liberal: "Waaaaaaaaaa!! Everything is a scam, why didn't you protect me! Kevin O'Leary scammed me! I want my money back!"
Crypto bros were never liberal, they were libertarian first and foremost. Look at their views on financial regulations and central banks; right in line with the Rand/Ron Paul types and contrary to mainstream liberals. And now they're discovering why those things exist after the most recent scams.
Nobody with half a brain lost money because of FTX. The unfortunate reality is people got cocky and missed glaring red flags. Nobody I know lost anything, and my circle is a bunch of whales who have been in for 5+ years.
The average person on WSO is more knowledgeable than the average American. This is why we can see through his BS. The average American sees him on Shark Tank and refers to himself as a shark and think that he's smart. I agree 100% with you and dont like the guy. He basically never contributes any opinion of value and just states the obvious. Even in Shark Tank, he's always annoying "Give me 50% of every sale as royalty for life."
what about the average person WSB?
Kevin O'Leary is popular due to Shark Tank and also because he is one of the more entertaining sharks. His way of commenting on the show, the way he takes on jokes on his character, his own upbringing, him being more international (Canadian/Lebanese) and general attitude. He makes otherwise dry business ideas more fun.
This is why most people watch TV, they want to laugh. Kevin is very presentable on camera if you compare him to other sharks that didn't last very long.
He is also good with his online presence due to interviews, podcasts, his own brand and how he went into many other segments outside of toys/learning (i.e. wine, financial services/investments, etc)
I agree with the posts above that the sharks don't necessarily know more than others. But they hire a good PR, comms, and advisory team to make certain decisions. It's just like Mark Cuban said in an interview a while back. Bottom line is negative for him on many deals, but you can't really buy PR like this even if you wanted to. Which PR gig would guarantee you hours during prime time TV for more than 12 years?
He also said that some investments are about "doing the right thing", so ESG is also a part of their personal brand.
Never get entertainment and business confused.
There are more useless popular people than there are worthy ones. Honestly, most of the popular people on top of mind don't deserve to be popular. On this note, I don't understand how Cramer still has a job.
The producers prob think he is entertaining. They should get someone fresh to fill this role though
For a lot of things people hate on Cramer for, he works hard. He's on TV morning and night. Problem is, very green investors watch him and expect him to be right 100% of the time, in a game where no one is doing that. It'd be like watching baseball for the first time and thinking Aaron Judge sucks because he struck out.
but he's wrong like 80% of the time. that's not acceptable.
Crypto's ultimate use cases are still being developed, and there will be more no one has thought of yet. Super exciting but it is still super fragile. That crypto is propped up by speculation is helpful to get there faster.
FTX collapse set back getting there a number of years. This is why people care.
I think he is on CNBC shows to cross sell Shark Tank and doesn't he run the ETF O'shares? I don't think he is all that popular. Or am I mistaken on this?
Yea, but basically the reason FTX has this issue is they were making their own currency and using it as collateral.
The thing is, someone right now is studying everything FTX did, and trying to find a way to do without getting caught. That's the real issue, underlined by using what is essentially monopoly money.
This kind of opinion is both hilarious and depressing.
Crypto has had several use cases in its short life. In every instance, the use case has basically boiled down to "fraud". It's a dead end technology in search of some use, any use, and it seems doubtful we ever get there to the kind of scale that justifies the hype and investment. When I hear people spouting off this kind of nonsense justification, what I'm reading between the lines is "I'm a crypto owner who hasn't yet found someone to hold the bag for my crappy investment, so I'm hoping for one more surge of speculative exuberance so I can get out, make the money I wanted to make, and let someone else go bust." So, yeah... good on you, buddy. You're the same piece of crap fraudster as everyone else, you're just the dumbest con man and happen to be stuck at the back of the line.
FTX didn't collapse, it was exposed. Fundamentally it was not a viable business model; from the outset it's been fraudulent. If it's been a house of cards from the word go, then the fraud didn't cause anything, it was built for fraud and it just got to the point where it was no longer viable. But the upside will (hopefully) be that in other industries, industries that actually do have a future and can be run like a real business, investors will demand more diligence, more corporate oversight, less absurd twenty-somethings who are raising hundreds of millions of dollars on a two sentence pitch and have no governance, no business plan, no nothing except the greed to the people fueling the speculative bubble. This case was so brazen, so obvious to anyone looking in from the outside, that one almost has to hope that it will bring about some changes.
Had it described to me by a friend in the space as a 'solution looking for a problem'. He's made over 8 figures in the space yet he'll be the first one to tell you it was all chance/luck/zero fundamentals. It's unfortunate that the majority of clowns in the space don't have a modicum of integrity to admit even that.
The original comment displays everything wrong with this 'asset class' or 'emerging technology'. It's a pile of horseshit being peddled by hucksters too stupid to make a living honestly, but smart enough to know they're enough suckers out there that will buy whatever garbage they put out. Honestly, I'm just hoping for ironclad regulation to crack this fraudulent circus into pieces.
If you are turning to Kevin O’Leary for commentary on the economy then it is pretty safe to say that you are the dumb money. In other words, if Kevin has the knowledge of an 18 year old, he is helping bring the 17 year olds up to his speed. That is his job.
Of course, this is a bit dangerous because in finance there is an interesting variance of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you know nothing about finance, you’ll never lose money as you don’t even know how to put it into anything other than the bank account your mom opened for you when you were 6. If you know a little, you fall into the Kevin O’Leary pit where you’ll be investing in frauds left and right. And only after decades of experience you can discover dollar cost averaging into index funds to once again never lose money.
So Kevin is a danger to society… but maybe if the people keep advancing one day they’ll discover the SPY. One can only hope.
It's the same reason why people like Skip Bayless are popular, even though 9/10 people you talk to will say he's an asshole. He's a media personality that has enough general knowledge to make it seem like he knows what he's talking about - aka an entertainer. He's not paid to be on Shark Tank or contribute on CNBC because he's a genius or to make correct stock picks. He's there because he draws eyeballs, good or bad. CNBC makes their money from advertisers and as long as people will tune in to watch him, whether it's because they believe what he says or to poke holes in his arguments, he and CNBC both win.
His brand is being the "hardo" shark that says the "harsh truths". He's also there to be a stark contrast with someone like Laurie, who's extremely nice, and the "straight men", Robert/Mark/Barbara. If every Shark were like the typical finance bro on Wall Street and were all talking about DCFs, reinvestment rates, and WACC, the show would be boring and nobody would watch it.
Absolutely this - CNBC broadly is a sports debate show for finance at this point.
I hate how accurate the O'Leary - Skip Bayless analogy is
I've always thought this, just figured that he's one of those guys who is looked up to by people who don't have an in-depth understanding of markets and the financial field. It parallels to a casual viewer of CNBC - those on this website know it's barely substance-level fluff, but to the Average Joe it may look a lot more polished. I want to mention (citing CNBC specifically here) I don't even necessarily think that's a bad thing - it gets those with a nomial knowledge of markets into this field a lot more, and more-or-less leads them to an avenue of more technically-advanced stories (think WSJ, FT, Bloomberg, etc) after accruing general knowledge.
Back to O'Leary, I just don't take the guy seriously anymore. He's made some valid points over the years, and has produced some good content (as highlighted in the excellent writeup by cb - good stuff), but I'm in the position where I'm exposed to a lot more valid and tenured points that blow O'Leary out of the water. When all the information is out there, you just have to know where to look. For personal recommendations, I will always recommend Matt Levine, Miguel Gonzalez, and I actually like Rick Santelli, but he's 50/50. Know there's more, I just gotta think.
Two linked Tweets for fun:
PR, pretty much the same way anyone is.
When I am not watching sports, I watch the Shark Tank and Kevin O'Leary is the most entertaining shark by far.
You should hear him talk about watches. He's done videos with the guy from Hodinkee and couldn't be more of a douche if he tried:
https://timeandtidewatches.com/kevin-oleary-watches/
"Kevin doesn’t mess around when he walks into a boutique. When he decides he is interested in a specific brand, he doesn’t just dip his toe and buy one watch. Instead, he will buy at least two watches from a manufacturer to fully immerse himself in that brand, as well as show his commitment to the brand or the retailer that he isn’t a time waster. “When I buy a maison, I always buy two, up to four sometimes. So when I entered into F.P. Journe I bought four watches at once, just to establish myself in that space and also show the maison how serious I was about supporting a brand. That’s not common. But that’s my philosophy of getting into a new maison.”"
I always found it hilarious how he’s considered a “business genius”. From Wikipedia:
Jesus! If this is true and doesn’t omit material facts, this guy is a fat fraudster just like his pal SBF
Because anything famous validates itself. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. He's famous. He must be a genius !
Since that movie "the big short" was released, Michael Burry made at least 20 predictions out of which none came true. I dont know why he keep making those predictions. At this point i feel like he his Bill Ackman. Both of them using their popularity to misguide markets and making few millions every now and then. Only America is a developed country where i find masses following public figures. I dont know any public figures in Europe or Asia who are so influential in field of Finance. I have also noticed that Americans dont give a fuck about education at first and when they get tired of their stupid jobs they start reading dumb books like "rich dad, poor dad". Which is just a book based on common sense. I completed most of my education in India and my major was business. Most indian students in business have to take accounting classes. So when i read that book i didnt find anything revolutionary in it....i couldnt understand how that guy earned millions writing a basic personal finance book like that. I mean i dont understand why people chose specific majors and feel like they were betrayed by system when their curriculum doesn't cover basic personal finance. People in America really hate education and instead of blaming themselves they blame everybody else for their own oversight...and then people like Kevin O'Leary are there to fool them. Because who gives a fuck about basic economic and finance principles....they are so overdosed on emotions that a dumb idiot like Kevin rallies them towards an impossible dream and these idiots end up losing thousands of dollars for nothing.
He's been called out publicly by some pretty important people for being full of sh*t
RIP Kevin
He is alive?
Ducimus voluptatibus dolor labore harum. Sint ipsam ratione qui eveniet.
Dicta deserunt praesentium at deserunt esse. Sunt numquam ea non voluptate sed ut.
Dolores nostrum blanditiis omnis exercitationem. Ad cum asperiores et id amet sed et. Sed alias sed mollitia expedita molestias. Voluptatum iusto commodi fuga reprehenderit accusantium eius sint. Sit sed ipsam exercitationem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Eos alias eveniet non qui quam dolorem. Suscipit aut quo et aperiam saepe. Sint itaque vel dignissimos soluta inventore repellendus nemo. Consequatur facere et deleniti saepe aut ipsum eius.
Illo quo unde atque doloremque accusantium totam. Repellat soluta corrupti qui officia est voluptatum deleniti. Et voluptatibus consequuntur mollitia tempora sit qui dicta. Et sit blanditiis vitae et. Sint voluptatibus et magni aperiam.