Be an “Indian Giver”

“Be an ‘Indian Giver’” is Robert T. Kiyosaki’s rule for seeking an investment that returns the original capital while leaving the investor with an asset or other continuing benefit. Its provocative title comes from a story about a misunderstanding, but the practical principle is about how an investor structures a deal: ask how soon the money can come back, what remains afterward, and how much can be lost if the investment fails.

Definition and Investment Logic

In the book’s asset-building vocabulary, being an “Indian giver” means aiming to recover one’s money and keep the investment’s continuing upside. The sophisticated investor’s first question, Kiyosaki says, is how quickly the money will be returned; the next is what can be obtained without further outlay, described as a piece of the action. He connects these questions to return on investment, but argues that investors should look beyond the headline return to the asset that remains after their initial capital is recovered.

The idea treats capital as something that should keep moving. Money put into a deal is not considered permanently committed if its cash flow or a later sale can restore the original amount. Once recovered, that capital can be used again, while the investor continues to own an asset that produces income or may appreciate. The intended result is not merely a profitable sale, but an asset that continues to pay after the original investment has been taken out.

The Term’s Origin and Its Reframing

Kiyosaki introduces the expression through a story about early white settlers and American Indians. A settler who was cold might be given a blanket; taking the blanket as a gift, the settler could be offended when asked to return it. The giver, in turn, was upset when the settler refused. The book presents the label “Indian giver” as emerging from this cultural misunderstanding.

The financial lesson deliberately repurposes the story’s return of a given object. In ordinary usage, the label carries the sense of taking back a gift; in the chapter’s asset-column framework, recovering what was put into an investment is presented as a source of financial advantage. The analogy is not that an investor should break a promise of generosity, but that an investment should be evaluated for whether the initial money can come back while something valuable remains.

The Condominium Example

Kiyosaki illustrates the method with a small condominium a few blocks from his home that was in foreclosure. The bank wanted $60,000. He bid $50,000, and the bank accepted, in part because his offer came with a cashier’s check for the full $50,000, demonstrating that he was serious. He notes that some investors might ask whether committing so much cash was preferable to borrowing; in this case, he chose to pay cash.

His investment company used the condominium as a winter vacation rental for visitors described as “snowbirds,” who paid $2,500 a month for four months of the year. During the off-season, it rented for $1,000 a month. Kiyosaki says he had his $50,000 back in about three years. After that recovery, he still owned the condominium, which continued to produce rental income month after month. The example makes the rule concrete: a specific purchase price, seasonal differences in rent, a time frame for recovering capital, and an asset retained beyond that point.

Stocks, Risk, and the Remaining Upside

Kiyosaki applies the same approach to stocks. A broker may recommend moving a substantial amount into a company expected to gain value, for example when a new product is announced. Kiyosaki says he may put money into the stock for a week to a month while its price rises, then withdraw the original amount. With the initial capital back and available for another investment, he can hold the shares without worrying about market fluctuations in the same way; he describes the remaining asset as technically free.

He does not claim that this process eliminates losses. He acknowledges losing money on many investments and says he uses only money he can afford to lose. In his account, across ten investments, two or three may be major successes, five or six may do little, and two or three may lose money; he limits losses to the amount invested at the time. The rule therefore joins the prospect of upside with a stated limit on downside, rather than presenting every deal as a guaranteed recovery.

For each investment, he looks for an upside that remains after the initial money returns: examples include a condominium, mini-storage facility, land, a house, stock shares, or an office building. He also insists on limited risk or a low-risk idea. His comparison with bank savings is qualified: saving is better than having no savings, but it may take a long time to get the money back and, in most cases, provides nothing extra for free.

Wider Principles and Significance

The rule is one of several connected financial lessons in the book. Kiyosaki argues that financial skills are not taught adequately in school and that money is often learned at home, where children may inherit their parents’ financial assumptions. His call to distinguish assets from liabilities and to build an asset column before taking on expensive obligations supplies the broader context for the investment rule: an asset is valuable not simply because it can be listed, but because it can produce income or appreciate and has a market.

The principle also sits beside the book’s account of giving. Kiyosaki contrasts his two fathers: both gave through teaching, but Rich Dad gave money to his church, charities, and foundation, while his educated father tended to say he would give when he had extra, which rarely happened. Rich Dad’s belief that one should give before receiving appears again in Kiyosaki’s account of giving money, helping others make sales, and sharing contacts in the hope that generosity returns in multiples. In this context, giving and recovering investment capital are different actions, but both belong to the book’s larger claim that money depends on learned habits and deliberate choices.

Kiyosaki’s closing appeal returns to choice and education: readers should invest in their minds, learn to acquire assets, and share financial knowledge with their children. “Be an ‘Indian Giver’” gives that argument a specific investing procedure—recover the money, retain the asset, and control exposure to loss—rather than treating wealth as a large sum that must first be accumulated. Its memorable label serves as a shorthand for looking past the initial transaction to what remains, what keeps producing value, and whether capital can be put back to work.