Well, Jack looks at other people’s practices and their statements and gives his views of them. I see nothing wrong with that. Why do you feel he should have used these techniques before commenting on them? Your veiw does not make sense to me. Does that mean there should never be somebody commenting on murder, fraud, and the like because the commentators have never committed murder, fraud and the like? You don’t have to agree with Jack, I don’t think. Let me look here in the US Constitution. Hmmmm. Nope, nothing about you having to agree with Jack Reed. If he finds the practices unethical by his standards, it would be hypocritical of him to practice them and then criticize them, I think. You don’t have to agreed with Jack about whether something is shady or illegal. You can check other people’s views, you can check legal commentaries and the laws. Jack has done so. He thinks the practices are shoddy. You are welcome to come to a different conclusion, based on your own research, experiences, and rules of ethics.
One thing I think you may want to be aware of. Most people do not like to see themselves in a negative light. They justify activities that many people will find abhorrant. You can do what you want to do. And you can try to maintain your sense of self worth. But I think it is valuable to listen to other’s views of ethics and morality and try to understand where one stands in his/her own behavior. I am accusing you of nothing unethical. I am concerned that you may not be very self-critical and willing to admit that you would like so much to make money that you would use practices that are not attractive to do so.
I try to keep things clear as much as I can. I hope you do too.
I think Lee gave you a good description of reality and good advice.
I think that you are thinking well and can be successful.
I do recommend Jack Reed’s books and special reports. I have read most of them, except for the last couple. The 20% off book and the aggressive tax avoidance books are excellent. I like the “delayed exchange” special report–makes 1031 exchanges so clear. There is a lot to learn in the other publications also.
He tells it like it is, not how most wannabes wish it was. That’s a big reason a lot of people get upset with him. Reality interferes with “The Dream”, you know. Everybody wants to get rich easy with no risk or work. That’s why the majority of people are broke.
You had better make sure your plan is well grounded and based on reality. Otherwise, you are headed for an expensive “seminar.” You’re going to pay for the knowledge one way or the other, but it’s a lot more cost effective to learn from someone else’s experience.
Hint: Books and courses are cheap compared to legal fees.
For balance, you should read everything you can about a subject. Then make up your own mind. Get good competent legal advice if you need help on any areas not clear to you. It may save your butt one day if you do so.
Posted by Adam (Austin) on December 19, 2002 at 07:47:20:
Who cares?
The fundamentals of real estate investment haven’t seemed to change much over time. In fact, the few “super wealthy” investors who I know are old (no offense to $Cash and the rest of you old farts) and have been using the same approach to RE for the last 40 years.
Posted by ChrisW on December 19, 2002 at 17:32:21:
Ron, you’re spending too much time reading into things. If you read closely I said earlier that I don’t have a need for Mr. Whitney’s material or any educational material at this time and that includes John T Reeds.
You asked,
“Does that mean there should never be somebody commenting on murder, fraud, and the like because the commentators have never committed murder, fraud and the like?”
No there’s nothing wrong with this. And anybody is welcomed to comment on anything on any topic. But, Ron, commentators don’t sell their own courses by making others look bad. Correct me if mistaken here…but commentators don’t sell their own products at all.
Ron, there’s a lot of things in life that
will never make sense to you because our assumptions in life make us who we are. And you and I differ slightly in our road to success.
John Reed is good entertainment and good reading.
I treat it just like a newspaper editorial.
Ron, don’t bring ethics into this discussion because Mr. Reed’s editorial can be viewed differently by different readers.
I hope you’re not suggesting that your morals and values are of greater substance because you endorse John Reed’s material.
You say he’s a man of moral character…I say he’s not.
I understand that you disagree with Reed’s comments on Bronchick and Kaiser. Oh my…what does that say about Mr. Star’s ethics?
Let’s just leave it at that. Reed’s editorial is just editorial.
Re: John Reed and Lease/Options, subject 2 - Posted by Dick Chelten
Posted by Dick Chelten on December 19, 2002 at 22:02:19:
thanks for the lively discussion about John Reed. It got me to visit his website and see for myself what all the noise was about.
I can understand why so many people don’t like what he has to say, yet, none of that neccessarily invalidates his positions. I’m too new to debate these issues with you all , but I, for one, appreciate getting some balanced perspective without the name calling and histronics we often get here. Personally, I’ve struggled with convincing sellers to do subj2 deals for the last six months. Meanwhile,I’ve searched for legal authorities here in Michigan who can back me up, and still remain without my subject2 legal expert. I’m paying a real estate attroney to study the information I’ve brought him; although in my heart of hearts I wonder if I’m paying him to “buy” the answer I’m looking for but not the one that will stand up to scrutinny when it inevitably comes.
Sorry for the babbling…but it does seem at times that being a real estate course saleman is more lucrative (and safer) than doing subject2’s and lease options.
I think you are dodging my main point here. You say that Reed is trying to sell more books by making other writers look bad, by downgrading them. I contend that this is not the case. He gives an evaluation. Some he recommends, some he recommends against. So, if he were motivated in the way that you perceive, why would he bother to give recommended gurus? As I said, I have read a lot of these people’s materials, and my evaluations mainly parallet Jacks. There are a lot of people who sell poor quality real estate investing materails. There are a minority who sell good quality materials. If beginners follow Jack’s recommendations, they will quickly be reading the better quality materials and avoiding the less-good quality materials. Except perhaps for a couple of mis-evaluations on his part.
You say: "I hope you’re not suggesting that your morals and values are of greater substance because you endorse John Reed’s material.
You say he’s a man of moral character…I say he’s not.
I understand that you disagree with Reed’s comments on Bronchick and Kaiser. Oh my…what does that say about Mr. Star’s ethics?"
Well, I don’t know what to say, as I don’t follow much of your logic here. You offer only one piece of evidence to contend that Jack Reed is not moral. That one piece is that Jack is “bad-mouthing” other writers and speakers. And that he is doing that to mislead readers. I say that is not misleading people. He is giving a description of “gugus” which is mostly accurate. So there is no misrepresentation here. There are actually some writers and speakers who are more honest, more incisive, more capable, better educators than are others. You focus on the “do not recommends,” ignoring the recommends, and then attribute to Jack motivations that are nefarious or dispicable. I think you are off the beam. I have given my reasons for saying that.
I have not suggested that you buy or read his materials. At least not his this exchange today. So I feel that misrepresent my position.
Good for you going out and trying to make it happen.
There are a lot of different investment approaches. I recommend using one that fits you. You can read my thoughts on the topic by putting “beginners success” into the search engine on this main board of this CREONLINE.COM website and reading the most recent version–from Sept 2002, I think.
I’m not sure that the real estate education business is low-risk. Many of the gurus have had to file for bankruptcy when their expenses ourran their income–when they were already gurus. Wade Cook and Robert Allen come to mind. Tony Hoffman maybe–at least he switched out of RE and sells carwax the last I saw. There was publishing house here in my area that specialized in real estate invseting books called Impact Publishing. The publisher went bankrupt.
The real estate investing education business is highly volatile. At times there is not much interest in the topic, at others there is a big surge. It is hard to weather the down-turns, they can be so deep. If you own rental properties you probably don’t have such big swings.
Posted by ChrisW on December 19, 2002 at 23:14:09:
Ron, you say that Reed gives an evaluation of other so called gurus. That’s nonesense.
An evaluation consists of both positive and negative commentary of the subject of evaluation.
Reed gives what is called an opinion.
No more no less.
What Reed is good for is optimizing web pages for link popularity on the search engines. By including other real estate sites and links his site gets higher score.
Please don’t make the assumption that I have anything against Mr. Reed. I don’t.
I hope to see him doing real estate deals to qualify himeself as a real estate savior.
I don’t know what these other guys are talking about because I passed out while reading it.
I happen to think you are a person that should be listened to - exept when it comes to Reed.
Here is a list of folks that Reed doesn’t reccommend:
Bill bronchick
Ron Legrand
Ernie Kessler
Joe Kaiser
Bill Gatten
Jimmy Napier
These two he’s not sure about, but pretty much shuns:
Vena Jones-Cox
Jack Miller
Well, these folks have talked the talk and walked the walk. They can teach those that want to learn and take action how to go out there and run a good business.
Reed never did.
Reed passes judgement w/out ever really learning the particulars of what these seminarians are teaching.
Lazy.
But you Ron, are not.
I don’t know what the fascination is with this real estate Nebish/Kvetch.
P.S. Reed has squandered an opportunity. He could have done a much better job with his guru page.
First off, I’ve got a real problem with a man who purports to be 60 years old, yet places little stars by his name. Reed is an unethical, dishonest, despicable, contemptible, self-serving, opportunistic, conniving little twerp! But don’t take my word for it, ask the people in Tarrant County, Texas that he screwed!
Yes, I don’t like placing little stars by my name. But I can’t figure out had to place big stars by my name, so I do what I can do.
Perhaps you know something Jack Reed doesn’t talk about? Who do you say Jack Reed “screwed?” Any details? The only thing I know about is that he bought an apartment complex there and then in the great oilpatch recession of the 1980s he deeded it back to the seller who had carried a second loan. Is that what you are talking about?
It’s part of the public record and readily available to those who know where and how to look! Better yet, why don’t you ask your buddy, Mr. know-it-all, about the stunt he pulled in Tarrant County, Texas! I’d love to hear his version of the truth!
######Dolf####
Well, what is the point of the “teasing?” Why don’t you just say what you have heard happened?
Jack has written about his painful real estate investing downfall, whereby he lost something like a $million in real estate equity and deeded over his two apartment complexes to the lenders at the depths of the oil patch recession of the late 1980s. Is this to what you allude.
Oh, he has also written about the lawsuit whereby a woman who rented at his apartment complex claimed that she was assaulted in here apartment and sued Jack and his manager, claiming something like lack of adequate lighting and flimsy door locks or something of the sort. From what Jack has written, it sounds to me as though the whole thing was a lie on her part. However, there was some judgment rendered in her favor. Cost Jack’s insurance company something like $20K, as I recall.
Is that to what you alude? Why be so coy? Come out and say what you mean.
Posted by Eric - GA on December 20, 2002 at 13:12:43:
Dolf-
I’ve been looking over your discussion about Jack Reed, and am curious what he
did back then. I’m not some Reed loyalist, looking to turn your words against
you. I just want to know because that’s where I was born and raised (North
Richland Hills). Please reply