Adam -

> I just went back to the forum, and yes... I
> agree with you... it doesn't seem as
> pie-in-the-sky as it seemed originally
> seemed. Although with the millions and
> millions that can be made from real estate
> investing, I still question why they would
> endorse the likes of Carleton Sheets and
> other gurus who apparently make more money
> from infomercials and seminars than from
> investing.

I don't know why Creonline has a forum specific to Carleton Sheets. I will say this. Ron LeGrand is still doing deals today. He has slowed down but still does several deals per month. The people on his hotline are active investors. His CEO is an active investor. I don't know about the other "gurus." LeGrand is the only one that I have this information on.

> On an unrelated note: I think that there is
> a tendency for my writing style to be
> misinterpreted as confrontational. I think
> that this is a by-product of the limitations
> of typed/written correspondence and the lack
> of vocal tonation. So, please (everyone here
> in this forum) don't take any of this
> personal.

I never took the post as confrontational or personal. But then like I said, I know your style from several years of posting on various forums. Your last post seemed out of character for you. That's why I was a bit surprised.

> As for JTR... the assertion that he's just a
> cranky old man who blasts everyone else in
> order to sell his stuff, is just bunk. There
> ARE MANY people (besides himself) who he
> praises:

Now it's my turn to apologize. I painted my statement with too broad a brush. I knew that there were some that he praised. I characterized that unfairly.

> - Bob Bruss
> - CCIM Courses
> - George F. Coats
> - Jay P. DeCima
> - Gary DiGrazia
> - Joe Dominquez
> - Jane Garvey
> - IREM courses
> - MAI courses
> - Bill Mencarow
> - Kevin Meyers
> - Bill Nickerson
> - Jon Richards
> - Leigh Robinson
> - Al Seastrand
> - John Schaub
> - Lonnie Scruggs
> - Bill Tappan
> - Jeffrey Taylor

Some are these folks are names that people *might* know. Many are not. For example, how many people know that Bill Nickerson was one the pioneers in creative real estate? Lonnie Scruggs is considered the king of mobile homes. Jeff Taylor is considered one of the experts on tenants. My point is this. Of those on the list that Reed *approves of* or praises, how many are names that anybody beyond those that have taken the time to find out, (such as yourself), who they are? Why does he approve of them as opposed to those who run seminars and/or infomercials or are among the more well known names? Is it because they don't run seminars and infomercials? Has he bought their stuff and reviewed it or compared it with the others? Or has he rejected it out of hand because he thinks the sales material of the "gurus" is hype? I honestly don't know what his criteria are for making his picks and pans.

> So, the assertion that he needs to blast
> everyone else to sell his stuff is nonsense.

See above.

> I mentioned that he had only owned 11
> properties. My mistake, again. I don't know
> where I thought I remembered reading this,
> but here are the facts about the real estate
> owned:
> Total rental units owned: 117
> Total houses owned: 3
> Maybe the total number of properties still
> comes to 11, but owning 117 units is still
> nothing to sneeze at.

I don't disagree. 117 units is *not* something to sneeze at whether it was individual SFRs, (single family residences), or apartments. But his 117 units still simply pales in comparison to Ron LeGrand's 1400+ properties. My point here is not to say "LeGrand has more marbles than Reed." My point here is to say that I'm more inclined to listen to someone who has students doing as many deals in a year as Reed has done in his career. Like I said, I know of one couple in my area that did 9 house deals in May. They've done more since, (although I don't know how many). My wife and I are taking them to dinner next week. BTW, they're *youngsters* *g*. The guy is 27 and the girl is 22. Neither has ever held a *real* job. *g* But I can obviously learn some things from them and that's *exactly* what I plan to do.

> So, is he 'on the mark' 100% of the time?
> Perhaps not. (But I think he is, in regards
> to RK).

AFA RK's real estate deals, I have no idea how many he has done. AFA how many Dolf DeRoos has done, I have no clue.

> His B.S. detector list is itself a bunch of
> B.S. He singles out the use of direct
> response marketing techniques as indicators
> of whether someone is a b.s. artist. And of
> course, this is nonsense.

*Precisely*. I think this is probably the central theme to his BS detector list. If I remember correctly, there were others on his list besides people involved with CRE. Robert Allen, (who of course started in CRE), comes to mind.

> Regarding the criticism of him owning a
> limited number of properties, if I remember
> correctly, he's owned more than Carleton
> Sheets owned.

Could be. I don't know about that.

> Regardless... I think that the
> issue should be:

> Are the points that he is making about RK
> valid, regardless of his motivation?

Well, I'm having a hard time separating his points from his motivation because I still think his motivation is highly suspect. But let's see if I can do that.

Do I have some RK stuff in my library? Yup. Do I think it's all fantastic? Nope. (Actually, I only kept the good ones.*g*) As you said, (maybe it wasn't you), several of the books were puffery and repeated the same thing over and over. I think the best one was "RD's Guide to Investing." And I'm pleased with "Choose to Be Rich" which is an audio program with a workbook. There's quite a bit of meat in there. (But you have to skip the first few tapes because they rehash what you already know if you know anything about RD.) "Loopholes of the Rich" by Diane Kennedy isn't bad either. I've looked at the books by the other members of "The Team." It seemed to me that several of them were more interested in selling their own services through the books than providing useful information.

And there are certain parts of what RK talks about that I don't necessarily agree with. But just because John T. Reed thinks the principles don't work for whatever reason, does that make them any less true? Of course not. For example, J.T. Reed says he has a Ph.D. and that RK graduated from the Merchant Marine Academy. So what? That and 50 cents will get you a soda. How does that make RK any less credible? AFAIK, the Merchant Marine Academy is considered to be a valid academy on par with the Naval Academy and the others. The difference is that you're a civilian when you leave there and not an officer as in the others. However, you *can* accept a commission in the service which was what RK later did with the Marine Corps. I realize that this is only one part of it but it highlights in my mind the kind of stuff that Reed thinks is important that isn't. Do RK's principles work? Well, I think that many of them make sense. I know people using them. I have plans to try them myself.

Let me put it this way. Like Dien said earlier, what it boils down to is picking out the best parts and throwing out the rest.

Sorry to be so long winded. Just my take on all of this.

Rick Smith, "The Net Guerrilla"


Click Here to Get Your Free Course On Getting a Great Life In 10 Days