Re: National DO NOT CALL List … - Posted by Tom-FL
Posted by Tom-FL on June 27, 2003 at 19:10:17:
>> I call people in pre-foreclosure to help them. As the previous poster said if you call them to help them their should not be a problem. You are offering to help them for free.
Help them, for free? So you don’t intend for them to give up their equity to do the deal? You are offering full market price on these houses? PULLLEEESSSSSSSEEE!!!
Re: National DO NOT CALL List … - Posted by RichV(FL)
Posted by RichV(FL) on June 27, 2003 at 18:01:18:
Houserookie,
I agree. I have them call me. One thing I will NOT do is “cold call” people.
Regards,
RichV(FL)
Re: National DO NOT CALL List … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on June 27, 2003 at 17:28:17:
You’re basically calling them to offer your services. Isn’t this what telemarketing is? ANYBODY can say they’re calling ‘to help’… even someone offering lower phone plans.
RL
Re: National DO NOT CALL List … - Posted by JD
Posted by JD on June 27, 2003 at 21:46:15:
Nonprofits and perverts are exempt from the no call list law.
Just so you know… - Posted by Darren
Posted by Darren on June 27, 2003 at 14:09:47:
You won’t be excluded from receiving telemarketing calls from anyone you have a business relationship with (ie your credit card issuer). Everytime you fill out a warranty registration card, guess what? You’ve just signed up to have your name added to a call or mailing list. With the legislation, your name won’t be sold to every Tom, Dick and Harry. You will however continue to receive calls by local charities and the phone company. They are not impacted by the law.
Re: National DO NOT CALL List … - Posted by Stewart Preston
Posted by Stewart Preston on June 28, 2003 at 14:23:16:
I guess that would make sense. The fact sheet gives the impression it would be okay, but had I thought about it, the ones a lot of people get irritated at are within those hours, especially in the evening.
Re: I think you are wrong, RL… - Posted by Tom-FL
Posted by Tom-FL on June 29, 2003 at 01:54:09:
>> While he may still get irked, like with the telemarketers, the intention is not the same.
Since you mentioned Papa Johns …
Papa John’s calls to sell pizza.
A business calling with the intention of providing a product and making money.
Joe Investor buys houses.
A business calling with the intention of providing a service and making money.
Re: I think you are wrong, RL… - Posted by Houserookie
Posted by Houserookie on June 28, 2003 at 17:47:57:
Hal,
The fact that someones name is on a preforeclosure list doesn’t grant an investor ( business ) the right to conduct unsolicitated marketing.
I NEVER ASKED YOU TO CALL ME AND I NEVER INQUIRED ABOUT YOUR PRODUCT OR SERVICE.
It doesn’t even matter if you are giving away houses. I never asked for the call.
What next? Can I go through a database of homeowners ( white page listings ) and ask if I can buy their houses too?
Telemarketing isn’t limited to selling. Some callers offer free products, lawn care, subscriptions, trials, buy junk, buy houses, etc…
Cheerz,
I changed my mind … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on June 28, 2003 at 17:47:17:
The law won’t matter because 1) It seems to deal with INTERstate calls and 2) it says something about selling for another. (if we were selling, it would be for OURSELVES).
And yes you could make an argument that you were looking to buy and not sell, but I don’t think that would fly - but as I said above, I think it’s moot.
In the process of checking out the NJ DoNotCall as I type.
RL
Re: National DO NOT CALL List … - Posted by JD
Posted by JD on June 27, 2003 at 21:52:47:
I agree. I find investors like Brent that prentend to be primarily motivated by an interest in helping people to be quite annoying.
Re: National DO NOT CALL List … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on June 27, 2003 at 18:32:54:
Then you’re missing out on alot of business. I prefer to be proactive instead of waiting for the phone to ring.
RL
No, this is a stretch… - Posted by Hal Roark
Posted by Hal Roark on June 29, 2003 at 08:06:27:
Let’s look at the implications of what you are saying.
You are telling me that should I call the guy because I heard he might have a car for sale, I’m violating the law. If I call him because I heard me might have an apartment for rent, I’m violating the law.
This is ridiculous. It would NEVER, EVER in the real world stand the laugh test before a judge.
“Your Honor: I called the guy personally because I thought he might want to sell his house.”
“Fine Mr. Roark $10,000 for an unsolicited call to his home.”
I don’t think so.
Joe investor isn’t providing a service with the intention of making money that comes out of Mr. Preforeclosure’s pocket!. I’m putting money into his pocket, not taking it out. I’m buying, not selling.
To say I’m calling to “sell him on my service” etc is to mince words. Form over substance. Form: I’m buying, putting money into his pocket, not selling him on my service, taking money out of his pocket. Don’t confuse the fact that I need to use sales and negotiating skills to talk to mr pf; I’m still BUYING, not SELLING. Legally, there is a chasm between those two separate and distinct actions.
We can mince words and turn a pig into a toilet if we want, but arguing that this law has such practical effect as to be an everyday risk that should affect my business practice is to give a (debatable) theoretical risk way too much importance and to place it in the wrong spot along the risk continuum.
Hal
The continuum of risk… - Posted by Hal Roark
Posted by Hal Roark on June 29, 2003 at 07:54:21:
Houserookie,
When I think of risk, I think of it as a continuum. There aren’t thousands of little risks, like separate little boxes; there are thousands of possibilities and probabilities. And they stretch from the everday, on the far left of the continuum, to the theoretically remote, on the far right of the continuum
everyday --------------------------------- theoretical
Theoretically speaking, a risk falls somewhere along that continuum.
When I try to determine the risk of something, I’m trying to determine if it’s likely to be everyday or more theoretical. Theoretical risks are no less interesting or important to me. They may occur less frequently, or only under some special circumstances, but they interest me nonetheless. Because they could happen, and I’m very interesting in stuff that could affect my business, especially if it can have a large effect.
In my opinion, one can easily let the “risk” stuff get in the way of doing deals. It’s common grist for the mill of analysis paralysis. This is a shame. While it is prudent to analyze risk, one can never adequately cover all risks, and one must, at some point, take action and conduct ones business in such a way that one has reasonably minimized one’s risk and maximized one’s chances for profit.
This is the context in which I think of this new national list, and calling preforeclosures.
I have not read the new law; you apparently have. Commenting on what one has not investigated is not generally a wise thing. I proceed nonetheless because I see this risk of being fined by calling a preforeclosing houseowner so absolutely remote, that it isn’t effectively a risk, it’s absolutely hypothetical with no realworld chance of happening, and thus isn’t even worth my time reading the law.
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe. I don’t think so.
Even if I concede that calling a person to BUY their house – an individual, me, calling this one guy to buy their home – is the same as Pizza Hut soliciting business from every one in a zip code – and I think ya’ll are all wrong on confusing the two, btw – even if I were to concede that this were true (and I don’t), then the risk would STILL be so absolutely remote and theoretical as to have no real practical effect on my business.
Either way, I’m still dailing for dollars.
Hal
gulp! - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on June 28, 2003 at 18:06:16:
Never thought I’d say this, but …
I agree with HouseRookie on this one. Sales is sales.
See, I’m not closed minded 
RL
Re: I changed my mind … - Posted by Tom-FL
Posted by Tom-FL on June 29, 2003 at 01:58:33:
>> 2) it says something about selling for another. (if we were selling, it would be for OURSELVES).
It INCLUDES selling for another, it’s not LIMITED to selling for another.
Re: National DO NOT CALL List … - Posted by Brent
Posted by Brent on June 27, 2003 at 22:12:20:
JD,
I do want to help the homeowner. However, I can not help them if they do not want to be helped. This is business JD.I am their to save their butts. They are in foreclosure, they have NO right to ask for FMV. And if they do, fine. If I like the property I will just get it at auction. Thats business, if you are to emotional to do this business then you should not be doing it. Emotional people will not be successful in this business. I learned that a long time ago.
Kind Regards,
Brent Leach
Re: National DO NOT CALL List … - Posted by Hal Roark
Posted by Hal Roark on June 28, 2003 at 16:42:08:
Redline,
As you know, I’m not afraid of thinking about risk, and taking some risk measures some may consider too conservative.
For what it’s worth, and I’m not advocating anyone follow my lead, but I got to tell you: I’m not too worried at this time about being turned in by a preforeclosure guy on the hot list. I’m hard pressed to imagine this guy jamming me while I’m trying to negotiate a deal. He’s got way too many other things to think about, and, I promise you: your other preforeclousure competition that doesn’t keep up with this stuff will still hammer him.
Does it violate the law? Maybe. I don’t know. I must have missed those earlier threads. This isn’t a law I’m too worried about breaking, though, if it even violates it. When I get hit with my first 10k fine, then you’ll hear me whine.
In the meantime, this won’t stop me dialing for dollars.
And while Ron Legrand and others may say that the best marketing is only the incoming type (that, coincidently, can cost a lot to keep going) there is a long tradition of outgoing marketing that works. Takes time. Takes effort. Involves talking directly with sellers (oooo; scary). But Dialing for dollars works.
In fact, I remember Jim Piper telling me that whenever he needed a deal, he would pick up the classified section and call EVERY house for sale. Started Monday am at one section and just went down the page, hour after hour, call after boring call. While I’ve never called every one, I know this business is a numbers game, and if making calls increases your numbers, more power to you.
Just my opinion. Test and see what kind of response you get. I doubt they will spout this law first. In my experience, it’s usually interest or expletives… or, in most cases, the answering machine.
Good luck.
Hal
You’re missing the point of this law - Posted by Houserookie
Posted by Houserookie on June 27, 2003 at 19:52:00:
the point is…“they” don’t wnat people to be proactive at bothering people on the phone.
Re: No, this is a stretch… - Posted by Tom-FL
Posted by Tom-FL on June 29, 2003 at 18:10:12:
>> This is ridiculous. It would NEVER, EVER in the real world stand the laugh test before a judge.
>> “Your Honor: I called the guy personally because I thought he might want to sell his house.”
>> “Fine Mr. Roark $10,000 for an unsolicited call to his home.”
Or how about this, then:
Hal: “Your Honor: I called the guy personally because I thought he might want to sell his house.”
Judge: Personally?
Hal: Yes sir
Judge: How many other people in foreclosure did you call “personally” that day?
Hal: About 40
Judge: Is the day in question the first and only day you have tried to buy a house using this method?
Hal: No sir, I spend 6 hours every Tuesday calling preforeclosures.
Judge: Every Tuesday? Dating back how far?
Hal: About three years.
Judge: I see. How did you get all those numbers?
Hal: I subscribe to a foreclosure reporting service that gives me the courthouse information. Then I cross reference the name/address info to a phone number database on the web.
Judge: Uh huh, and have you “personally” bought a house using this method?
Hal: Yes, I have
Judge: How many in the three years you’ve been calling?
Hal: Maybe 60 or so.
Judge: And you’re telling me you’re just a guy who thought he might have a house for sale? Even though it was not advertised for sale, no sign on the lawn, and the owner specifically put his number on a DO NOT CALL list?
Hal: Yes
Judge: One last thing … you’ve been making 40 calls each Tuesday for the last three years resulting in 60 house purchases and hundreds of thousands of dollars in profit, and you you maintain you are not telemarketing?
Hal: That’s right, Your Honor.
Now that passes the laugh test.
Please let me know when your first court date is, I’m bringing lawn chairs and popcorn. It’s a show not to be missed.
>> I’m putting money into his pocket, not taking it out.
Ok, Joe seller’s house would sell for $100,000, the balance is $65,000. So, your offer would be for $100,000 … $65,000 to pay off the note and $35,000 in is pocket? Or would you offer something less than FAIR MARKET VALUE? Don’t kid yourself, don’t say you’re putting money in his pocket when you are taking it out. Of course, that’s how this business works, and I don’t want to start a thread on that. But when you go before the judge, just say that’s how it works, that’s how all businesses work: buy low, sell high. But don’t try to tell a judge you are enriching the guy in foreclosure when you are in reality relieving him of tens of thousands in equity. A judge will see right through that. And don’t tell the judge you are calling to “personally” buy a house when you are clearly doing it for business motives. Judges see through that kind of smoke and mirrors.
Well, whatever you do, have fun with it. Maybe you should call from someone elses’s house just in case.
Re: No, this is a stretch… - Posted by Houserookie
Posted by Houserookie on June 29, 2003 at 11:14:07:
You forget the judge might also ask,
“Mr. Roarke, how did you hear that this person wanted to sell his house? Why do you assume that public information implies a sale announcement?”
“Mr. Roarke, were you looking to purchase a home to live in or for business profit?”
Hal, this is theoretical myth to you just as getting in trouble for subject to deals are theoretical for those doing them.
The point here is this is not about buying or selling. The issue is you’re not welcomed by phone, Mr. Roarke because people don’t like to be pestered by telemarketers.