I agree. May I add that as we study creative investing we evaluate what will or will not apply to our specific situation, our target market, etc.
For example, the press says that the economy boom has lowered unemployment, yatta yatta. Yet a mortgage broker I spoke to said that my county has 3000 foreclores a month. A MONTH! A trip to the courthouse steps to see for myself confirmed his figure tentatively: there were about 10 properties to be auctioned at 11:00, and they have auctions everyday at 10, 11, noon, and 1 pm. Not to mention auctions on property sites at other times. So maybe foreclosures - or PRE foreclosures - are worth pursuing. Of course you’ll keep your eyes peeled for that rare FHA/VA NQ assumable.
When you learn about a technique, learn what’s current, and keep your eyes open for other opportunities. Learn how money is being made in your area and figure out how you can be a part of it. It’s all part of becoming a creative investor.
Outdated Techniques… A thought - Posted by Mark (SDCA)
Posted by Mark (SDCA) on June 17, 1999 at 10:25:27:
I am reposting this from below:
This is somewhat off topic, but I thought I would post it anyway. This is not specific to Sheets course necessarily. It’s not so much that “methods expire” as it is that “times change”.
For example, I have read books/heard seminars that advise buying from the RTC. The RTC no longer exists. In Nothing Down for the 90’s at least 1/2 of the real world, example deals that I could identify involved assuming a VA or FHA loan. There are fewer and fewer freely assumable loans. Same thing with HUD (and other) auctions. There were huge profits to be made there a few years back. My understanding is that those profits have mostly dried up.
Anyway… The point of this is not to bash Sheets or anyway. It is just to say that some techniques that worked well in the past may not be “ideal” for today’s market. I do completely agree with your comment about Sheets getting you to open your mind and think creatively. It may just be as simple as revising your thinking: Think “subject to” instead of “assume”.