Robert Allens Wealth Creating Three - Day seminar - Posted by Janice Lulay

Posted by John Behle on July 09, 2003 at 24:14:26:

I can’t find the email I received among many thousands archived on my computer right now. Maybe when I’ve had some sleep I will. I haven’t slept in two days due to back pain. That may reflect in a less than coherent answer, but I’ll do what I can.

The email that jumps out is one where the sender was interested in my course, but discouraged by what he read on your site. He emailed you direct and the reply referred to me using the words of either “Impertinent” or “Impudent”. I don’t recall at the moment. That may have been the substance of it. A couple others have told me that they did not buy my course because of what they read at the site.

The internet can be a challenge with communication. Though your initial comments, my reply and your apology are all there, many people apparently still take it negatively. It also tends to drag me into many of these conversations as someone points out the error or someone else points out the apology, etc.

More often than not, I have defended your site and motives in discussions here and elsewhere. At times though I have disagreed with some of the details at the site and more specifically the critical and cynical nature. I have mixed feelings about some of that because I too have had some strong feelings about many of the same people. There’s people on the list that owe me money, have tried to hustle my wife or I’ve seen some of their lies and antics. I run across them at seminars and conventions and some of the table jumping run down the isle with a hundred dollar bill stuff turns my stomach. I’ve left the room or refused to speak any more for people when I hear incredible exagerations about their cash flow, wealth or something similar. Standing in the back listening to one promoter I thought was one of the “better guys” I was stunned as first he said Donald Trump subscribed to his newletter. Then he said his cash flow was 40 million dollars per week. Next he said Robert Redford was his neighbor. I knew all three were baloney. A few days later he showed up on my doorstep begging me to speak for them again. He was in tears as he related basically that he just couldn’t control himself and what he said when he was pitching in front of an audience.

More importantly I guess is that I hear from and run across thousands of other people’s students and get a good feel for who cares about more than just their student’s credit card limit. They are few and far between. So I get very cynical at times.

Some of them are very personable but I have no or little respect for their product or service to clients. Some annoy me or have done things like plagarize the name of my book - yet, I reluctantly withhold my personal opinion since I hear good feedback from their students.

So anyway, I can relate to the critical nature of the whole scenario, but feel it doesn’t necessarily serve the purpose your site and work are meant to do. Many have turned away from what could be valuable reading for them based on the negativity. Others seem to wallow in it and joy in spreading it around.

The battles around here get old real quick. It seems that hardly anyone takes the information, digests it and uses it to improve their life and learning. They tend to take sides one way or another. Pro Reed or Anti Reed and then battles follow. I’ve been blasted for suggesting your intentions are good and blasted much worse for suggesting there is another side to some of the stories or ratings.

All in all, I mostly agree with your recommendations on the positive side. A few of the neutrals and do not recommends I disagree with - both good and bad. A couple of the neutrals I would rate lower.

I encourage people to read your site - “Read Reed” as I suggested for a bumper sticker, but suggest they take it as information to process not as food for the fanatical zeal that some of them go for. Some go way overboard in the whole “hero” and “anti-hero” thing. They either want to worship someone or throw rocks at them. Neither furthers their education. Possibly they are just the vocal ones so it appears different than it is.

I’m not sure any of that is coming across right at the moment. Like I said, I’m tired, so may not be the most eloquent. Whatever I answer regarding questions about your site seems to get somebody angry no matter what I say so I’ll just go back to cleaning the pool.

Robert Allens Wealth Creating Three - Day seminar - Posted by Janice Lulay

Posted by Janice Lulay on April 02, 2003 at 12:59:04:

I just signed up to take this 3-day seminar in 2 weeks and have been searching the web for feedback. I have found some positive and some negative and really need to have some honest opinions. I can withdraw and receive 100% of my money back. I can also sit through the first day’s seminar and if I don’t like it, I can withdraw and still receive my money back. My fiance is taking the class with me and the cost for the both of us is $4500 with one year’s phone and email support.

We have been burned before and don’t want it to happen again.

Thank you!


Robert Allen - Posted by Sean

Posted by Sean on May 11, 2003 at 22:37:43:

I can’t speak about Rob Allens financial difficulties or boot camps… I can say this, I have been fortunate enough to meet several investors in my general area who have been in the business for 20+ years and are all very successful at what they do! And EVERY, and I do mean EVERY one of them suggests getting Robert Allen’s books!!! Not only that, but it is almost always the FIRST NAME OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS when they offer up what they consider the best material to read/investigate.

Re: Robert Allens Wealth Creating 3 - Day seminar - Posted by Bob in NJ

Posted by Bob in NJ on April 08, 2003 at 17:29:11:

Just my personal opinion
Get your money back. Go to your local book store and or liberary and get Robert Allen’s books “nothing down” series and creating wealth etc. Your $4,500 course is nothing more than an recap of those books with a few bells and whistles, thrills if you will, thrills to justify the price of the seminar… For your information Robert Allen has on at least one occassion filed for bankruptcy. He was also sued by the IRS for back taxes and a whole lot of other stuff…This is not the way for a so called millionare maker to conduct his owne personal business.
Remember the old saying “IF IT’S TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE…IT ISN’T TRUE” and also remember "BUYER BEWARE"
There are many fine articles in this website …Search them out, You will be better off doing your initial research here before you spend way too much on a so called millionare maker seminar.
Good luck

Re: Robert Allen - Posted by JD

Posted by JD on April 02, 2003 at 16:36:23:

There are a lot of posts on Robert Allen if you search the archives on this site. I have posted to many of those … and I will do so again:

Something to consider:

Allen got into financial difficulty with the IRS as early as 1984. In 1986, IRS filed a $346,395.79 lien against Allen. In 1987, when trying to explain his financial difficulties, he also had:

· another $65,649.90 IRS lien
· more than $76,000 of delinquent tax warrants filed by the State of Utah
· lawsuits and judgments regarding over $100,000 in unpaid fees to fellow gurus who spoke at his meetings

Allen declared bankruptcy in May of 1996. Allen was telling people his bankruptcy was caused by an avalanche that destroyed an expensive home he and his wife were building. The avalanche occurred around February. But the IRS and the State of Utah had filed liens against him for non-payment of taxes months before the avalanche.

And there is also the fact that he was in financial difficulty before the avalanche ever happened. There is the question of why he was building a mansion in the mountains when he was not paying his state and federal taxes like the rest of us.

If you still want to proceed, go for it. I had a bad experience with him in the 80?s before all this happened, so I won?t go near him now.

Re: Robert Allens Wealth Creating Three - Posted by jason

Posted by jason on April 02, 2003 at 15:55:14:

I can’t tell you whether or not his seminar is good or not. What I can say is that I would be leery of spending $4500 just for a seminar this early in the game.
I am very new to REI- haven’t made an investment yet, but am working hard to learn as much as I can.
I would probably recommend you taking more time (i don’t know how much you’ve spent) studying free or relatively cheap books, etc before committing that kind of money.
Just my 2 cents.
Also- you should be able to take a lifetime learning credit on your tax return of 20% of the $4,500.

hope this helps

Re: Robert Allens Wealth Creating 3 - Day seminar - Posted by Brenda Whittaker

Posted by Brenda Whittaker on May 05, 2003 at 19:47:25:

Dear Janice,
I attended a Robert Allen seminar for $5000. It was garanteed to make 3X that investment back, or your money back. It had phone suppport, and before they did anything for me, they went out of business, leaving me stranded, $5000 in the hole. I was duped. Brenda

Wouldn’t some facts be helpful first? - Posted by John Behle

Posted by John Behle on April 03, 2003 at 24:32:32:

I’ve watched as you and/or others just copy John Reed’s material and paste it every time Allen’s name comes up.

Much of it is in-accurate. Do you care to know or just to satisfy your agenda?

Allen made money in real estate, made money with his books and made money on seminars. His seminar company was mostly run by other people when the troubles began. His focus was on his book and semi-retirement.

Most of the tax problems were from the “Allen Group” company. Since he was an officer or on bank accounts, tax liens and penalties were put against him. That is a little different than being some tax criminal as Reed makes him out to be.

There is an error in growing too fast, or continuing on a path of high overhead when market conditions change. The factors affecting the company were somewhat unique. I was at Mark Haroldsen’s Christmas party in 1983 when he shared how Al Lowry had declared war on himself and Robert Allen. Lowry thought he was and should continue to be the king of the seminar business. All three businesses were hurt. Al Lowry went down first, then Allen. Haroldsen wisely cut back the company and overhead and survived. Lowry would find out where the Allen Group was holding a seminar and immediately schedule one in the same cities (usually three per weekend). He would throw tens of thousands of dollars into advertising just to purposely hurt Allen by drawing sales and customers away. It affected profits for both of them. Lowry paid the worst and first price. He had also invested in a health spa business that failed.

At the same time, as the seminar industry was glutted by these three groups and others, some really bad press started. Sixty Minutes started following one public speaker named Joe Land around and did a piece on him. That and newspaper articles hurt the entire industry. I’ve watched three of those expand and collapse cycles in the seminar business in the last 30 years.

It can be an error to keep plowing money into a business when sales are down. It’s a tough call to know if the downturn is temporary or permanent or whether someone can ride out the cycle. Haroldsen did, Allen and Lowry did not. If some of the tragedies hadn’t happened, Allen might have been able to.

It’s a challenge to know when and how to scale back a business. To let people go, sell office buildings, discontinue projects and find ways to cut expenses. It’s a challenge for an experienced manager, but many of the people in Allen’s company calling the shots were not highly trained and skilled managers, but people who rose up through the ranks - never seeing a downturn.

I know Bob was not heavily involved in the day to day operations because I did some consulting and writing for the group. I was in the process of helping design what was basically the most complete real estate course ever put together right when some of their problems began happening. I had meetings with Bob and his brother related to the course and had also had discussions of Bob co-authoring my “Paper Game” book and helping in the promotion. Bob was too busy to spend any time on it or give some kind of personal touch to it where he might feel comfortable adding his name to it.

Bob’s exact role in the day to day operations of the company I believe were limited. He was finishing one book, doing a book tour for Simon and Schuster and building his dream home. That doesn’t relieve him from liability of troubles the company ran into, but it shouldn’t invalidate him as an individual, teacher or experienced professional. Granted, with his name on the line and potential liabilites he should have taken control of the company and cut back, but like I said, that would be a hard decision for even an experienced manager involved in the daily activities.

Bob was stung by the failure of that company. Payroll tax liens were a problem. The speaker fees mentioned related to fees owed to some speakers when the company shut down. It’s not like Bob took these people, defrauded or mislead them. I’m not positive that the suit referred to was even against Bob. I know his brother Richard was sued and worked hard to pay it back. I’m not sure Bob was, but if he was an officer in the company, he might have been. Reed mentions the suit, but not the payback. I haven?t read where Reed paid back the banks or others that lost money on his Texas failures.

I was owed money by the Allen Group also, but didn’t sue anybody. I settled for the rights to their mailing list and made a great deal more money on that than what I was owed.

I was in the Allen Group offices a few days before and the day after the avalanche destroyed his home. I was good friends with one of his financial managers and he told me that the insurance had expired a few days before the avalanche and they would not renew for some reason. I’ve been to the site and it appears someone made a huge error ever approving a building permit, but it was not that steep a slope or a known avalanche area. Just a little bit of a freak winter. There aren’t a lot of sites available in the Sundance area, so his options were probably limited, but it was a beautiful site. Visually, you would not immediately think ?Avalanche risk?, but whoever gave out the building permit should have known if it was a risk. I?m not sure how all that works in the Sundance area. Robert Redford owns most of the property and there may not be as formal a procedure for building permits as you would have in a non-recreational area.

They had just finished it, had something like a million dollars of furnishings and personal items and were a few minutes away from having a large house warming party. If someone had not been stuck in the road and delayed his wife by about twenty minutes, she would have been preparing for the party right in the living room that the avalanche went through. The avalanche cost him a great deal and it wasn’t because he was an idiot or irresponsible.

Bob also lost money in a restaurant chain he had invested in. I guess an MBA and a best selling book can make someone feel like they can succeed in any business, but he had no business in the restaurant industry. The partner he trusted took him to the cleaners. He also invested in one or more films where I believe he lost money.

Allen is a creative salesman, speaker, motivator and idea man, but possibly not the best manager. It’s common for the visionary idea man that begins a business to not have the skills, personality or inclination to successfully follow it’s growth and market downturns. I wouldn’t fault Apple Computers because of the limitations of Steve Jobs who founded and then nearly destroyed the company. To totally invalidate Allen or another because they have made errors is stupid. Losing your shirt in a declining real estate market like Texas is not more honorable than losing your shirt in the seminar business. You could argue that Reed personally made the mistakes that lost his buildings in Texas while Allen primarily made the mistake of trusting and delegating to other people. There is an extreme double standard at play there. I and others knew the times to be in and out of the Texas market.

Allen made mistakes. Almost anyone has - unless they just hide out on the sidelines. Allen moved to California around 1987. What other factors led to the bankruptcy I don’t know. This BS of slamming him because of them is ignorant.

I remember watching a special on Donald Trump’s problems. He violated many principles in his book, was affected by the loss of his top managers in a helicopter crash and entered into the casino business when his expertise was primarily in real estate.

The ONLY way he avoided bankruptcy is because he owed so much to several banks that his collapse would be theirs too. They were effectively forced to do all they could to keep him afloat and build him back up. So, he goes from to Billionaire to hundreds of millions in debt, back to Billionaire.

I haven’t burned Trump’s books because he made mistakes.

Many years ago, there was a Cholera epidemic. Tens of thousands were dying and it threatened the whole world population. A scientist discovered it was in the water supply and that if people boiled their water, they would be ok. They did and they were. The scientist later drank a glass of unboiled water and died.

Should people have stopped boiling water because he made a mistake or didn’t follow his own advice?

I can’t speak to Allen’s current products or services. Sounds like they carry a high price, but I can’t judge. You should judge it by current feedback and investigation of the product or service itself, not dismiss it because Allen both made mistakes and was hurt by the mistakes of others.

Re: Wouldn’t some facts be helpful first? - Posted by Brenda Whittaker

Posted by Brenda Whittaker on May 05, 2003 at 19:55:25:

Bla bla bla. Whatever. Paying thousand of dollars for a seminar is a mistake, garanteed. Perhaps “Bob” is an ok guy, but there’s still a very good chance that whoever is setting up this seminar will make grundles of dough, while the attendies lose out. BW

Re: Wouldn’t some facts be helpful first? - Posted by David

Posted by David on April 18, 2003 at 15:56:54:


I just read ?How To Buy Real Estate With Little or No Money Down? by Reed. I have many problems with Reed?s tactics, but I still read his books, and yours by the way.

Reed dedicates the entire first chapter to Bob Allen?s Los Angeles Times Nothing Down Challenge in San Francisco purchase. Reed provides evidence that Bob Allen lied to his lender, Bank of America, when acquiring his nothing down property?Allen didn?t disclose the seller carry-back second. The second was recorded a few days after closing. A silent second I think they call it.

I know you advocate telling the truth to lenders, as do I, so I am curious if you know anything about this or have heard the allegation?


Re: Wouldn’t some facts be helpful first? - Posted by Bob in NJ

Posted by Bob in NJ on April 08, 2003 at 17:47:05:

Please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence!
If you want to feel sorry for poor Bob then do so. The reast of us don’t need excuses. The facts speak for themdself. If poor ole bob as you said put his name on as the ceo or a director of some company, then it was indeed Poor Bob’s responsibility to see that the company did what it was supposed to do. Excuses and more excuses for poor ole bob doesn’t quite cut it here. Try again

Re: Wouldn’t some facts be helpful first? - Posted by JD

Posted by JD on April 03, 2003 at 10:37:51:

I respectfully disagree, John. I was hung out to dry by Allen (or his group, no difference, it’s still Allen). The main reason I have posted from John Reed’s site is because he states the case better than most could. Allen hasn’t disagreed with what John has said, at least not publicly.

I appreciate your comments but I don’t agree, and someone asked for a comment so I gave it to them. My comments begged a response, and you gave me one. I don’t have an “agenda” - I think Allen is a crook, that’s all.


Re: Wouldn’t some facts be helpful first? - Posted by John Behle

Posted by John Behle on April 18, 2003 at 17:06:26:

I haven’t read Reed’s books.

There is nothing wrong or illegal about having a seller carry back a second - unless it was not disclosed to the lender and was represented otherwise.
Without Reed, yourself or me being in the room with the lender, I don’t know what was said. Unless Reed has somehow violated privacy laws and gotten a copy of Allen’s loan file and some specific statement that states that there was NOT going to be a second, then he does NOT know what he is talking about.
He’s making an assumption. Granted, it’s not a big leap to conclude as he has. He MAY be right - But he MAY not be. That is the problem.
The fact that there was a second does not mean it was not disclosed. Being recorded a few days after closing also means nothing in an of itself.
REED’s problem is shoot first and never ask questions later. He decides his agenda and verdict and then sets out to prove it. Basic premise is all gurus are guilty, bad and wrong unless proven otherwise and THEN… in some cases he doesn’t care to further investigate when challenged.
He corrected his statements about me ONLY after being proven wrong and challenged in a public forum. YET… he still leaves the original statements UP and it still makes a negative impression on people. I have had people say they have been influenced negatively because of his forum. Yet, his own logic doesn’t even apply there. He recommends Jon Richards and Bill Mencarrow without reviewing their materials. Yet, they both have recommended me and my materials highly.
Since I challenged and straightened out what he said about me, it offended him. He told one person he felt I was “impertinent”. He accuses me of deceptive advertising and then is offended that I correct him?
His latest B.S. I tried to correct was his slam about Utah being the sleazy guru capital of the world. He doesn’t care about facts. Tyler Hicks is not and never has been from Utah. John Stefanchick is not and never has been from Utah. Robert Allen only passed through. Allen is in California and from Canada originally. Hicks is from back east. Stefanchick is from back east. Russ Whitney has never lived in Utah, yet because he hates Russ and Russ has had some kind of telemarketing outfit from Utah he paints Utah - not Florida. There is one small marketing outfit and he takes two addresses and someone’s statement they are from Salt Lake and makes it sound like they are on every corner. I guess we can’t blame him for not knowing that Draper Utah is adjacent to Salt Lake as I don’t think he makes it out here with his Pee Wee football teams.
So he slimes me and apologizes only in such a way as to make him look good. He slimes Utah and could care less about facts. The only person he dislikes in his list that is really from Utah is Mark Haroldsen and Reed in his wildest wet dreams will never and has never had anywhere near the experience and real estate holdings that Haroldsen has. As opposed to Reed, Haroldsen very successfully invests in apartment buildings and has a multi-million dollar real estate portfolio and many millions in his mortgage investment portfolio.
I don’t spew “sleazy” comments about his state where most of his “bad” people on his list are from. I don’t paint him as a thief as most of the people I have known from Harvard are.
Reed is so incredibly biased and egotistical that he doesn’t even have a clue that he is. THAT is very irresponsible. He paints himself as the voice of truth and reason, yet refuses to be exactly that.
Back to Bob Allen. I don’t know about his loan Reed is talking about and neither does Reed. He is making an assumption. One he probably wouldn’t make if Allen coached Pee Wee football. If his assumption is correct, then Allen did something he shouldn’t and no one should follow it. If it is incorrect, then he should retract it. Since he does not and could not know, then it IS slanderous and irresponsible. Reed could not legally have access to Allen’s loan documents and application. The only other possibility would be if a real estate agent, loan officer or title officer that is intricately familiar (not just making assumptions like Reed) knows and has seen those documents. Real estate agents rarely follow a deal that closely. Title officers do not necessarily read, draft or approve all loan documents given them by the lender and are NOT in attendance at loan applications, etc.
The only party conceivably that could know might be the loan officer himself and then you have two issues. One the loan officer would be party to it himself and in many ways more culpable than Allen. Second, the very fact of a loan officer knowing of, approving or participating in the deal might in itself mitigate any perceived deception. The loan officer does and should represent the lender and their interest. Reality is they sometimes are almost the worst enemy a lender can have when there are deceptive deals. Yet, a loan officer participating and structuring the deal could be argued represents the lender and since he/she is aware, so is the lender. To protect themselves, the lenders have written statements. I have known of cases where the loan officers have signed those documents themselves or slipped them in a pile of papers to be signed and actually deceived the borrower as to what they are signing. Yes, that doesn’t necessarily relieve the borrower of the responsibility, but does color things differently.
So basically, only the loan officer would normally have access to any documents that could validate what Reed assumes. It is possible that the real estate agent could be involved intricately enough, but as I said, it is rare. I have been both a broker and lender for going on three decades.
I can’t defend Allen as I don’t have the facts, but Reed can’t condemn him also. If he deceived the lender it is wrong. But, I don’t think Reed knows that - once again, he just assumes.
Even if his assumptions in many cases turn out right, that does not excuse the irresponsibility and irrationality of making them to begin with. His approach pretends to be that of a learned scholar, but too often is filled with the colored rhetoric of a fanatic with an axe to grind. It’s the Reed version of the Salem Witch trials.
Actually, it reminds me more of the King Philip’s persecution and murder of the Knights Templar organization (where we get Friday the 13th from). Bottom line is it was about jealousy and money as the motivation, not all their supposed and fabricated wrongs.
Not to say Reed isn’t dead on as to some of his characterizations and facts, but where there aren’t facts, he assumes them, implies them or colors them. He is out to influence the minds and emotions of his readers, not educate them.
And when it is all said and done - and his goal is reached - they say “and whom shall we trust?” He had the answer for that question before he began. Trust him … for he is the all-knowing judge of all. Only Reed is smart enough to know truth from error.

Re: Wouldn’t some facts be helpful first? - Posted by John Behle

Posted by John Behle on April 03, 2003 at 12:13:19:

Reed doesn’t make corrections when they are pointed out. I and others have pointed out many to him, but only in one case did it serve him to make a change. He makes very biased statements.

As I mentioned, I addressed the issues and statments posted by Reed and reposted by you. Reed’s post is misleading and self serving. If somehow you have had a bad experience with some group connected with Allen, then that is different - but not what was posted.

It’s the fourth or fifth time in the last month or two that someone has copied Reed’s putrid prose and pasted it here. Knowing the facts that I do, I get tired of seeing misleading innuendo tossed around.

We don’t know what your experience was or what company it was with. Bob hasn’t necessarily learned the lessons of who to associate with as far as I can tell. Outside companies and even employees can hurt someone’s business, finances and reputation. There are some true blue vermin in the marketing business when it comes to real estate seminars, coaching, etc. Probably 80% of them or more. They solicit gurus to market some service or product of theirs, burn them and then find someone else.

Even when someone tries hard to “do it right” it can backfire. John Beck might be a good example. I think he has good product, is a legitimate educator and is concerned for his students. Yet, the marketing organization he has hooked up with may be making him some good money, but is damaging his reputation. They approched me and I turned them down.

We had what we thought was a good marketing company for my coaching service a dozen years ago. I insisted on doing the consulting from within my office with my staff which is different than most of these companies. At least I knew the coaching was being done right, but what I didn’t know is about the money they were embezzling, clients they were lying to to make a sale and letters for help addressed to me that they threw away. All I knew is the clients we served were served well. They went as far later as to steal our accounting and list management computer and burn my office building to cover their tracks. They then went on to market as much as a million and a half dollars per month for Charles Givens beginnning with my lead lists, scripts and even stealing the name of my book.

The point is, people can get burned by who they do business with and the marketing side of this business can be downright sleazy. People like Bob Allen can be affected by it, but don’t necessarily generate, start, endorse or condone it.

I came to the conclusion that I know of no outside marketing agency I trust to deal with. For a while we had some in-house marketers and quality was better, but it was like a freaking day care. We tired of changing their diapers and cleaning up their messes.

So one way or another you pay a price. Some pay a price because they continue to deal with outside marketing and promotion companies and I for one pay the price of not dealing with them. Some people effectively sell out their reputation for the cash of the marketing and others refuse to. If marketing product meant anything to me, it would be a bleak existence, but it doesn’t. I don’t need the money or the aggravation.

You can fault Allen or someone else for continuing to allow themselves to be damaged by marketing companies or employees. That would be a fair question. At the same time, realize that when many hundreds and thousands of people buy some of these programs, there will be complaints and failures. I know people that have made a great deal of money with what they’ve learned and I know people that have mis-applied things and lost money. I know success stories from coaching programs and others who went no where and did nothing. Much of that is both human nature and iniative.

Like I said at first, I don’t know your experience with Allen or someone marketing his product, but the slanted slime that Reed posts gets old. He condemns anyone that makes mistakes - but himself. He condemns anyone based on what some marketing company does in their name - except John Beck because he is a friend. He judges courses he’s never seen and will totally disregard, dismiss or deride someone over something like an advertisement (like Scott Britton).

He trashed me at first over an ad that wasn’t mine. His commentary is still there implying I used deceptive advertising. If I hadn’t known about it or wasn’t concerned it would still be there… oh wait, it still is. The implication is still there even though he chose to admit his error. If I had not responded to his critique in a public forum myself, he would never have changed it. Only when thousands could see his very clear error did he correct it. No wait, it’s still there. He just chose to leave it up and it still colors people’s opinions. He told me he left it all in there because of the behind the scenes details I gave relating to Richard Allen, Bob’s brother who did help develop the ad. He edited my post to further slant things and calls it an email when it was a message posted on my newsgroup in response to his attack on me. If I recall, I posted his comments then my reply. Then I emailed it to him in case he did not read the post on the newsgroup.

He’s pretty accurate in most of his commentary, but shoots from the hip, judges without details and holds a double standard.

So anyway, I responded to your post because I believe the things Reed posted are slanted, biased and inaccurate.

As to your experience, it may be that somehow you were “hung out to dry” by Bob or his group. That may be or maybe there are just some mistakes made by someone somewhere. I don’t know. I’d like to. I’d rather hear your current or previous experience than see any more of Reed’s Rabble.

As I also stated, I don’t know what Allen’s programs or associations are. Sounds like they are pretty high priced. Being that he is in intensive care from a car accident, I know it isn’t him on the phones coaching or at seminars teaching, but employees or outside marketing organizations.

I don’t necessarily recommend his programs right now or not recommend them. I don’t know. But mistakes he has made in the past are not an accurate representation. I wouldn’t not buy stock in Disney because Walt Disney went belly up 7 or 8 times. I won’t not eat Kentucky Fried Chicken because at some point years back Colonel Sanders said he didn’t like it any more.

I wouldn’t not read or listen to Trump’s advice because of his errors nor would I not read John Reed’s books or materials because he has made mistakes. In fact, I’d be more inclined to. I even picked up a couple on eBay to look through some time.

Like I said one time, I’d be more interested in talking to someone coming back battered and bruised from the front lines than someone who just completed a class in military theory at West Point. You can learn from the victorious as well as those that were wounded.

The ones to worry about most are those that haven’t been in it long enough to make mistakes or say anyone can do it, it’s easy and risk free. The trouble with infomercials and mass marketing is that is the type of mentality of most of the buyers and becomes the pitch of the marketers. Get rich quick and easy is what people want to hear and what marketers learn to pitch. Sadly even a good product or person can be damaged by that kind of marketing. Groups that market for Allen may be of that mindset - and if so, should be avoided. I don’t know anything about their operations or who they deal with.

Even with a complex subject like discounted mortgage investment, I could fill an infomercial full of people that have gone from rags to riches, but refuse to do so. I don’t believe the average person watching an infomercial at three in the morning is going to be spectacularly successful. Way too many people have garages full of home study courses, home based business ideas or network marketing kits. So I don’t market to them and have ethical issues about doing so.

Re: Wouldn’t some facts be helpful first? - Posted by David

Posted by David on April 18, 2003 at 18:26:41:

I understand your anger, I’d feel the same if he slammed me, I’m glad I don?t get involved in this publishing/seminar/guru thing. I don’t really give a sh!t about Reed one-way or the other, maybe it’s because I’ve been around enough to see through his BS. But, I find this whole thing with Allen?s Times challenge fascinating since this seems to be a turning point in the history of creative real estate, such as it is.

I don’t have the book in front of me just now. As I recall, his wife worked for BofA and was able to pull the loan program flyer from that time period, there was no loan program allowing this kind of seller carry-back at that time. Using this fact, the late recording and an independent escrow officer?s opinion, Reed concludes it was most likely a fraudulent misrepresentation to the lender. Reed (or his wife) doesn?t claim to have had any access to Allen?s personal loan files.

Now, you can argue the loan officer hoodwinked Allen, and maybe you?re right. But, given Allen?s level of knowledge he must have known what he was doing was wrong, regardless of the loan officer?s actions. Would you, given your level of knowledge, let some slippery loan officer convince you it?d be okay to represent you were coming up with a down payment when in fact you intended to give a note? I don?t think so.

It certainly appears Allen tricked the Times reporter and the Times readers.

Bob’s mentoring in the 80’s - Posted by John Behle

Posted by John Behle on April 03, 2003 at 14:29:39:

Sounds like you might have joined “Allen Wealth Systems”.

After the Allen Group went under his brother Richard joined with two others and formed a consulting service to market to their old clients and leads. Robert had moved to California and had nothing to do with it other than lending his name and receiving a royalty. I think Richard had good intentions, but he hooked up with Doug Holmes who is a true con artist and Chuck Abbott who is more middle of the road between the two.

Their battle was constantly over marketing and service. Their original consultant Allen Harris eventually left over his mixed feelings and emotions about their intent. They grew to the point of having about twenty consultants, several hundred marketers and tens of thousands of clients.

They really had little regard for their clients even though many consultants and others tried. Most left after a period of frustration or finding out that it was a great dream with a hopeless future because of management. Seems to me that Allen who later broke off relations with them only received something like a $70 royalty per client.

They never paid any wages for their consultants that would lead to drawing or keeping anyone competent. Most started around 7 bucks an hour and were washed up real estate agents or sometimes even marketers who didn’t succeed on the marketing floor. They did everything they could to avoid spending any money on service and even having enough phone lines for clients to call in or enough consultants to call them back. If you joined when they were marketing for Robert Allen, they really had no clue how to satisfy the needs of the customers.

The saddest news is that most of the current “coaching” programs out there are the same people or grew from the same roots. Most still have the same problem and some have even had the same marketer selling the program attempting to coach the people.

Some are doing a much better job now and have some capable people, but that original group and program were a failure in many ways.

Like you, many clients gave up in frustration. Sadly they were ok with that as long as they didn’t demand a refund. One consultant approached Doug Holmes one time and suggested that a newsletter would be a good and welcome service to clients. Doug’s comment was that the average client called four times and they didn’t want to do anything that would increase that. The stunned and demoralized consultant was later canned as soon as they got a chance. One of their gripes was that he actually spent a great deal of time with the clients.

I attempted to do some training with their consultants for a while, though even the basics weren’t there for many of them to build on. At one point I had even lined up some of the top educators in the country to come in. At the conclusion, each of the consultants would have been educated to a point where they were qualified to be in “Who’s Who in Creative Real Estate”.

They wouldn’t let loose of the few thousand it would take to accomplish that task even though selling thousands of new clients each week. Though it was a great concept and I believe could be done right, I came to the conclusion that these guys were NOT capable or willing to truly care about their clients. Though I had only been doing some training with them for a short while and dealing with some of their more difficult clients I distanced myself as far from them as I could. After leaving, I became more and more aware of how many angry people they had out there.

After only a short time attempting to help them, I ended up having to sue them over the damage they had done to me. I won, but wish I had never met them or in any way bought into their dream.

Bob Allen had much the same feeling. Bob Allen never had anything to do with their management, day to day operations and seldom if ever even visited the outfit. He was in California and they were in Utah. I’m not sure if he ever even visited the site or met any of the consultants other than the original one that had worked for the Allen Group previously. His reputation took a big hit over it all. He made the mistake of trusting his brother who made the mistake of hooking up with a couple snakes. He did get out and withdrew his name and support when it was clear it wasn’t working. Yet for around a year that he was involved with them he had no control over managment, employees, consultants or their operations.

It was a new concept and service at the time. Bob would have had no way it would not work because of the management. They were very capable marketers but Doug Holmes in particular really did not care about the clients. Richard Allen and Chuck Abbott later got out of there too. Holmes went on to make millions.

Re: Wouldn’t some facts be helpful first? - Posted by JD

Posted by JD on April 03, 2003 at 13:21:58:

I appreciate the candor, John - you’re at least making me think about what you’ve stated. Searching public records several years ago (and I mean the 80’s) about Allen convinced me he was a snake, but I think the thing that reallt bothers me about him is that he uses the Bible as a cover for why people ought to trust him. That just sort of rubs me the wrong way. I was involved in his mentoring in the mid to late 80’s, and after I had spent money on his mentoring I was being counseled in a slow, methodical way - very much step by step, and then all of a sudden my “mentor” wasn’t available. I asked for another - I was assured that another would be assigned but it never happened. Then my calls hit answering machines, and my messages weren’t returned. And ultimately, I discovered about his financial mess, i.e., the IRS dealings, etc.

I will grant you that I perhaps was in error about jumping onto Reed’s bandwagon about Allen, and if any or all of these statements you’ve made to me are indeed true - and the more you state, the less I’m inclined to think you’re feeding me a line - then I publicly will apologize for the comments I’ve made here about Allen. I still have a problem with how he has conducted business, and still have doubts about HIS ethics but promise that I will refrain from posting something direct from Reed. Any comments and thoughts I have should come from my own dealings, and not anyone else’s.

Again, thanks for your comments.


Re: Wouldn’t some facts be helpful first? - Posted by John Behle

Posted by John Behle on April 18, 2003 at 21:13:23:

Sometimes newsgroups are very frustrating.

This isn’t about anger at Reed. I only cited some examples of his biased and colored “reporting”. Any credible writer or journalist should see the un-professional approach he takes.

I am neither defending Allen nor attacking Reed. I am stating that he DOES NOT have the facts. Of course, they do point to the conclusion he has drawn, but it is only that - an assumption.

A lender can do anything they want and their policies and programs are solely a guideline. The point is that it IS possible that this is an exception or has circumstances we do not know or understand. I don’t care if Reed’s wife owned Bank of America. If she was not in on this transaction, neither she nor her all-knowing husband are privy to the exact facts. That I take exception to and will argue with. As I stated, he may be right, but neither he, nor any of us know that.

And, if you re-read, I did not imply the loan officer “duped” Allen or anything of the sort. My point was that only that loan officer, Allen or someone else involved in every conversation and privy to every document knows for sure.

It is irresponsible to accuse someone of fraud without all the facts. In fact - without ANY facts. I don’t have Reed’s book or research in front of me. We don’t know the loan to value ratios, whether their might be other collateral, who is on the loan, etc.

I used the example of Reed’s slander he stated about me because it is similar in in-accuracy, though not in scope. He accused me of deception and was DEAD WRONG. His sole basis was a conversation with John Beck, who was in error, but that doesn’t stop him from posting it on his website - AND LEAVING IT THERE.

I would agree that it what he says about Allen’s loan “LOOKS” like Reed says it does, but he doesn’t know. It’s just so interesting that Reed and his advocates care about the point they want to prove, not the facts. When confronted with facts, they just tend to find another issue to try to prove their point. In absence of facts, he assumes what he wants to.

As to Allen, he may or may not have done anything wrong. I can’t think of any specific area of his books or materials that specifically advocate fraud or deception, but I won’t bet on it. I just don’t remember anything he teaches that does, but then again, Easter is coming up and I know I could probably hide my own Easter eggs. It’s been a VERY long time since I have seen or reviewed Bob’s materials and I haven’t seen anything newer than the early 80’s. I’ve learned a lot since then and may look at it differently and he may teach things differently since then.

I HAVE seen many people mis-apply Allen’s teachings or cross the line. I’ve seen some that know they have and others that think Allen taught them to do what they did. More often, I see loan officers and real estate agents that directly encourage loan fraud totally un-related to Allen’s materials. Nothing is new about that and it wasn’t caused by Bob Allen. Did he “feed the fire?” Possibly. There are many ways to legitimately, legally, ethically and profitably do “nothing down” deals. Most people actually don’t even know those techniques. It is obvious that Reed doesn’t.

There are also MANY “Nothing Down” techniques that do not qualify in those ways. Some are illegal, unethical and un-profitable. Those are the ones people actually seem to focus on and some of the ignorant “wanna be gurus” teach. One of the worst things that has happened to the newer generations of gurus is an increasingly less rounded perspective. Many do not have a rounded real estate training and just have some technique they picked up a couple years ago and are now advocating it to others - without having a serious real estate education. It is nice that Reed has some of that rounded background and it does make him a more credible to analyze things. But - he isn’t the only one out there with a degree in finance, business or CCIM training, etc.

I think Bob’s materials are good to have in someone’s toolbox. There are applications for many of the techniques and they can be helpful. Yet, the “nothing down” strategy as most people understand it can be dangerous. High leverage investing can be quite dangerous and I have seen it make some people rich and destroy others. There are better ways, better strategies and better tools.

Bob didn’t originate either the strategy or most or possibly any of the techniques. They have been used for many decades and are tools of the exchange field. Miller and Schaub taught a course “Making it Big on Little Deals” that is the primary influence on Bob Allen. In some ways he organized them better and put them into more of a mainstream “anyone can do it” type strategy. That has pros and cons.

It’s one thing for an experienced Exchangor to use some of the techniques in certain situations and another for some guy that is up watching infomercials at 3 in the morning to attempt them. That is one of the biggest risks. Most of the people attempting the “nothing down” philosophy don’t even know their risks, laws they could end up violating or ways they could get in trouble.

Anyway, I do take exception to the “buy real estate 100% financed and hold on for dear life” strategy. Negative cash flows, tenants, repairs, balloon payments, market downturns, interest rate changes and other factors can end up burying people.

That’s why I believe in “paper” investment. You buy cash flows, not negative cash flows. Assets, not liabilities. Real estate should be approached to make the profit “up front” by buying right, not hoping for future appreciation, etc.

So, in answer to your questions.

1 - I think Reed doesn’t know and is in error trying to state his assumptions as fact - even if they are a logical assumption.

I find it very hard to believe he was trained in business and logic at Harvard. He states questions of logic as if they were questions of fact. He states emotions and opinions as if they were fact. He plays upon people’s emotions far more than someone trained in critical analysis should.

2 - Allen may or may not have done something wrong. We just don’t know. If he did, which it appears he might have - I don’t advocate it at all. It is wrong and un-needful to approach real estate investing from that standpoint.

3 - I applaud Reed’s attempt at what he does. I’d rather have his site and critiques than not have them - but the whole approach is disappointing at the same time. It could be better. He could leave ego, sarcasm, vindictiveness and his “agenda” out of it. He could rely more on facts. It’s an un-finished project - but shouldn’t be. If he is not going to actually review people’s materials, he should find others willing to. If his ego is too influenced by how they spoke to him on the phone, he should seek someone that actually is objective. He is absolutely determined to sort people into his little categories and is prone to believe them all guilty until proven innocent - yet allows no space, dialog, forum or opportunity to curtail his subjective and biased viewpoints.

Re: Bob’s mentoring in the 80’s - Posted by Stacie B

Posted by Stacie B on April 05, 2003 at 18:10:42:

How is Robert Kiosikis mentoring prgram. From rich dad-cashflow, poor dad?


Sorry, posted in the wrong place - Posted by John Behle

Posted by John Behle on April 03, 2003 at 14:48:29:

That may be a first. After posting here for going on four years, I think that may be the first time I’ve posted a reply to myself.

You can read it above, below or wherever it is there.

One more thing, if one of those marketers made some statment about trusting Allen because of the Bible or whatever, that’s just baloney coming from one idiot telemarketer. Telemarketers many times are just people that don’t have enough integrity to sell used cars.

Allen may not hide his religious beliefs, but I have never heard him espouse them to sell something. I know at times he talks about giving ten percent to a church or charity or whatever, but many people do likewise. Many non-religious people also promote the abundance principle of giving away some of your income.

Allen may be far from perfect, but in my mind as someone that knows him and has dealt with him, he is far from evil or a criminal. I have no dealings with him now and haven’t for many years, so I have no agenda other than being fed up with all the stone throwing.

There are a lot of snakes Reed has left off his list or mis-profiled because of lack of information, but there are some he really trashes that I don’t feel is accurate. Most importantly his biases and double standards are getting very old.