john reed deals in nothing but facts - Posted by Dan Reed
Posted by Dan Reed on July 06, 2003 at 17:21:06:
All comments cited on his website that attack other gurus are backed up by fact. When he speculates, he says hes speculating. Public government documents are the source of his facts. Read the website a little more carefully next time before you spout off about what Reed knows and doesnt know.
Re: Bob’s mentoring in the 80’s - Posted by John Behle
Posted by John Behle on April 16, 2003 at 15:44:23:
I have no idea how Kyosaki’s mentoring program works or whether it is successful for people. I don’t know anything about it.
Re: john reed deals in nothing but facts - Posted by Ronald * Starr(in No CA)
Posted by Ronald * Starr(in No CA) on July 08, 2003 at 07:16:45:
Dan Reed----------------
Nice to meet you.
First, you should know that I know and respect your father a lot. I have many times spend a lot of time defending him and correcting people’s inaccurate statements about him here on the CREONLINE.COM website.
Now, I know you are Jack’s son because he has written about you on his website. But I’d like to suggest that it would be a good practice for you to disclose this when you post about him. It allows people to better understand from where you are coming. It makes you seem more honest. And it is more honest.
I think that John Behle has a pretty good grasp on the strengths and weaknesses of Jack Reed. I commend him on taking the time to educate people so that they can understand things better. I recommend you read him carefully and with respect.
He does not mention something that I think is a positive about Jack’s assessment of educators, and that you mention by saying “When he speculates, he says hes speculating.” I like that he tells the sources of his assessments of people. So it is possible to know that he is going off of only an advertisement, for instance. That allows those of us reading the judgments to better know the source of the judgments.
I think that John Behle is right in that reading the people that Jack “Recommends” would be very valuable for people wanting to know about real estate investing. I think that a lot of the people who he does “not recommend” deserve that label. However, there are some good educators that Jack does “not recommend” who people might miss by going by Jack’s judgment alone.
I think that the guru list has a positive overall effect and I’m glad that Jack maintains it. I’d like to see other similar lists maintained by others, but haven’t seen any yet.
Good Investing**Ron Starr
It’s Reed that does the spouting - Posted by John Behle
Posted by John Behle on July 06, 2003 at 21:10:19:
His comments are NOT backed up by fact. He speculates a great deal without “informing” his un-knowing public. I have read every word of his website and know a great deal more about some of these people and details than he does.
I assume you are talking about he Bob Allen thing that started this all. The first guy that asked the question and made the comments wasn’t even dealing with Bob Allen after all. He was dealing with a telemarketing organization that had little to do with Allen.
As to the loan fraud thing he accuses Allen of, Reed does not know the terms of that loan, the loan application or any deception involved. It is as likely that Allen put up some other additional collateral or that some consideration was given in that Allen was a well known author and millionaire at the time. When someone walks in with exceptional qualifications, they can receive exceptional treatment. Banks can deviate from the norm on occasions. They can make a portfolio loan, combo loan, broker to or JV with another institution. As I said REED does not know the details.
Though the “challenge” was to buy the property with no wallet, etc. When it came to the loan application Robert Allen had a wallet, ID, credit report, tax return and top ten best selling book. He could have just as easily had a combo loan that was not owner occupied and included a first loan at a lower LTV and a personal loan for the balance. I don’t know - but neither does Reed.
The fact that Reed’s wife was a loan officer does not declare him or her the final authority on things they have not seen. Granted, he implies and his conclusion is that there was fraud involved. He does not declare that as fact, but it makes NO DIFFERENCE in the mind of his readers. His innuendo and assumptions do their damage. His intent, goal and result is to persuade the minds of his readers. He makes that happen however he has to.
He is like a classic “anti” writer. He quotes sources as authoritative (lots of heresay), throws in lots of emotions, lumps people by association and other tactics.
As to some of Allen’s personal losses and mistakes, Reed is in error on some of the information.
john reed deals in innuendo, bias and emotion - Posted by John Behle
Posted by John Behle on July 06, 2003 at 20:42:52:
Well, I’m glad you are fully indoctrinated into your hero worship of Reed. It’s the easy way to find fault and be cynical. It takes away the need for intelligence and your own analysis
BUT your comments are absolutely false.
REED has many mistakes and assumptions on his site. In no particular order, here are some that come to mind without spending all day detailing them - and I could.
For a long time Reed said John Stefanchik is from Utah, then changed it to Utah or NYC. He has never been from or lived in Utah. He is from NYC or nearby, but lives in Washington State I am told.
Reed Judges Scott Britton and his whole course based on an ad he read. Draws some totally inaccurate assumptions and conclusions. I haven?t read Britton?s course, but to take one example from an ad and then assume that one deal occupied all of Britton?s time, energy and resources and turn that into an hourly wage is intellectually retarded.
Slammed me over someone else’s deceptive advertising. It was ONLY corrected because I too had a public forum and posted his error. It still reflects negatively on me and he still slams me in private emails to people because I was a little incensed by his ERROR in FACTS.
Makes a pompous, ridiculous statement about Utah being the “Sleazy real estate guru capital of the world”. Only two people on his rating list are from Utah - myself and Mark Haroldsen. Claimed Tyler Hicks is from Utah and he never has been. He takes two addresses from a telemarketing outfit of Russ Whitney in Draper (a part of salt lake) and makes it look like there are three offices spread throughout the state. A couple dozen telemarketers that probably have no idea of what they are really selling and he trashes a whole state.
The majority of his horrible gurus come from California, Florida and other places - but he has some deeply set gripe about Utah and has to attack a whole state.
His comments about Haroldsen are TOTALLY inaccurate, biased and basically wrong. Haroldsen’s kids alone own and manage more real estate than Reed ever has or will. I won’t go into the details again right now, but I did one time and you could find it in a search on this site.
There are several other errors. Many times he trashes what a guru has to teach based on some character flaw or failing of the guru. If that were the case, then Reed?s site should be shut down and all his books burned. But, truly intelligent minds don?t operate that way. It would be nice if we could only learn through people that are perfect, but that isn?t what this world is about. We learn through errors and mistakes. If I wanted to invest in apartment buildings in Texas, I would want to know what Reed learned in his spectacular mistakes.
In a couple of cases he actually has no clue how bad the guru is. I?ve been tempted to spill the details on some of these gurus to Reed, but don?t agree that that serves any purpose. In many cases, I would have to agree with his ?recommend/do not recommend? judgement call even though some of the facts are distorted. I just tend to know more details about them.
Reed is attempting a good job at doing a good service. He seems to care about errors and mistakes, but seems totally unaware of how deep his biases and cynicism run. His critique would be wonderful if he actually read all he reviews - but he doesn?t. He sees what he thinks is a ?bad guy? on the horizon - shoots - then attempts to justify his decision.
Reed has some good experience and education, though there are some on this site that have a great deal more. His technical opinions and knowledge are worth taking into consideration. It?s good in some ways to ?balance the scale? with all the guru nonsense. There is a lot of hype and even danger out there in some of the courses and programs. I?d just like to see more critical analysis that doesn?t include a pre-occupation with someone?s sex life, driving habits, religion or how much white space their course contains. Whether some is or is not nice to Reed on the phone shouldn?t be a reason for a rating.
By all means, do read Reed’s material and site, but have the intellectual maturity and responsibility to add it as information to your knowledge and opinion about a guru. Don’t just swallow it as somehow being the final word from the ?mount? - even though that is what he would like.
Re: john reed deals in innuendo, bias and emotion - Posted by DanReed
Posted by DanReed on July 07, 2003 at 23:00:42:
John Stefanchik - The assumption about Salt Lake City is based on an email written by someone else that states he called a refund number for a Michael Warren product and the person answered “Stefanchik Company” at a number given to him to get a refund, and the video he had received evidently came from Utah. This would not be a horrible mistake considering you defend Utah as not as bad as Reed thinks. You also say “[Stefanchik] is from NYC or nearby, but lives in Washington State I am told.” You are told, are you? Well Reed was “told” he might be from Salt Lake. I guess its ok for you to make assumptions.
Scott Britton - Here is the ENTIRE section of Reed’s website on Scott Britton.
“Scott Britton - University of Real Estate Letter—I do not recommend
According to a promotional mailing I received, he sells a video in which you learn how to “make $10,000 in 98 days.” $10,000 divided by 98 = $102.04 per day or $102.04 divided by eight hours = $12.76 per hour. According to my local want ads, you can make that much in jobs like the following: driver, chauffeur, customer service, child care site supervisor, carpet cleaner. Britton’s way of making the $12.76 a hour is rehabbing buildings that you must buy, rehab, then sell to get your money. There is far less risk and effort in a customer-service job.” John T. Reed’s views of various real-estate-investment gurus Part 1
Your argument that it is “based on an ad he read” doesnt really help your case. All he did was use mathematics to prove that the $10,000 one would earn in 98 days is not that much ($37,000 yearly salary) considering the amount of time required to invest in and maintain real estate, despite being portrayed in this ad as impressive. Nothing said in Reed’s evaluation of Britton is even slightly untrue.
John Behle - Your only defense is that as soon as he made a mistake he corrected it, and that he “privately” slams you. Anyone who has read Reed’s website would know that he hardly keeps anything private.
You accuse Reed of making assumptions, and then make assumptions about him. I would ask others that see this posting to actually go to Reed’s website and see for yourself whether Reed is distorting facts or Behle is.
Re: john reed deals in innuendo, bias and emotion - Posted by John Behle
Posted by John Behle on July 08, 2003 at 02:31:38:
He made the statement about Stefanchik long before the email you reference was sent or posted. He has NEVER been from Utah. I said I was told Washington state because at the moment I don’t remember who told me. I don’t make a living publishing people’s states and locations on a website. If I did, I would make it a priority to get it right. I sure wouldn’t trash a whole state over it. Reed himself told me “Tyler Hicks” was from Utah. He seems to especially dislike him. Hicks has never lived in Utah.
The issue about Britton is LOUSY math and analysis. You and he assume that only that one deal is done during that period of time and that every working hour is put into that deal. He also assumes Britton did the work himself.
I could care less about the deal, the ad or what he thinks of Britton. EXCEPT for the fact that I have never heard a bad word about him, have met him personally and talked with many of his students. I wouldn’t make a judgement based on that. I read many of his responses at his newsgroup when he had it and at times when he has answered questions at this one. No question he has some good background and training.
Yet, he gets a “Do Not Recommend” rating solely from an advertisement - and one where Reed’s assumptions very much influence the outcome. As his assumptions always do.
I guess “slam me” might be subjective. I’m not going to dig up the emails now, but one of them described me as “impudent” for responding to him and challenging him to correct his errors. I have had a couple emails forwarded on to me with his exact words.
He accuses me of deceptive advertising and then takes offense when I correct him?
He did correct the comments and apologize. I appreciate that. I haven’t had an issue about that, though I have had a couple people tell me they didn’t buy my course because of his comments. It’s just a matter of his facts aren’t always correct and that was a good example. If I were aggressively marketing a course or seminars I suppose the damage could be substantial. If I hadn’t been informed of his comments and contacted him, the damages would be even greater.
Just attempt an open mind. “Read Reed”. Turn that into a bumper sticker if you want, but don’t assume he knows all truth about everyone and everything.
Re: john reed deals in innuendo, bias and emotion - Posted by John T. Reed
Posted by John T. Reed on July 08, 2003 at 18:15:09:
John, My sons told me you said I bad mouthed you in private. Not true. I really do not know you and have no occasion to talk about you at all because you are a note guy and I am not. I would like to know who told you otherwise. My best guess is that you are a good guy, or at least that’s what my friend Bill Mencarow says. You sent me a couple of nice emails in the last year so I assumed you had accepted my apology for erroneously reporting that you were behind a phony promo signed “John B.” years ago.
Jack Reed