Should I trust this "mentor"? - Posted by David-Mi

import · February 7, 2000, 1:37am

Re: Ed, now I feel terrible… - Posted by Ed Garcia

Posted by Ed Garcia on February 07, 2000 at 02:37:28:

Paul:

There is no reason to be bummed out. You’re doing a good job. Keep up the good
work. I got to tell you Paul, it’s midnight and I’m here answering your post with a
smile on my face. Today with good intentions I answered David’s post and Jim
Piper picked up the negative aspect of the my post as only Jim Piper can do.

Well the next thing I know, is I’m now defending a position that I don’t even agree
with. But that’s OK I’m having fun. Don’t take anything I said in my post personal.
I’m doing it as an exercise just to give Piper a bad time.

You have all the reason in the world to feel good about that fact that your buyers
are buying cheaper than they can rent. Who could question that.

I know I put a lot of fire in my postings, but I have to tell you. You should have seen
the ones that I didn’t post. Boy when I want to be bad, I can be bad.

I just decided to take a stand knowing that I would be going against the grain.

Again Paul, don’t let it bum you out. I think it’s healthy when we can look at a issue
from both sides.

Ed Garcia

import · February 7, 2000, 12:47am

Re: Ed, now I feel terrible… - Posted by Ed Garcia

Posted by Ed Garcia on February 07, 2000 at 01:47:08:

Piper,

Thank god, you didn’t disappoint me. I must have had you thinking all day.

It’s hard for me to imagine you writing such a post, and then just skipping out
the door for the day. You took a while to do your post, and you also took your
time to keep me waiting.

But that’s OK. You see Jim, I like your second post better than your first one.
I can see that you backed up and regrouped, and came in with a little better style.

You jumped on the shame on you concept.

You start out with the statements like, First, who’s responsible for the buyers bad credit?

At this point Jim, I’m not sure if your passing the buck, or just calling the buyer a
Credit criminal. either way it falls in line with the justification process that I was in
reference to in my first post. I told you that when someone’s good at justification, they
can justify anything.

No Jim, nobodies blaming you because the buyer made a mistake. What we are blaming
you for is taking advantage of the buyer because of their mistake. Jim you live in
Kansas Missouri, They can’t give houses away there, that’s why you do so many lease
options. And now all of a sudden their coming in groves. The only one you can get full
price on in Kansas, is someone with credit problems. A good buyer will bring you to your
knees. Because they know that you’re charging too much. So you try and make it on someone
who’s made a mistake.

You mention how the buyer has to live with the consequences of his own bad decisions.
I agree that’s worth something. I can see that with your justification, you distanced yourself
from your taking advantage of the buyer, to him creating his consequences, and therefore
your just pricing accordingly?.. Jim, I’m wondering if you are saying this with a straight face.

Oh and Jim, the part where you say because the lenders don’t offer terms that he can get a
house with (once again you’re coming to the rescue)?and I do. Darn Jim, you’re kind hearted.
The next thing your going to tell me is, that you’re going to send them to Disneyland.

You say,
Why would we negotiate at all? You seem to allude to the concept that somehow there is virtue
in negotiation. On the contrary, why not have a product so much in demand that NO negotiation
is necessary whatsoever. If one buyer doesn’t want it?.another one is coming down the street.

Jim, must I remind you that you’re not In the San Fernando Valley, again were talking Missouri.

You say,
We’re not in this game to sharpen our negotiation skills?.we’re only in the game to make a profit?.negotiation is one of the skills we haul out if we need it. Fortunately, if the terms on
our deal are good enough?.we don’t need it Ed! No need to ever over talk your deal.

Jim, I don’t want to hurt your feelings. But when your dealing with someone with a credit problem
you have the upper hand, and you know it. There’s no negotiating. It’s order taking time.

Piper, your close is a classic.

Just remember this Ed, making a profit is the American way. Filling a need is the American way.
You don’t have to ever feel guilty about making a profit?..it’s what makes this country go around.

Gee Jim, that brings tears to my eyes. The American way. You’re back to Sugar Coating.

I think I gave you too much credit for being a fine salesmen. Your skills seem to be a little
rusty, and you get no points for originality.

Now earlier today, you told me that I needed a spanking, and this is the best you can come up with.
Jim, quite frankly I’m disappointed. I’ll tell you what. You start a post taking my position, and I’ll
take yours. Let reverse our rolls and see what we can come up with.

But this rhetoric of I help people, giving them a home, when nobody else will help them, is BS.

Tell it like it is. Say their an easy sell. I can respect that. Don’t hide behind righteousness when
the truth is, that they don’t have a way to go.

If my language is too strong I can handle that, just add a little Sugar Coating.

You’ll feel better,

Ed Garcia

P.S. How you doing Jim, you getting hot yet??(smile)

import · February 6, 2000, 2:40pm

Re:It’s like dealing with the Devil… - Posted by Ed Garcia

Posted by Ed Garcia on February 06, 2000 at 15:40:20:

Well Mr. Piper, I think I touched a nerve.

Now Jim, you know what I think of you, and so with that in mind I want you to know
that this posting is not about you. I also know that you’ve been dying, I repeat dying,
to get into a verbal exchange with me and you know it. Even though were the best
of friends, you know you’ve been waiting for me. Just wanting to get a piece of old
Garcia. Piper you love a good go around, and I stimulate you because you know I’m a
worthy opponent. You’re an old warrior with out a battle. I can see the smile on your face
as you’re are reading this.

So with that in mind, I say lets get it on.

For starters You’re right about my misspelling of the word NICHE. I’m the first to admit,
that my postings won’t stand up to yours as far a articulation or spelling.

But in every other category I intend to make sure my point is not lost.

Your post to me as well as it was written, and thought out, is BS Mr. Piper.( I know you know
what BS stands for).

Three words stand out when I read your post, JUSTIFICATION, and SUGAR COATING.

Jim, we both know I’ve been there, done that. I’ve been a mooch killer. I don’t like the term,
any more than you do, but lets call a spade a spade. When I’m in the heat of negotiations,
I don’t have time for moral issues. I turn myself into a man with a mission.

Justification, can make us feel like were doing the right thing. But we both know that when you
have someone with a credit problem, you have the edge on them. Ya, you can justify it like you
did in your post and make it sound like you’re working for the Red Cross. But we both know better.

You have the edge. You want to call it a MOTIVATED BUYER, OK, I’ll buy that (JUSTIFICATION).
We tell ourselves how were helping this buyer that nobody will help, (BS) so lets sock it to them.
Now do we make a skinny deal on them, I don’t think so. We both know we drive it home.

When working with a buyer of this sort, the definition of fair price is FULL PRICE.

I know Jim, I know, were just OPPORTUNITIST. Lets clear the air. I’m the first to agree about the term
RISK, REWARD. I understand that people who have had credit problems are of course higher risk.
But we both know Jim when working with these people we take no prisoners.

Here is where SUGAR COATING comes in. Not only do we justify taking advantage of these people
We talk about how we have helped them and giving them an opportunity to get back into the race.

As true as that last statement is, we both know that wasn’t our intention. Our intention was from day one
to make as much as we can on our deal. That why I used the term MO. our Motive of Operation is to
find people with credit problems because they will give us the least resistance in our negotiations.
Lets face it, going into the deal we have the upper hand. It takes no talent, it’s not the art of negotiations.
Their at our mercy if they want to by a home.

JUSTIFICATION can go a long way. When your good at it, you can justify anything.

Here Jim, let me help you. When doing a deal, you have a responsibility to make as much for your
side of the transaction as you can. There does that help you, I have taken you off of the hook.

But that doesn’t change a thing. This guy was going after people with credit problem by design.
He wasn’t doing it to help mankind.

Now I’m the first to agree that in this business, it’s ever man for himself. I also realize that there is
a market place VOID, that needs to be filled. So be it. Let it go at that. But what ever you do, don’t make yourself sound like Robin Hood coming to the rescue.

Ed Garcia

P.S.

Now you’ve got me going, don’t make me wait. If you can’t come up with some good arguments for
your side of this issue, let me know. I’m capable of arguing both sides of this issue, and love it.

import · February 6, 2000, 12:59pm

An Old Saying… - Posted by Michael Morrongiello

Posted by Michael Morrongiello on February 06, 2000 at 13:59:24:

An older football coach once said;

“You don’t win with Sentiment, you WIN with SMARTS…”

Finding motivated sellers and assisting them to work out their problems whether its saving their home from foreclosure, or helping them move on with their lives, I find nothing wrong with. Many of these individuals need help or someone to assist them.

On the selling side, Selling homes to buyers who have prior credit difficulties and who probably would never have a real opportunity to acheive the American Dream of home ownership in the immediate future I find commendable.

The fact that you can earn a PROFIT in assisting both Sellers and Buyers is just SMART Business. It is the “niche” (pronounced “Neeeesh”) that many of us choose to fill each and every day with our entrepenurial spirit.

Michael Morrongiello

import · February 7, 2000, 2:06pm

This is an evil twin, the evil Eddie, right? - Posted by ray@lcorn

Posted by ray@lcorn on February 07, 2000 at 15:06:27:

(I think someone should call Sandra and see if the ransom note has arrived yet. This is not the Ed Garcia, that gentleman crusader of creative deals that I know. This guy is bozo… you’re playing a game, right?)

Just for your amusement, in 1977 I was still in college. That was the year I remodeled my first motel. The next year as a summer project I finished about ten single family houses started by a guy who went AWOL. Were you able to meet your quota on mooches that year? If I recall your story, that was about the same time you were hustling cars with TV in LA wasn’t it? Excuse me while I go get my “pro” sh*tslinger hat and slicker… we’re going to need it. While I’m at it I better grab my top-secret guru decoder ring if you’re going to keep using these highly technical terms like mooch killer.

I’m not trying to prove you wrong, because it is self-evident. My assertion is that you made a sweeping generalization that was unfounded based on the information available.

Given your usual lack of regard for facts, I would point you back to your own post. YOU drew the conclusion that the guy was a shark, no one else. In your own words you based your deductions on a) he specializes in putting people with poor credit (that can be financed) into low cost homes., and b) The price is non-negotiable to make sure he makes a profit from his buying price. That sounds a lot like the business plan for about half the people on this site. The other half are playing the wholesale side.

So you’re not defending anything but your right to call the guy names based on very sketchy information. The only “other side” there is for you to argue is that you were wrong to draw such a hasty conclusion, and knowing you have such a hard time with being wrong, I would never expect you to do that. Instead, you choose to cloud the issue with personal attack and invective. Whatever deal you did two weeks ago has zero to do with whether you should get away with calling this guy a slime ball.

C’mon Ed, get a grip, you flew off, we all do it. Let’s get back to business.

Your pal,

ray

import · February 7, 2000, 8:20pm

here here - Posted by steph in tex

Posted by steph in tex on February 07, 2000 at 21:20:23:

hasn’t this been great?
what an education.
here’s to the great balancing act!
thanks to all you guys who keep us alive and on our toes…thinking…questioning…making us who we all are…
steph in tex

import · February 6, 2000, 9:32pm

Re:It’s like dealing with the Devil… - Posted by JPiper

Posted by JPiper on February 06, 2000 at 22:32:51:

Hi Again Ed:

Gosh, a guy goes out for a while, comes back and lo and behold?..he?s now an ?old warrior without a battle?, while Garcia has suddenly become the ?worthy opponent?! The argument is suddenly one that anyone could take either side of! Gone are the words like ?slime bag?, ?mooch?, and ?devil? (your words), suddenly replaced by nobler words like ?justification?, and ?sugar coating?. Not that I blame you Ed! If I were you I?d distance myself from your first statement too! Frankly Ed, my only surprise so far is that ALL of the participants of this newsgroup aren?t up in arms about your references to ?slime bags? who sell to people with credit issues.

Allow me to dispense with one of your main contentions first. No where in my post do I use the word ?help?. Interesting that you claim this is how we attempt to ?justify? or ?sugar coat? what we do. But no where in the post is the word ?help?. Shame on you Ed! You injected your own argument, and then attempted to prove it wrong. Interesting technique?.just like hoping that the claim you?re a worthy opponent makes your argument any more valid.

The facts here look so logical that they are almost beyond argument at all. First, who is responsible for a buyer?s bad credit? It certainly isn?t me, nor is it any other participant of the newsgroup. Therefore, the buyer lives with the consequences of his prior bad decisions. I don?t decide for the buyer that he absolutely has to have a house?..he does. In fact, I don?t make any of the buyer?s decisions for him at all. The buyer does this all on his own. I don?t force him to do anything.

Rather, what I do is offer a property with special terms. If my property or my offer didn?t have any market appeal then no one would call. But they do Ed?.in droves. Why? Because the lenders don?t offer terms that he can get a house with?.and I do. What?s that worth? What the market will bear Ed, and as long as large numbers of calls come in?it?s clear that the offer is within reason.

Why would we negotiate at all? You seem to allude to the concept that somehow there is virtue in negotiation. On the contrary, why not have a product so much in demand that NO negotiation is necessary whatsoever. If one buyer doesn?t want it?.another one is coming down the street. We?re not in this game to sharpen our negotiation skills?.we?re only in the game to make a profit?.negotiation is one of the skills we haul out if we need it. Fortunately, if the terms on our deal are good enough?.we don?t need it Ed! No need to ever overtalk your deal.

Ed, I have to say, there are some arguments I could take both sides of?but this isn?t one of them. I absolutely can?t see how you can possibly dispute any of the points being made here. But knowing you Ed, you?ll probably try to make something out of whatever you think you have. Just remember this Ed, making a profit is the American way. Filling a need is the American way. You don?t have to ever feel guilty about making a profit?..it?s what makes this country go around.

JPiper

import · February 6, 2000, 4:00pm

“I Represent that Remark…” - Posted by Carmen_FL

Posted by Carmen_FL on February 06, 2000 at 17:00:19:

As Groucho Marx said.

I too find it galling that, even within the REI community, the assumption is that we, Investors, are out to scr*w people. Whether it’s a seller going into foreclosure or a buyer without credit, we are always, in the public eye, in the wrong when we step in to help - we’re out to rob little old ladies of their life savings.

Unfortunately, there does seem to be a higher percentage of no-holds-barred, greed-driven individuals out there than I’d like - I’ve met quite a few in my area, so caution is in order. But we’re not all motivated solely by that one emotion.

I am working in a similar zone as JPiper, it seems - with those people just outside the fringe of conventional financing, who are having a hard time fulfilling their home ownership dreams. And, yes, I too have gotten hugs, Christmas cards and referrals. And - SURPRISE, ED! - sometimes I make LESS (or NO) money on these deals than if I held out for a qualified buyer! Why? Because if I find a buyer who needs me to owner finance, hold a 5% note, or pay closing costs, I will do it. Mortgage brokers fall over themselves to get their not-quite-qualified people into our houses - I’ve been told we’re “the only investors in the area willing to help”. That means less cash in my pocket at close, but it’s worth it. Or, if I find that the deal won’t work for me, I will send these people to various other sources of help; I help them get grants, loans, etc. for down payments and closing costs; I help them get their credit cleaned up; I find them HUD homes that they can buy with hard money as owner-occupants to refinance in a year; I explain the concept of lease optioning and get them into one of those instead - and it may take from 2 weeks to 2 years before they are ready to buy. By that time, the particular property I had in mind when I ran my ad is long since sold. And they may never come back to me (although sometimes they do) when they are ready to purchase - but that’s OK too.

So, do I get “full price” on my properties? The main question is, “how much down, how much a month” - if both those figures fit a buyer’s needs, then the actual price of the house is irrelevant. To answer directly, usually, yes; but normally I’m listing my properties at or below FMV anyway. Do I gouge people? No. All my houses need to appraise, anyways - either now or later, when the L/Os, refinance, or note sales need to happen. I have NEVER had someone tell me I’m asking too much for my houses - except other investors, who LOVE to come by and tell me how they would have done things differently.

I think about all those investors who will NOT take the time to work with the … 70% is it? … of potential buyers who are NOT qualified for conventional mortgages when I drive by 3 months later, and their property is still on the market while mine has a nice family in it sitting down to Sunday dinner in their own home … thanks to me!

import · February 7, 2000, 5:49pm

Oops: Correction and apology needed - Posted by ray@lcorn

Posted by ray@lcorn on February 07, 2000 at 18:49:41:

Ed,

TIME OUT!

I goofed. In the heat of the moment typing that last post I made a statement that is not correct. I said "Given your usual lack of regard for facts… " which by using the word “usual” implies that you often ignore facts. That is not correct, and I would be very wrong to leave that uncorrected. I know you to personally be a man of honor, and scrupulously honest in all dealings that I have had with you. Further, in matters concerning deals, and financing, and legal issues I also know that you take pains to be accurate in the information you pass on. So please accept my sincere apology for getting too carried away with our rhetoric and alluding otherwise. Those who do not know that we are friends may get the wrong impression.

TIME IN!

So drop the word “usual.” That leaves "Given your lack of regard for facts… ". Now that is correct, because you DID disregard the facts in that post as a way to shift the focus of attention away from the fact that you have no way to win here!!

(He’s cagey folks, so you can’t let up for a minute!)

ray

import · February 7, 2000, 1:00am

Re:It’s like dealing with the Devil… - Posted by Ed Garcia

Posted by Ed Garcia on February 07, 2000 at 02:00:59: