Dean Letfus: “my job is to cover sin” -- WHO & WHAT?

[powerbroker50]

There is nothing wrong with investing in Australia. However stick to major cities. If you look at Melbourne it has been continually rated as one of the most livable cities in the world. It has a population base of over 3.7 million people growing at about 1200 people per week. If you look at the Gold Coast it is a holiday zone. Why would you buy high rise apartments. Why would you talk about 10% growth in three month. Perhaps Dean does talk to God, that would be the only way he could talk about 10% growth in three months.

[brettc]

You have to do your own research media is always negative, go to seminar about gold coast apartments it will prove they good value.

hahahaha. Brillant. Funniest thing I've read all day!!!

[PeterEmpowerEd]

To avoid misunderstanding...

Anyone who has been here for a while will have picked up there is (what could be described as) a "tense" relationship between Peter Aranyi / Olly Newland and Dean Leftus.

And this isn't the first, or even the second time that they've questioned Dean in a new thread.

Seems odd to me that Peter and Olly appear keen to smack Dean over the head with a wrench at any opportunity.

Excuse me Mark, but I don't believe I have posted in either of those two threads you linked to above.

As far as I can recall, my only previous remotely critical post of Dean Letfus was when I suggested recently in the Perriam Cove thread that he and Matthew Gilligan operated as property spruikers, which I think is just calling a spade a spade, based on material that is publicly available.

Hardly evidence of a "tense relationship", from where I sit. Am I missing something?

Mark, on the whole I enjoy your posts -- which I often find thoughtful, realistic and well-researched. Sadly, I think you do yourself, me and readers of this forum a disservice with the one quoted above and those unsubstantiated comments suggesting 'Peter and Olly' are ganging up on Dean.

(I don't know what Olly thinks about this present issue as I haven't even discussed it with him.)

Tucker: Affectionately, Nigel, we don't need to do this again do we? Am I being unfair?
People were being 'taken advantage of' and Dean says he stayed silent. I'm just questioning that.

princess: we can't keep agreeing like this. People will lump us into a gang.

regards, Peter

[cube]

Peter,

Regardless of how independently you and Olly think and form opinions on things, you are, for better or worse, perceived as a package to those that have been exposed to the various to-ing and fro-ing in these forums in the past.

Just as posts by various posters over the years have been seen as coming from RM, so posts from you or Olly are seen as coming from the same source.

cube

[orbital]

Peter,

Regardless of how independently you and Olly think and form opinions on things, you are, for better or worse, perceived as a package to those that have been exposed to the various to-ing and fro-ing in these forums in the past.

Just as posts by various posters over the years have been seen as coming from RM, so posts from you or Olly are seen as coming from the same source.

cube

Come clean *PeterempowerEd" there seems to be agenda here like you and *Olly* are working together i have figure you out, i am sharp knife in draw and see what happening

[brettc]

Come clean *PeterempowerEd" there seems to be agenda here like you and *Olly* are working together i have figure you out, i am sharp knife in draw and see what happening

He's got you there Peter. Orbital is indeed "sharp knife in draw".

As he correctly pointed out... if you want to hear gold coast property is good value...go to the seminar.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Perceived as a package!

Thanks Quentin. You may be right about the perception.

My point is: it’s not actually true to say that I’ve ganged up on Dean... as my absence of posts in Mark’s two examples indicates. (Is there anything else I've said to support that accusation?)

To make this 'cyber-bullying' allegation against me as an argument seems like an attempt to write off the serious and relevant issue I've raised:

Is it right to stay silent while watching people get financially harmed?

Your thoughts are welcome, as always, Q.

Peter

PS “posts from you or Olly are seen as coming from the same source” -- Poor Olly, tainted by my miasma!

[Mark_B]

Peter

I am sorry if I have offended you, but all I have done is join the dots.

Dot 1 - Your company (Empower Education) is the publisher of Mr Newland's books and also presents seminars under the Empower Education banner.

Dot 2 - Mr Newland has been very critical of Mr Leftus in the past in numerous threads including at least 2 which he started (as per my link)

Dot 3 - You have often been very quick to defend Mr Newland in the past.

and now

This thread.

And while I think myself (and others) could be forgiven for seeing it as Dot 4, if you say it isn't so, then it isn't so.

So my apologies.

M

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Apology accepted Mark, without question.

I'm not offended, but dismayed that 'this thread' and its (in my view) very serious topic:

the culpability of people who know financial wrongdoing is going on but stay silent, thereby allowing the dishonesty and damage to continue -- is being side-tracked into a fatuous personality argument.

I'd hoped a serious poster like you, with your background, would have something substantial to say on the topic.
Was I wrong about you?

-regards, Peter

PS Yes, I am quick to defend Olly (and others, e.g the APIA volunteers), but not always -- and not 'right or wrong'. It seems a shame if that action stigmatises me in some eyes.

[Mark_B]

Apology accepted Mark, without question.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I'd hoped a serious poster like you, with your background, would have something substantial to say on the topic.
Was I wrong about you?

I'm sorry if I dissappointed you, but I don't consider myself any more or less qualified or able to speak on ethics and what is right or wrong than the next person, so I didn't feel the need to post in that respect.

I am a busy person (as I am sure you and many other posters are) and I pick and choose my battles (I concede I chose this one poorly).

I come and go on forums like this (ignore them for weeks or months) and I find some wisdom in something Milton Freidman once said:

"I'd rather spend my time doing economics, than talking about how it should be done".

Which tends to be how I feel about investment.

M

[Mark_B]

But I will pose a question (based on a real life example).

I once bought a property that I knew was subdividable. The REA advising the vendor did not realise this (and nor did the vendor). Consequently I bought it for a pretty good discount below RV.

Should I have disclosed to the vendor that I knew they were getting bum advice from the REA?

M

[SuperDad]

But I will pose a question (based on a real life example).

I once bought a property that I knew was subdividable. The REA advising the vendor did not realise this (and nor did the vendor). Consequently I bought it for a pretty good discount below RV.

Should I have disclosed to the vendor that I knew they were getting bum advice from the REA?

M

Of course not.

Paul.

[Mark_B]

Of course not.

Thank you Paul. I think my "career" as a property investor (and for mant other people too) would be a short one indeed if I had to disclose such things.

Anyhow, this thread is basically about ethics.

This truly is a case where "one mans music is another mans noise". I'm sure there are hundreds of definitions of what defines ethical behaviour and many of them may focus on what a "reasonable person" would think. But ultimately the definition is a personal one [I'm not making an excuse for criminals here and while I am no criminal psychologist, it stands to reason that the average criminal has ethics most of us would find deplorable, yet they seem to be able to live with themselves].

As investors we talk about Sleep At Night Factor (SANF) in terms of what sorts of investments can you "sleep at night" with.

Well maybe that applies to ethical behaviour too?

In the 1920's (and 1930) there was a champion US golfer called Bobby Jones (golf fans would likely have heard of him - 7 major championships [in the day's before the Masters and he was not eligible to enter the PGA as he was an amatuer]. In 2000 he was ranked the 4th greatest golfer of all time [at that time] behind Nicklaus, Hogan and Snead).

From wikipedia:

Jones was not only a consummately skilled golfer, but he also exemplified the principles of sportsmanship and fair play. Early in his amateur career, he was in the final playoff of the 1925 U.S. Open at the Worcester Country Club.

During the match, his ball ended up in the rough just off the fairway, and as he was setting up to play his shot his iron caused a slight movement of the ball. He immediately got angry with himself, turned to the marshals, and called a penalty on himself. The marshals discussed among themselves and questioned some of the gallery if anyone had seen Jones' ball move. Their decision was that neither they nor anyone else had witnessed any incident, so the decision was left to Jones. Bobby Jones called the two-stroke penalty on himself, not knowing that he would lose the tournament by one stroke.

When he was praised for his gesture, Jones replied, "You may as well praise a man for not robbing a bank."

The USGA's sportsmanship award is named the Bob Jones Award in his honor.


Would anybody have ever known if he hadn't spoken to the marshalls? Probably not.

Would he have "gotten away with it"? Probably yes.

Would he have been able to sleep at night, comfortable with himself? Well, if his subsequent quote is any indication, no he would not.

Ultimately, whether Dean can sleep at night knowing what he knows, is his business and concern not mine.

My only concern is whether I can sleep at night knowing what I know.

But each to their own.

M

[SuperDad]

The "can I sleep at night?" test is not a very good measure of moral rightness, I fear.

I'm sure that there have been many throughout history who have performed the most evil of deeds, and then slept well.

Paul.

[Mark_B]

As I said Paul, each to their own.

You're out driving in your car. At 49 kph you're a law-abiding citizen. At 51 kph you're breaking the law. Can you sleep with yourself at night?

What's illegal is usually (not always) black and white.

What is immoral is a spectrum of many shades of greys.

My point was that as an individual all we have is our own conscience.

As to whether that conscience is aligned with those of others or whether it is waaaaay out there??