What is Phil Jones story

[Dean@Massiveaction]

I disagree up to a point. If you're offered 100% refund guarantees then you can judge them on the results they provide for you.
You don't interrogate a doctor everytime you visit him, or a mechanic or in many cases even an accountant or solicitor. If they don't perform then you don't go back. So in the case of Richmastery or even myself, we guarantee you your money back if you're not satisfied. That should be enough.

Dean Leftus and a few others sing the praises of the ESC academy

It's LeTFus incidentally Julian and for clarity let me state that I only defend Richmastery because they allowed me to become a millionaire and retire in a few months thanks to Phils patience and ESC's education.
I am just as passionate about Robert Kiyosaki's book because that also changed my financial position. I find my life very fulfilling and "happy" because I choose to encourage and confirm those around me who do better than I, rather than living in the anally retentive conspiracy theory world of some of my PT friends. LOOKING FORWARD TO LUNCH!!!!!!!!!!

And the last stats I heard from ESC regarding the Academy were that over 80% of attendees had significantly improved their financial position in the following 12 months. I personally have several fellow graduate friends who have made a lot of money in the last year out of property

[Julian]

Mr Letfus,

You don't interrogate a doctor everytime you visit him, or a mechanic or in many cases even an accountant or solicitor.

Not every time, but you're a bloody idiot if you don't ask some pertinent questions before your first visit.

anally retentive conspiracy theory

I call it healthy skeptism and open debate.

I am just as passionate about Robert Kiyosaki's book because that also changed my financial position.

I put it to you that there is only one person that changed Dean Letfus's financial position and that is Dean Letfus! And I congratulate you for it.
Julian

[Dean@Massiveaction]

That breathing technique is working already!!


You need sound for this but it's one of my favourite funnies!!

http://www.42below.co.nz/flashad/storyof42.html

[Paul34]

To the detractors. Please don't let this topic get off the pont and on to RM

It is not about RM. I agree that they have added to the investing knowledge of lots and hats off. That said the previous investing environment was very different to where we are now. It really was a lot easier back then and the rules are different now.

Someone mentioned Hart and Watson. You can follow these guys, evryone knows that of late Watson has not been doing well and everyone marvels at Harts guts and detrmination and business acumen. But these are huge business they are doing not selling advice.

The difference here is that if someone is telling me that a truck pulls up to their house and dumps money in I'm curious as to how this is REALLY done if they don't sell. If they like Steve fund out of seminars then their message needs to be that you need a secondary cashflow to fund it. Business is about niches especially in NZ. The niche for what they do they have and well done. No tall poppy. I wish them the best.

What I want though is high end ethical marketing. If the secondary job is vital then that needs to be part of the story. If selling is vital. Then it needs to part of the story.

I hate the Happy-clappy marketing. It is unneccessary. I hate the lack of transparency. It is unneccessary. I hate the ra-ra.

What they do is good stuff no knocking it. But if you are going to say that this is the road to riches and i know as i did it and then not say how in detail, when others do, like Hart like watson and closer to topic like McKnight (who is setting a std for no crap pres, advice and transparency) then questions will be asked.

What I want. A world without marketing hype, with transparency and honest business. Call me a dreamer!! RM have a good product and good training from what i can see but for me I wish that it wasn't so Ra-ra (but that is me and some people need that to get motivated so it makes business sense I guess to go down that track).

[muppet]

Hi Paul

You said:

What I want though is high end ethical marketing. If the secondary job is vital then that needs to be part of the story. If selling is vital. Then it needs to part of the story.

Methods change or evolve over time.

I can remember that Dolf de Roos advocated negative gearing a few years ago but I think now that he has changed his ideas and is now advocating a more positive cash flow method of investing.

Regards

[Paul34]

This is a good point and if things have changed than that needs to be made clear. The gap between when i saw Phil speak and Steve's pres was about two months so maybe a lot happens in that time.

Also, in light of the paper today and the tech courses coming under fire, I would at least say that RM gives an education that is useful and what other educ institute gives money back. Also nothing that I'm writing here I have not written to Phil directly or asked.

The start for me was that the more I heard and listened to Steve the more I was convinced that by fortutious means I had come across the rationale for selling which appeared a gap in RM. I could not therefore understand how Phil was so against it unless he had buld a prop empire another way. Then I realised i didn't actually know what he had done. i knew th etheory but not how he had practised it.

I have read the Ray story and Janet and awesome. Motivational and great. But that is hardly a scientific expt. they would be outlyers given the 10000's who have come in contact to RM. Phil may have an interesting story and it would be good to follow. That is all. Nothing more or less.

[Gerrard]

I've got to back Dean up on this one. Everyone is entitled to their privacy.

Maybe if you were one of the first people to go through RM it would be appropriate to ask for this kind of evidence. However there is now evidence out there that their education works. Just look at Ron and Dean on this forum, and other who are promoted by ESC.

So what if Phil is better at marketing than investing. It doesn't change the fact that his systems have worked for people.

So what if RK never had a Rich Dad. Thousands of people have made positive life choices because RK inspired their vision, gave them something to believe in, and they took action on that.

All I say is don't blindly believe in one person or system. Look at lots of them, take the bits that are relevant to you, and get inspired. AT the end of the day all this comes from within. All these "gurus" do is help you kick start things.

Gerrard

[toby]

It is interesting that if you question some people they call it "tall poppy syndrome".
I have done posts before where this happened.
Because I choose to learn from people who have done 2000 deals as opposed to 2, 20 or 200, how does that make me a tall poppy syndrome person?
After all RM/ESC essentially comes from Dolf DeRoos and Gordon Green.
You can either drink from the source/head of the river, or the mouth.

Whether you like it or not Richmastery there are people out there who are more qualified.
Not to say everyone hasn't got something to share, of course they do, - so what's Phil's story?

Everytime one says "hay how did you, or what qualifies you?" you get it's none of your business, it's private or the IRD might get me etc.

Still no facts.

I have no doubt that many, many people have achieved enormous success after attending RM and I say good on you - brilliant.
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION PAUL34 POSED.
What is Phil Jones story?

I could of sworn it wasn't - what is the story of some of his students?

What's the big deal?

Tony Robbins says, "success leaves a trail" or words to that effect, - where's the original trail?
Is there something to hide?
Why won't Phil come on this site?
What's Phil's story?

[ESC]

.

Paul,

We appreciate your post and understand the core question you have and will address this in detail on Thursday night for everyone.

In short the good news is for you...... Phil, Ron, Jane and Jonelle and most of the other Richmastery Graduates have accumulated significant property portfolios without selling by recycling equity using strategys that Richmastery has taught since its inception.

The strategys we teach work in any market because investors need to be able to bank profits in any phase of the property cycle.

You can unlock your wealth two ways:

1/ By selling and immediately realising it as Steve promotes.

or

2/ By equity recycling as Richmastery promote, therefore not needing to sell. (Which has the advantage of: no depreciation clawback, no tax on profit, no real estate agent fees, no conveyancing costs)

Both strategies work, both are promoted by Richmastery and each has advantages and disadvantages which we think will be positive on Thursday night to discuss.

Toby,

Phils story is well known he has told it on hundreds of occassions to investors and is happy to share it again on Thursday night.

Just because you haven't heard it doesn't mean we have been in any way reluctant to talk about it.

PS We agree that Dolf and Gordon provide helpful real estate advice, but many of the strategys taught by Richmastery and at the core of Richmastery graduates success have never been taught or written about by Dolf or Gordon. It would be nice to give credit where credit is due.

[Paul34]

Hi Richmastery

My question is not about the different approaches but seen you bring it up.

1) Would you agree that the issue of selling is a change in tack for RM. As posted by someone else there is nothing wrong with development and change of thought indeed it is a sign of growth. But as you say credit where credit is due. Phil was militant (in a nice way just very strong on his view) when I spoke to him about don't sell. When I asked in his pres he said it should not happen. That is my only point on this one. At Steve's pres. the view changed.

2) The velocity of money
This was a big break through and for me and came about by pure accident. Now I realise that it was out there before and is crucial to expansion, especially in the current market and think it needs more exposure in RM. The reason I'm interested in Phil's story as I'm intrigued as to how it is achieved without thios missing ingredient. It just seems like there is part of the story re: cashflow missing. For most it is a good paying second job or as Steve said seminars. Both are fine just lets get the whole story.

a) It is harder (not impossible) now to buy value you have to create it. Don't give me outlyers give me real stats on teh number of cash flow buys out there. It is hard now. If it was easy the strike rate of people who come out all buyount after reading or attending a seminar would be higher.

b) If I can buy undervalue I can only unlock 80% equity. If I can sell at market I unlock 100%. If I sell above market (which is just as likley if mnot more likely as you sell to home owners noy investeers). I can unlock 120% equity. If alternative investments offer higher growth than property represents opportunity cost.
c) If I reinvest, ala. keep money moving then I can make money. For the average joe bloggs it is more likely that this can be achieved in the current market as
- There are more home buyers than investors
- You are not selling on yeild.

The tax issue is a red herring. Yes if you are to do this as your key driver at the time of purchase then you will and should be taxed. However for those that may have just realised that their long term investment has dropped to 5%-4% yeild because rents have not kept up with house inflation things change. There was no intention to sell at time of purcahse as no one thought the market would move as it did. Because it did we can all sit back and say how womderful but for those of us that brought for cashflow in 2000 the cap gain was a huge bonus.

Does that make me a guru? Hardly! I just brought in small towns because they were cash flow positive. Basically the whole investment strartegy could be summed up in that.

Looking forward to reading the story once posted and disappointed I can't make Thursday.

Thanks for engaing RM

[ESC]

.

Hi Paul,

NO Trading and selling property is not new for Richmastery. We have taught this for years. Its even in Phils first book Real Money Real Estate. But its a "trading" strategy not an "investing" strategy.

The velocity of money is a great "trading" strategy. High Speed Deposit Recycling which we have been teaching for years is a great "investing" strategy.

You seem to presume the only way of building a substaintial property portfolio is to have a large income stream that provides endless deposits. We have been teaching for 5 years how you can start with virtually nothing and build a large portfolio creating and multiplying deposits as you go so you don't have to find an income stream outside your investing to deliver cash for deposits. Ron Hoy Fong who frequents this forum can verify this process unequivocably works.

I can assure you Phils view has not changed he has always been a supporter of "trading" and "investing" but the context of when you spoke to him changed. At one event you were at an "investing" presentation and at another event you were at a "trading" presentation. Phils advice was congruent with the fundemental focus of the presentation you were attending. For him to give "trading" advice at an "investing" event would in most cases only cause confusion and the possibility an investor would go out and taint their investing portfolio with dire taxation consequences. As an educator we have to be responsible and give appropriate advice at an appropriate time. We would rather an investor did one thing well "investing" than two things badly "investing and trading".

We hope this helps clarify things.

[toby]

Hi Richmastery,
A side from his property, doesn't Ron make around a $100k a year in his Tofu business?
Or at least a reasonable income?

[Paul34]

Hi RM

A good discussion (excuse my typing too, it is not the best so sorry for typos).

Aren't they contiums rather than either or. According to your logic Steve McKnight is not an investor and that was a trading presentation. This is strange as he runs propertyinvesting.com.

While talking in black and white may make it easier the reality is it is a shade of grey. It is not about trading it is about recognising when the yeild has dropped such that the money in real estate can be invested more eficcently.

Please respond to the 80-120 rule that i noted. This is clearly a faster way of recycling equity.

According to you velocity of money is not an investing staregy and no offence but that is nonsense. It is simply not that black and white and money is often made in the grey. It is not until the WHOLE story is revealed, including the requirment for secondary income (either through savings, etc.) that the truth is revealed.

You wrote:
For him to give "trading" advice at an "investing" event would in most cases only cause confusion and the possibility an investor would go out and taint their investing portfolio with dire taxation consequences.


Come on. Don't simplify and overstate. To say when the yeild drops you may need to look at alternative investment would hardly be confusing. I believe people are not that thick.

Taint and dire are pretty emotive words. It would hardly be dire if a person sold a property which they had held through the boom (brought to hold for life) and then realised the gain to make more. The people I know outside of your group who have made money have worked things up this way. The problem is that the idea that you can buy and hold for entiroity and watch the cash roll in is such a lovely concept that people want to believe it. Without cash flow and lots of it well I don't see how. This is why the Phil Jone's story will be of interest. I look forward to seeing how it was done.

You wrote:
As an educator we have to be responsible and give appropriate advice at an appropriate time. We would rather an investor did one thing well "investing" than two things badly "investing and trading".

Sort of but as an educater, which I would agree you are, hence this is a quality of education discussion, needs to give the whole story. As it is unregualted, not like other education where you need a qualification a lot of credibility comes from understanding that story. But most importantly most education presents multiple views, (e.g. history, economics, etc present many sides). It also presents the full picture to explain the complete interactions. Now my impression has been, and again people who are closer to RM educ may correct me, has been that the philosophy is 'don't sell'. Everyone at that confrence i spoke to was shocked to hear a new message.

Please don't simplify the argument. It is not sell=trade sell =sell. Trade is when you buy with the intention of selling. What I'm talking about is when it makes economic sense to sell to continue to grow your portfolio.

So can we agree
a) sell=trade
b) It is not as black and white as you said therefore he could have mentioned selling. Instead it was blacklisted
c) Recycling in this way is obviously harder than buy and sell as you need to reinvest
d) 120>80
e) Education should be a rounded complete picture not one-off case studies but off what the bulk of the data represents.
f) Secondary cashflow source is important. That is why those with degrees are STATISTICALLY better off. Without discussing this a key ingredient is missing. Once you have it then it is easier to make more. It is not what is possible that I'm arguing for but what is most probable. It is probably not a very sellable message but get a good education AND (it is not and or) look for market opportunity and you are likley to earn more than those that don't . Unfortunately a goood education takes years so not a sexy sell.

Look forward to your thoughts.

[toby]

Hi Paul,
I have only read Steve's books, so was wondering if you would clarify things for me?

Surely yield doesn't actually drop, it is simply that at that point in the property cycle the capital value is disproportionate to the rental return.
Yields and values will always yo yo.
After all at the time the properties were purchased they made sense.

To sell means that you are now chasing yield and quite possibly dropping the quality of area/homes.
As I understand it when you buy, you buy equity and on yield, to simply purchase on yield - I don't get it.
If you owned a number of homes in say Remuwera or Roseneath, let's say twenty homes you bought "x" years ago when the numbers worked for you, would you now sell to buy in Otara and Cannons creek?
Would you please explain the logic?

I understand the reason of selling to reduce ones level of debt but not to go and buy elsewhere unless you can't raise the funds.
Surely the idea is to trade up to big deals not down and down?

[Paul34]

Good discussion. Just got back from gym and did not read the RM post fully.

Before I address your point Toby some questions for RM. (apologises I have now had a chance to read your e-mail more fully).

1) For clarity I never said trading and selling were the same thing and I think that is key to the argument ("NO Trading and selling property is not new for Richmastery"). You are saying they are the same not me.

2) You seem to presume the only way of building a substaintial property portfolio is to have a large income stream that provides endless deposits.

Sorry if i gave that impression. Obviously depoists can come equally from equity. The point is you need something to live on or you need the equity or you need something. In my case it was a great purcahse early on 1997 and an insane market that created the equity. My cashflow keeps me going which comes from good stable employment the two combined make for a good investment pair together with sensible living!

3) You wrote: "Ron Hoy Fong who frequents this forum can verify this process unequivocably works".

I suppose this is the sort of thing that drives me nuts, emotive over statement. One person hardly makes an unequivacable (excuse the grammer but I trust you get the point). As I said to Phil it is unneccessary if you just say it as it is you have a great educ philosophy but I just would like to see the whole story and not cloud ut with marketing talk.

4) You wrote: "In short the good news is for you...... Phil, Ron, Jane and Jonelle and most of the other Richmastery Graduates have accumulated significant property portfolios without selling by recycling equity using strategys that Richmastery has taught since its inception".

Thanks for the good news! Seen you know that MOST of the graduates have ACCUMULATED SIGNIFICANT propperty portfolois you must have some numbers. Can you please quanitify both MOST and Significant? This is not to be smart but you must have the numbers to make that statement. For myself I would like to know how I compare in Significance to MOST of the graduates. I would also like to know the success rate. Then we have a controlled expt with two groups. Say of the X number of people that attend we have X get X property, etc. What performance outcomes do you have? It is no different from valuing a managed fund for example.

The point is you don't need to make a statement you can't back up. This is what I said to Phil. Just say it as it is. Most peopel who attend those courses/seminars don't do Jack. That is not your fault but statements like you made are leading you down a path that is hard to defend.

5) The strategys we teach work in any market because investors need to be able to bank profits in any phase of the property cycle.

The collorary of this is ther is no end to the number of properties you can own just buy and bank the profit. It is not like that.

6) You wrote you make money by

By selling and immediately realising it as Steve promotes.

or

2/ By equity recycling as Richmastery promote, therefore not needing to sell. (Which has the advantage of: no depreciation clawback, no tax on profit, no real estate agent fees, no conveyancing costs)


This misrepresents what was said at Steve's presentation. What he said was you need to know when to sell and when to hold and when to buy. It is more complex than just know when to buy and the point is it is never an either or.

Finally:
We would rather an investor did one thing well "investing" than two things badly "investing and trading".

How about option three and do both things well or rather maximise money.

All of this is why the complete story will be of interest.


Toby:

Good points and some I have no answer to:

1) You are right it becomes dispropriate. The point is that people forget that if they have a property that has gone up say from 50k to 100k (for ease sake) they are sitting on 100k. If rents haven't moved (say they are 120 which would have been a gross yeild of approx 12.5%) then there return for their money is now 6.2%. This is exactly what happens in the city where you are dealing with mature markets where houses went up but yeilds for newer buyers went down. This happens until eventually the yeild levels out (which I reckon pure my own ideas no research is somewhere around 4%). At that point no investor will buy and prices stabilise. To get them to rise again real economic growth has to occur as wages must rise.

So you are right the time of purcahse it made sense but now the ? is the return there, especially if you go through a period of no growth.



2) You wrote" To sell means that you are now chasing yield and quite possibly dropping the quality of area/homes".

You are right. Can't deny this and this is where my argument falls down as it only works when you have something worthy to reinvest into. This was possible with the move into good towns which were just under valued, Gisborne, Waganui. This happened for me fortitiously but imagine this:

1. You build your city portfolio 199-2002.
2. You sold and reinvested in the small towns basically chasing the ripple but getting an equivalent quality house. You would have followed the ripple legitimately. It is not your fault that it moved like that and would have had year on yera growth of 30-50% minum if you brought right. Moreover your return would be real high as your return on money (read as cash and equity) would have remained at 10%. I don't know anyone that did this but in hindsight it would have bene the ticket. It is just an extension of the ripple effect with the bonus of selling.

3. If you owned a number of homes in say Remuwera or Roseneath, let's say twenty homes you bought "x" years ago when the numbers worked for you, would you now sell to buy in Otara and Cannons creek?

True. But most people don't start buying rentals in Rem and Roseneath. If you have a place there it is likely to be a fammily home and a great source of equity. By selling a city flat and buying a house outside the city you get a double win of increased yeild and good growth as we have seen.

This said to make the REAL money you indeed do what you said and trade up. The guys I know that are truely rich have done that and done it well. I don't have the stomach for that but conceed that is the way. One guy I know and admire did trade in those years (through a trading comapny) and then moved into commercial again timing it right. Awesome play. So I agree with you but find the nice renatl homes easier to stomach. By selling on yeild AND having somethingto invest into it works.

If only those days will come again and next time I will be prepared. Following Steve it would appear we have to look further a field ala US.

Good thread.