>>Yes, you can only charge what the market will pay… but I bet these spruikers were gearing up to charge higher and higher proices until Henry Kae fell down. Already, he was up to charging 50k. Imagine how many MORE secrets you could learn for 100k!!!<<

Kay, I frequent one particular website run by a couple of guys called Peter and David and they GIVE AWAY an e-book (actually one has even the choice to receive the book in hardcover – FREE).

There are also many free (helpful) articles and one can even download some very valuable talks and play them back on your computer.

In addition to their free e-book (which I cannot speak highly enough off because of the valuable techniques they describe) I have also actually purchased another book written by them (which set me back all of $ 40-95).

Sofar my outlay is about $ 41-00 for information
(i.e. a $ 41 book, a free e-book, free articles, and audio talks for which (had I known beforehand what its value was) I gladly would have been prepared to pay $ 5,000 for.

That’s how valuable and helpful I think some of these techniques they describe are.

But ……………, again, without action on one’s part all of that information is completely useless.

Interesting but useless.

Now, coming back to a point you raise, these guys also run a seminar and the price is $ 30,000.

That is US dollars.

Now if they are telling the truth many of last year’s attendees have again enrolled this year (at the full price).

Now if what Pater and David are telling us is the truth, could we safely assume that at least these repeaters must see value in attending such an expensive seminar if they are prepared to shell out the same sum again this year or would you say that they are likely to be a bit soft on top AS WELL AS having too much money to throw around ?

To me it means that at least some of these expensive seminars must represent value.

The second point you make >> but also in slagging off people’s dear ones. It’s saying “if your parents, husband. friends, think this idea of spending millions is a bad idea then dump them”…<< does make perfect sense to me.

It doesn’t necessarily follow that one cuts oneself off from one’s parents as such as that one (tries to) not to take too much notice of people who are constantly negative.

Some people cannot help being unwarrantedly negative because of either their upbringing or other personal experiences in life.

In my case I very much identify with that. I do have some understanding where many of such people are coming from.

Some relations of mine who experienced the depression are absolutely horrible in the (what they think is helpful) opinions they spout.

To give an extreme example, my brother in law walked in one day whilst we were having dinner and started to berate my mother because “You are giving Pisces too big a piece of sausage and when times turns bad again and he is used to getting big portions and he can no longer obtain them he will be in trouble.”

Now was he negative ? Of course he was.

Was there a reason for him being like that ?

Yes of course. He had just gone through the depression (being married and little income and he therefore had experienced extreme hardship) and subsequently he experienced a 5 year war during which food was scarce (as he was in hiding and food was scarce and rationed.

I have also heard him make the statement “If one is born to be a ten cent piece one will never be a dollar”. I doubt that such an outlook will be helpful in reaching for the sky.

It is clear to me what is meant by ‘Distance yourself from such negative people.’

In my book changing one’s friends for that particular reason is fully justified if their outlook bothers and influences you so as to hold you back.

I doesn’t necessarily follow that one has to cut oneself off from one’s relatives.

Just the company one keeps (one’s friends for example) will go a long way towards helping one to reach for higher goals.

Pisces

I am sure that Rob didn’t do that deliberately just to win an argument, Liz.

Pisces

Thanks, Simon, I will suggest that to him.

Pisces

Once one’s ability to obtain loans becomes impossible because of the bank perception that, based on one’s disclosed income, you will not be able to service another loan, that is when one reaches the stage where one can no longer continue to purchase.

Some people may see going Low Doc as the solution. The problem however is that one still
is stuck with one’s obligation to service the loan so a ceiling is still nevertheless in place somewhere.

I have met many people who keep on buying well beyond their ability to service their loan or loans from their income.

They merely use part of their loan to make the payments. When they run out of money they refinance.

They are in fact relying on the market to continue to rise of course.

Howver that strategy won’t work in a market which is either stagnant or falling !!!

So this method, apart from being illegal because often such a loan is obtained a loan by fraudulent means, certainly doesn’t work in today’s climate.

One way to continue to purchase of course is if one becomes creative by using other people’s ability to service so as to being able to purchase some more properties.

Another solution has been suggested by Steve in his latest newsletter.

Ultimately it becomes down to growing, expanding,
over a period.

Just as Rome wasn’t built in a day neither is a real estate fortune.

Steady does it (the way I see it).

Pisces

Hi Brady,

The formula which Lucifer supplied, if you multiply the outcome of the division by 100 the result will be expressed as a percentage.

BTW how old are you ? Are you working already ?

Pisces

I posted and said that I found it hard to imagine a bank paying a borrower for paying out his loan early.

I subsequently deleted the post.

MortgageHunter, I still find it hard to believe.

However, if you say that it has happened I have little or no choice other than to unconditionally accept what you say.

Brahms, if you at present have a fixed interest rate loan you should find the formula described in your conditions and terms of the loan.

If you don’t then I suggest you go to (for example) a St George branch and ask for their (free) booklet on terms and conditions of a home loan. This will give you some idea what sort of formula is used.

However, each lender is likely to have their own type of formula.

Pisces

Ausprop’s question re CGT and becoming classified as a property trader when following the Multiplication by Division strategy is scary. Really hanging out to read your comments on this question, Steve.

Cheers
Greg F

Alternatively perhaps the vendor may be happy to
lend you the shortfall.

However even then I would still nevertheless heed Simon’s suggestion of seeing a broker as, even with a vendor’s loan, you may still run into problems if you approach a lender direct.

Pisces

I would be more concerned if the guru was talking nonsense which Robert Allen clearly is not.

In the past I have struck a few socalled ‘guru’s’ in the share trading area and have done my very best to expose them.

I cannot really get all worked up about Robert Allen because (contrary to the rip offs I mentioned above) he does come with real knowledge.

The only issue would be if he made claims which are untrue.

Pisces