can anyone become wealthy using Peter Spann
- Thread starter on the move
- Start date
Lol. Not missing a huge amount. Check your inbox in five.
Sorry for derailing the thread, too...
Peter span is just another person like Obama , rudd, and the billions of others on the planet,
You are the same as other people and Yes! you can become wealthy! just like every one else that is wealthy, you do not need to become somone that is a follower , try and become a leader. Peter span whoever?
Their are thousands of millionares in the world so it could'nt be too hard !
You are the same as other people and Yes! you can become wealthy! just like every one else that is wealthy, you do not need to become somone that is a follower , try and become a leader. Peter span whoever?
Their are thousands of millionares in the world so it could'nt be too hard !
...............I'm a selfish Gen-Y and want instant gratification
Ahhh hedonism.
My interest has also been piqued, please explayyyyyyn
Ahhh hedonism.
My interest has also been piqued, please explayyyyyyn
+1
Cheers,
Oracle.
Theres the trick James.Not telling has just piqued everyone’s interest James
You can run seminars, get heaps of interested people in and NOT tell them anything
.Regards
Marty
Actually I don't say they can! The issue here is "in a relatively short time".
Yes, you can accumulate wealth through investing in Managed Funds but we say quite clearly that it is over an extended period of time. All of the examples we use are over 20 to 40 years.
I don’t know anybody who has become seriously rich (as distinct from “comfortable” – a few million invested, or “wealthy” – say $10m to $50m - both of which are possible through investing in Managed Funds over an extended period of time) through investing in Managed funds in the short term.
But then again I don’t know of a single person who has become seriously rich through investing in residential property either.
However, and this is a BIG distinction, I do know of a LOT of rich people who’s investments almost entirely consist of Managed Funds.
But I do not know many rich people who’s investments consist almost entirely of residential property (in fact I can on think of one, Harry Triguboff, perhaps Australia’s largest holder of residential property – but then again he has a serious sustainable competitive advantage against most property investors in that he acquires his properties at such a significant discount to the market the yields and growth is magnified exponentially).
Malcolm Turnbull is a good example. Now I understand that he is forced, because of his position, to invest in managed funds, but he has (according to BRW) over $100million invested in them. That’s rich.
After a few million, residential property is a seriously sub-optimised methodology of investing (but that’s another debate and as most people contributing to the forum would love to have a few million in property perhaps a disingenuous one).
There are billions and billions invested in managed funds and an exceptional fund manager, of which there are quite a few, can easily outperform the efforts of most people (including property investors). The trick is, of course, to find those managers.
The rich invest so much of their funds through money managers many of them end up employing their own and then leveraging that skill through setting up and marketing their own retail funds. Some of the largest public trusts are the investment vehicles of the rich and those trusts almost entirely invest in equities.
Managed Funds are good “trainer wheels” for future equities investors.
In fact when it comes to getting to “comfortable” managed funds would have the edge on property investing, but really it’s a flip of a coin. So do whatever you feel comfortable with but don’t think you’re going to get rich doing either. But the question was not “How do I get to a comfortable retirement”, it was “can I become rich?”
Putting aside the fact that I don’t promise people they will get rich investing through me, I am happy to answer the question – “So if you don’t get rich through managed funds or residential property how do you?”
And the answer to that is surprisingly simple, and no great secret, and the most overlooked and obvious path. It is so obvious because almost everybody who has got rich did it this way - the monetisation of enterprise. Putting aside jargon – business.
The recipe is simple – find something that you love and are good at, find a way to profit from that – keep getting better and better. You can do this through being an employee these days too – some of the richest people on the planet are Professional Business Managers, but historically most people have done it through owning their own business.
So that’s how most people become rich, but if you remember I said many rich people invest in Managed Funds – why? Because diversification is the way you stay rich.
And the rich eventually realise that having all their eggs in the one (business) basket is a very dangerous strategy in the long term. It might be good for a start up and produce exponential growth but eventually even the most exciting of businesses gets mature and then they are open to the same competitive and market forces as everything else – so time to diversify. Even smarter people start diversifying immediately and THAT’s the benefit of Managed Funds – instant diversification at a low entry point with virtually no time or input from you. That allows you to get on with monetising your enterprise – producing more and more profit that can be used to invest. When the yield and growth from your investments exceeds that from your enterprise, when it is sufficient to give you the lifestyle you want, cover all your debts and keep on growing whilst at the same time be fully automated, then you have financial freedom.
Most people who start businesses put every cent of profit back into them. And that’s OK for a while but if at some stage two things don’t happen then you simply have a job you can’t resign from. Those two things are – you start earning significantly more than you could in any other manner, and you have surplus funds to set aside to invest and diversify your asset base.
It stands to reason that people who are making their money through business are most likely to continue investing in business (managed funds or direct equities).
And that’s what we offer – automated investing strategies, that are highly diversified and out perform their benchmark.
And as for the ongoing criticism of my Managed Funds by one contributor – I’ll say something again I have said many times in this forum – easy to criticise, much harder to do.
The fact is ALL our equities based Managed funds have outperformed their benchmarks – something I am VERY proud of. Most of them are down at the moment but that does not constitute failure. Investors pay us to add value and simplify their investing. I believe we have achieved that. We have outperformed on the down side and I am confident we will outperform on the upside as well. It is easy to forget that the average annual compounded performance of our recommended portfolio of funds from 2001 to 2007 was 24.3%. At that rate you would be doubling your money every 3 and a bit years. Our investment “window” is 7 to 10 years and regardless of what criticism is levelled at my performance today (which I believe is unjustified) I am only interested in performance over that timeframe.
I have made a lot of mistakes over my lifetime and no money manager is immune to mistakes and sometimes your investors cop the brunt of those mistakes but on aggregate my clients are significantly better off if they have followed the whole of my advice over the years. And with our GEMs funds I am comfortable I have found a grove and that investors in those funds will benefit from my learning over the years. Interestingly we have some of the loyalist and most fabulous clients a professional fund manager would ever want to have – they have stuck with us through thick and thin and I love them.
Even the most respected money managers in the country make mistakes – for example the guys at Platinum Asset Management (peer regarded as close to the pinnacle of private fund managers in Australia) took a big punt on Japan a few years ago and stuck at it despite the investment tanking. People who invested just prior to that punt and left at the bottom of the hole it created in their performance would have lost serious coin – a failure??? No, because if those investors had stuck with Platinum over the investing window (7 to 10 years) they would already be back in front. Platinum has significantly outperformed all its peers in the last 2 years to the point they have had neutral to positive performance with the world financial markets collapsing around them. As hindsight Harry I would have loved to had a lot of my money invested with them in the last couple of years, but hindsight Harry always beats the best.
Genuine debate requires a minimum of two dedicated people taking opposing sides and passionately arguing the merits of each and defending the weaknesses, and through that process everybody learns – we all tap into the remarkable collective wisdom of a group of people dedicated to help others, learning for themselves and contributing genuine knowledge and wisdom on a topic.
Over the years I have had many debates in here with passionate people and they have led to some of the most read threads, much education of all (including me and my “opponents”), widening of minds and increasing of respect. I hope this forum continues to progress in this direction so that it can continue educating through passionate and reasoned debate.
Last edited:
Welcome back Peter.
I read your post and also your book 'How you could build a $10m Property Portfolio in just 10 years', written in 2004; ie fairly recently for the true long-term investor.
There are a couple of points I'd like you to clear up as I see some differences between the above post and the contents of your book so might have missed something.
For ease of reading I'll use quotes for the above post and bold for the book.
Peter Spann wrote in 2004: Multi-millionaire financial adviser Peter Spann's property secrets that could make you rich..... Using clear and easy-to-understand language, Peter sets out the strategies he applies to select, acquire and grow rich from investment properties.
And what about 'Glenda' at the pharmacy and the 'wealthy friend'; did they not become rich from property?
So going on this it appears that the pattern is for some really rich people to acquire their wealth through their business, and when they want a safe place for their money they'll use managed funds to hold part of their wealth.
Such advice for such already established people might not necessarily be most suitable to the needs to those of private citizens of only middling wealth (but are willing to put in more effort to grow it - and property effectively becomes a sideline business).
A quite sensible position for him. Politicians are high-risk when it comes to conflicts of interest are accusations of favouritism and a single oversight could end their career. Smart politicians prevent this risk by having their money in boring arms-length funds. I would suggest that Turnbull's two most important investment criteria would be (i) something that doesn't compromise his career if found out and (ii) safety of capital and ideally a reasonable return as well.
(i) is irrelevant for private citizens, and many here would prefer active control for both security's and interest's sake. In relation to (ii) He is already rich but those of us who aren't might prefer to go for something with growth prospects for those willing to make the effort in research and/or renovation. Some types of residential property can provide both these but may be unsuitable for time-starved professionals.
Not really a problem since most people aren't even up to 'the few million' stage.
But what if they are, having 'built a $10 million property forum in just 10 years'?
Peter Spann wrote in 2004 (p233): There are few reasons ever to sell quality investment property... lost more money in forfeited capital growth by selling... It is hard to sell good property... what are you going to replace it with... (by selling) you have lost the asset and capital growth forever.
Returns depend on the amount of money you put in (sometimes zero with property), the leverage you can get and the performance of the asset. Obtainable leverage is dependent on what the lender regards as the stability of the borrower and asset.
Hence Peter Span in 2004 wrote: Using leverage can dramatically boost your return... there are risks... (but) property is a relatively stable lending environment. (p124) and This (margin calls for shares) can be very stressful for novice investors... (p123).
Very smart people have tried to make money perform and have failed. By definition only a minority significantly outperform the market, and when considered over the 20-40 year period that you recommend that minority of 'quite a few' becomes 'very few'.
Hence selecting top fund managers is important if you want exceptional returns, and even if you do find a good one there's a risk that they might drop the ball or be bought out by someone else.
Managed funds are ideal for those who want low involvement with, and arms length from, their investments. But the problem is that fund manager selection is extremely high research/high involvment because of all the research and probably requires personal interviews that the average investor can't obtain.
So if you need to be highly involved in choosing an exceptional managed fund, the work required is no less than direct investing in say shares or real estate. Which, apart from the arms-length aspect, negates the main benefit of managed funds.
It looks a very tough trick indeed.
As compared to Peter Spann in 2004: The bestselling author of Wealth Magic and Little Pot of Gold, Australia's most successful wealth educator shares his real estate strategies that could make you rich.
So in 2004 it was 'could make you rich', but in 2009 it's 'don't make you rich'?
Yet in Dymocks yesterday I still saw copies of the $10m property portfolio book for sale, so as far as Joe public is concerned it's still 'could'. Are you now of a different view?
Agreed. Obvious though not always easy - small business failure rates can be quite high.
A serious business is higher involvement that the 'normal mix' of PAYE job + real estate investing, so it makes sense that it could return better, though the risks are higher and leverage (if you're involving more of your time) might be lower.
And there most certainly is a place for managed funds for those who want to preserve their capital without much fuss. If you're happy with 'average' performance, an index fund will work. But as soon as one demands well above average performance managed funds become as high involvement and high expertise as direct investing, yet doesn't have the amount of control that your own business or properties have.
Some difficulties in here.
To do this would require a lot of energy that very few would have exerted. It is also known that those who frequent flip flop between asset classes may be motivated too much by prevailing sentiment and may not have gained as much as those who just held.
I see investing as a long term process of gradual accumulation and provided the assets are of good quality there is no reason to chop and change (unless there's clearly superior opportunities for which you need capital).
People are individuals so having problems being explained away on the grounds that 'most' are better off might be difficult for some to take, even though in aggregate you're right. The independent individual investor also has the freedom to make decisions that are good for them, rather than having some 'aggregate' they need to satisfy.
The better off part of the claim though is not hard - if one's sole advice was for a person to put $10 per day under their bed they'd no doubt each be wealthier, and if they had no assets beforehand they'd even be massively better off.
Investing is an interesting intersection of the 'consumer affairs' mindset (demanding certainty and complaining if it doesn't work) and the 'business entrepeneur' mindset (recognising failure but with high benefits if successful).
I read your post and also your book 'How you could build a $10m Property Portfolio in just 10 years', written in 2004; ie fairly recently for the true long-term investor.
There are a couple of points I'd like you to clear up as I see some differences between the above post and the contents of your book so might have missed something.
For ease of reading I'll use quotes for the above post and bold for the book.
Peter Spann wrote said:
Peter Spann wrote in 2004: Multi-millionaire financial adviser Peter Spann's property secrets that could make you rich..... Using clear and easy-to-understand language, Peter sets out the strategies he applies to select, acquire and grow rich from investment properties.
And what about 'Glenda' at the pharmacy and the 'wealthy friend'; did they not become rich from property?
So going on this it appears that the pattern is for some really rich people to acquire their wealth through their business, and when they want a safe place for their money they'll use managed funds to hold part of their wealth.
Such advice for such already established people might not necessarily be most suitable to the needs to those of private citizens of only middling wealth (but are willing to put in more effort to grow it - and property effectively becomes a sideline business).
A quite sensible position for him. Politicians are high-risk when it comes to conflicts of interest are accusations of favouritism and a single oversight could end their career. Smart politicians prevent this risk by having their money in boring arms-length funds. I would suggest that Turnbull's two most important investment criteria would be (i) something that doesn't compromise his career if found out and (ii) safety of capital and ideally a reasonable return as well.
(i) is irrelevant for private citizens, and many here would prefer active control for both security's and interest's sake. In relation to (ii) He is already rich but those of us who aren't might prefer to go for something with growth prospects for those willing to make the effort in research and/or renovation. Some types of residential property can provide both these but may be unsuitable for time-starved professionals.
Not really a problem since most people aren't even up to 'the few million' stage.
But what if they are, having 'built a $10 million property forum in just 10 years'?
Peter Spann wrote in 2004 (p233): There are few reasons ever to sell quality investment property... lost more money in forfeited capital growth by selling... It is hard to sell good property... what are you going to replace it with... (by selling) you have lost the asset and capital growth forever.
Returns depend on the amount of money you put in (sometimes zero with property), the leverage you can get and the performance of the asset. Obtainable leverage is dependent on what the lender regards as the stability of the borrower and asset.
Hence Peter Span in 2004 wrote: Using leverage can dramatically boost your return... there are risks... (but) property is a relatively stable lending environment. (p124) and This (margin calls for shares) can be very stressful for novice investors... (p123).
Very smart people have tried to make money perform and have failed. By definition only a minority significantly outperform the market, and when considered over the 20-40 year period that you recommend that minority of 'quite a few' becomes 'very few'.
Hence selecting top fund managers is important if you want exceptional returns, and even if you do find a good one there's a risk that they might drop the ball or be bought out by someone else.
Managed funds are ideal for those who want low involvement with, and arms length from, their investments. But the problem is that fund manager selection is extremely high research/high involvment because of all the research and probably requires personal interviews that the average investor can't obtain.
So if you need to be highly involved in choosing an exceptional managed fund, the work required is no less than direct investing in say shares or real estate. Which, apart from the arms-length aspect, negates the main benefit of managed funds.
It looks a very tough trick indeed.
As compared to Peter Spann in 2004: The bestselling author of Wealth Magic and Little Pot of Gold, Australia's most successful wealth educator shares his real estate strategies that could make you rich.
So in 2004 it was 'could make you rich', but in 2009 it's 'don't make you rich'?
Yet in Dymocks yesterday I still saw copies of the $10m property portfolio book for sale, so as far as Joe public is concerned it's still 'could'. Are you now of a different view?
Agreed. Obvious though not always easy - small business failure rates can be quite high.
A serious business is higher involvement that the 'normal mix' of PAYE job + real estate investing, so it makes sense that it could return better, though the risks are higher and leverage (if you're involving more of your time) might be lower.
And there most certainly is a place for managed funds for those who want to preserve their capital without much fuss. If you're happy with 'average' performance, an index fund will work. But as soon as one demands well above average performance managed funds become as high involvement and high expertise as direct investing, yet doesn't have the amount of control that your own business or properties have.
Some difficulties in here.
To do this would require a lot of energy that very few would have exerted. It is also known that those who frequent flip flop between asset classes may be motivated too much by prevailing sentiment and may not have gained as much as those who just held.
I see investing as a long term process of gradual accumulation and provided the assets are of good quality there is no reason to chop and change (unless there's clearly superior opportunities for which you need capital).
People are individuals so having problems being explained away on the grounds that 'most' are better off might be difficult for some to take, even though in aggregate you're right. The independent individual investor also has the freedom to make decisions that are good for them, rather than having some 'aggregate' they need to satisfy.
The better off part of the claim though is not hard - if one's sole advice was for a person to put $10 per day under their bed they'd no doubt each be wealthier, and if they had no assets beforehand they'd even be massively better off.
Investing is an interesting intersection of the 'consumer affairs' mindset (demanding certainty and complaining if it doesn't work) and the 'business entrepeneur' mindset (recognising failure but with high benefits if successful).
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice post Peter Spann.
I am curious though, are you or the seriously rich people you know of not aware of the overwhelming body of academic evidence (Fama and French et. al. etc...) that makes a mockery of the active funds management industry?
ie...as Spiderman suggests...what about the alternative of using index funds?
Also, do you not invest directly in commercial property (including and also apart from your own business premises)?
Thanks.
I am curious though, are you or the seriously rich people you know of not aware of the overwhelming body of academic evidence (Fama and French et. al. etc...) that makes a mockery of the active funds management industry?
ie...as Spiderman suggests...what about the alternative of using index funds?
Also, do you not invest directly in commercial property (including and also apart from your own business premises)?
Thanks.
The suggestion to ride it out is always, in my view, a cop out when referring to managed funds. Further, comparisons with other pinnacle funds is not really helpful. I say judge each fund on its results. I care not for excuses. I may be dead in 20-40 years so such comparisons as to long term performance are useless to me.
To be fair to Peter - he is practicing what he preaches- his money is from the business of Peter Spann and associated entities: Educational, funds management, REA and the rest. I think of it as a bit like Jim of the lawnmowing franchise- now into TV arials, handyman etc etc.
My concern is where someone on the speakers circuit makes there money from the education and not the property investment methods/share trading strategies they charge people to lecture about. Many of these things are a means of getting around ASIC regulations for advertising to Joe Public without the Prospectus (never been to a Spann one so I can't say this applies to him). Hopefuls turn up and are happy to invest funds in a gurus next big thing, which usually will have a secondary income to the guru anyway: management fees, commissions etc- you know how it is.
In any event Peter's comments are always welcome.
Good rebuttal post Spider. I await developments.
To be fair to Peter - he is practicing what he preaches- his money is from the business of Peter Spann and associated entities: Educational, funds management, REA and the rest. I think of it as a bit like Jim of the lawnmowing franchise- now into TV arials, handyman etc etc.
My concern is where someone on the speakers circuit makes there money from the education and not the property investment methods/share trading strategies they charge people to lecture about. Many of these things are a means of getting around ASIC regulations for advertising to Joe Public without the Prospectus (never been to a Spann one so I can't say this applies to him). Hopefuls turn up and are happy to invest funds in a gurus next big thing, which usually will have a secondary income to the guru anyway: management fees, commissions etc- you know how it is.
In any event Peter's comments are always welcome.
Good rebuttal post Spider. I await developments.
Long waffling response to a long post
OK good – so now we’re generating intelligent debate and we’ll all learn.
My book “How to Build a $10 Million Property Portfolio in Just 10 Years” (or $10Min10Y as we call it) was actually the second of three books I wrote from 1997 to 1999 about investing which were supposed to be published in sequence. The first book (which was never published) was about manifestation and the philosophy of the rich. Funnily the publisher said nobody would buy it and I relish the opportunity to point out how well “The Secret” has done every time I talk with them.
The second was about how I made my “first fortune” (as the publisher liked to call it) in property and the third book was about how I made my “second fortune” in the share market. There were supposed to be called “Wealth Magic”, “Property Magic” and “Market Magic”.
Now if it had all stayed like that things would have been much easier. Instead the publisher loved the stuff in the first book about my personal life story and asked me to write more of that which I did – it took me just two weeks and they loved it and decided that should be the first book – “Wealth Magic” which was quickly changed to “From Broke to Multi-Millionaire in just 7 Years” – the headline we used on our most successful series of advertisements for our seminars back in the day.
So with little editing it was published and became an instant best seller – and has gone on to be translated into 7 languages and sell about 400,000 copies worldwide. Not as many as say “Rich Dad” but still a pretty good effort.
They wanted to publish “Property Magic” immediately and I should have let them, but I had already began changing my mind about a lot of things about property – certainly not as much as I have now but still a little.
Now I must say that everything I wrote in $10Min10Y was absolutely true for me at the time I wrote it and I have absolutely no problem with the book being in the market now because even though I have never read it, I know it is a true reflection of what happened (because I wrote it with my own hand) and many, many people love residential property and have done very well out of it. In fact I am presenting at a seminar being held this weekend and I had seven people come up to me today and thank me for writing the book. None of them has ever been to my seminars or invested a cent with me but all of them had done very well out of investing in property based on the information in my (and I presume others’) book. So that makes me feel good.
In fact I LOVE presenting at other people’s seminars – at our own these days it’s all about our performance, what went right, what went wrong, how we are going to address this, that or the other, what new services or products we have introduced and so on – all valuable and important stuff but at other people’s seminars I always get dozens of people come up to me who I have never met but may have read one or more of my books or been to a seminar with me years ago and they have lovely success stories to tell me.
Anyway before $10Min10Y was published I wanted to do a rewrite and add things that I had learnt over the ensuing years (between writing it in 1998 and it being published – if you say 2004 ok because I don’t have a copy at home to check), but I simply didn’t have the time. They added two chapters and re-jigged some of the other content but I was contracted to publish the book or return the massive advance they had given me.
It’s done quite well, about 70,000 copies sold but suffered with a similar title to another book that was published just before mine and of course that property slowed down round about the time it was published.
The third book is still waiting for the publisher to decide when or if they will publish.
Now here’s a quirky thing – if you take a look at the copyright in the front of the book you will see that it is owned by the publisher so really they can do and say whatever they like about the book including writing the jacket copy so when it says “Multi-millionaire financial adviser Peter Spann's property secrets that could make you rich..... Using clear and easy-to-understand language, Peter sets out the strategies he applies to select, acquire and grow rich from investment properties,” it should be simple to accept that I didn’t write it. Not that I have a problem with it because it is 99.99% true. It has only been more recently that I have started to distinguish between “comfortable”, “wealthy” and “rich”. I guess since I got closer to “rich” I started to understand the differences – and they are both subtle and massive.
The problem with a book, indeed even a forum, is that what is written is static. It doesn’t allow for any growth in experience, skill and mindset. Publishers very rarely create new editions of books – their investment in old technology typesetting etc make the cost of that prohibitive so many authors have work out there they would rather correct. I have not been a prolific writer which is a shame because I love it and prolificacy is the best way to keep your readers up to date with your thinking.
How many people would not say “If I only knew then what I know now I would have done things differently”?
Well, that’s true for me too.
Residential Property for me is like a first wife (not that I’ve had one but stay with me). She was beautiful, wonderful and amazing at the beginning but got more difficult as time went on, we broke up due to irreconcilable differences and now I wouldn’t go back.
It’s not that property is not a good investment for many people. It’s not that it will not build your wealth, it’s not that everything I said in $10Min10Y is not true it’s just that I, personally, have moved on.
I love shares today.
They are my second love! And I’m older, wiser, more cynical.
And I love them for a lot of reasons that are totally valid for me and may not be valid for you.
The biggest change is I saw how easy it was for people in shares to make money. How easy it was to get leverage and how easy it was to hedge a share portfolio. I started to realise that I could borrow 100% of my investment, have that fully capital protected (hedged), and generate tax advantaged cash flow from dividends that would virtually pay for the borrowing and extra yield from writing calls that made up for the rest and the surplus. So, I had a change of heart about how I could have made my “first fortune” if I had that knowledge and skill.
So today, with what I know now I would do it differently. I know it is easier to borrow to invest in shares, it is easier to protect my capital, it is easier to buy and sell, the transaction costs are much lower, there is no tax or stamp duty on my purchases, the yield is higher, more tax efficient and there are no maintenance costs, I can buy and sell them at my desk at the click of a button, there are no real estate agents, tradespeople, conveyancers, valuers, bankers and so on to deal with, no land tax to pay, they are massively more liquid, and most importantly of all no tenants!
And the very thing that frightens most people about shares is what I love – the volatility.
Property is hard to buy cheap in Australia. I think of all the more than 400 properties I have bought (and sold) over the years probably less than 2% were genuine bargains. Property prices in most markets are so scrutinised by so many people that prices invariably come to parity and you need to be in the right place at the right time to get a bargain and that’s not a reliable strategy. So a quality property is almost invariably priced accurately.
However there are often times when you can buy quality shares at bargains – like a few months ago. Beautiful blue chip shares that are money making, dividend spinning machines for a fraction of their intrinsic value and all I have to do is suffer through a little bit of volatility for the next few years.
Beautiful.
And I can use market leverage to add to my profits, protecting my positions on the upsides by buying calls and on the downside by hedging. I can increase the yield from my portfolio by writing covered calls. I could go on and on.
Now, NONE of these things may be valid arguments for you to shift from property to shares and you know what – I don’t mind one little bit. There are dozens of ways to skin a cat all that matters is the cat gets skinned!
But even my approach to investing in property has changed dramatically and if I wrote the book now it would be different.
OK, now back to Managed Funds...
Again horses for courses. I don’t think for one second I am going to seriously convert DIY Property addicts to investing in Managed Funds, but that wasn’t the question that started the thread now was it?
Amazingly there’s not a lot in Spiderman’s post that I disagree with. I will move through it but frankly I don’t have even the modicum of skill it requires to quote and requote etc so you’ll just have to bear with me.
If you want to actively get in and start a “sideline business” investing in property or shares then you will probably outperform a Managed Fund (although not always – the top managers have years of skill that means they do it better and more consistently).
However most people actually don’t want to actively control their investments – I know that sounds like an anathema to people in this forum but it’s true - it’s not a long bow to draw to say that people who want to control their own investing destiny and have a crack out outperforming would be over represented in a Forum dedicated to active investing in property – however most people just want somebody they can trust to manage their money for them, and that’s where Managed Funds are great.
We are professional funds managers – that’s how I make my money – I make no bones about it, sleep very well at night and enjoy what I do. If people want to passively invest and like our investing style then I hope we add value. Yes, most of our funds are down but as I have said all our equities based funds have outperformed their benchmarks (not a lot of funds managers can say that at the moment), and some have even produced positive results when the market has been in free fall.
As for not selling an investment generally that is true but I have always said there are three reasons to sell:
1. You need the money (converting capital to cash)
2. The money could be better invested elsewhere (opportunity cost)
3. Somebody offers you a ridiculous amount for your asset (“You only get one Alan Bond in your life time” – Kerry Packer about Bond’s purchase of the 9 network at a record (and ridiculous) price at the time)
So in my case I sold most of my property to invest in shares (pretty good idea) and my business (up and down).
Yup I agree 100% - not sure I get the point?
Shares can be bought with 100% finance (most property requires a substantial deposit) and 100% capital protection, either through a product (expensive) or market means (cheaper but needs skill). And margin calls ARE very stressful for investors – I should know – we had to deal with a lot of them last year and the clients were very stressed, un-needlessly so in most cases, but that’s hard to argue when a person is facing paper losses. But we acted quickly, deleveraged most clients and got their portfolios into better positions. So again horses for courses.
Yup – agree 100%
Yup, again agree 100%.
Yup but a LOT of people “drop the ball” in their own investments and in reality even though good fund managers DO make mistakes I would suggest they would do it less often than the average investor and recover quicker.
Yup and that’s why liquidity is so important – change of fund manager is an automatic sell trigger for us.
Yup, ideal and as I have said you may be surprised that there are a huge number of people who do want low involvement with and remain arms length from their investments.
Yes! And that’s where we come in because for those people who DO want to invest passively we do all that work for them – gee makes our 1% fee look positively cheap doesn’t it?!?!?! (I know, I know – give me at least a small break).
Now this I do have to disagree with. Buying and managing a property portfolio is a BIG deal – in fact I found it practically exhausting! The key to managed fund selection is not selecting the fund perse, it’s selecting the manager. Once you’ve done that it’s almost set and forget. It may be similar to the level of research you need to do on shares but again you don’t have to do that research quarter after quarter. You just sit back, relax and let somebody else do the work for you.
Again, I know I’m selling ice to Eskimos in here but you good folk are not my target market.
(Indeed I still think you should consider some investments in funds because I still think you should diversify and I can’t see of a good reason you should not actively get engaged in property and invest in managed funds at the same time but I long ago stopped trying to push dirt up hills so let’s just settle for “you are not my target market”).
Further more there are aspects of people’s investments we can look after (Superannuation for example) whilst they still have the majority of their assets actively invested.
So all I am saying is horses for courses.
I still believe investing “could” make you rich.
But in reality I have come to realise a few things about people:
1. Most people, whist they dream of being rich won’t actually DO anything about it
2. And when they do it is invariably too late to make a big difference to the outcome
3. Most people do not invest well – they do silly things with their money, buy and sell at the wrong times and would be better off investing passively
4. No matter how much education (financial literacy) that is pushed down people’s throat it only makes a difference to about 10% of people
5. We (Investment Managers) can make a big difference to the outcome of most people’s financial future so whilst the DIY Property Fanatics (all power to you) would rather invest elsewhere live and let live because a lot of people need Investment Managers to help them invest for their future.
OK, onto monetising enterprise.
Enterprise to me is any active methodology you apply to money making. That CAN be a business but as Spiderman points out most people fail at that.
But few people, after a certain period in their life actively try to make themselves better and better employees so their income streams from working for other people are constantly growing. Few people get themselves into employee positions where their enterprise for that company is rewarded through profit share and equity participation (and both of those things are monetising enterprise).
Regardless of how you do it if you want to be rich you must earn ever increasing amount (either through enterprise or investing), and apply more and more of that to diversifying your asset base (probably through investing).
[QOUTE] To do this would require a lot of energy that very few would have exerted. It is also known that those who frequent flip flop between asset classes may be motivated too much by prevailing sentiment and may not have gained as much as those who just held.
I see investing as a long term process of gradual accumulation and provided the assets are of good quality there is no reason to chop and change (unless there's clearly superior opportunities for which you need capital). [/QUOTE]
I agree 100%. Perhaps I didn’t explain myself well. Our average annualised return on our portfolio was 24.3% for 7 years. However not all of our investments did this well, some did far worse. But some did much, much better – that’s how we get to an average.
The issue actually is what you said here...
We put forward a portfolio of investments to our clients on the (perhaps naive) assumption that they would invest in to totality of the portfolio.
Not all of our clients took the entirety of our advice. Most of our clients invested in the whole portfolio and so got the 24.3% average return. Some decided they had the “freedom to make decisions” – perfect logic for a DIY investor and counter intuitive to what I am about to say... See, some clients only selected our worst picks and if they did that would not have been a good outcome for them. I’m guessing some only selected our best picks too but we never heard from them! My point is that if people had taken the totality of our advice they would have done very well. Maybe you either take advice or you don’t – if you’re in you’re in boots and all – if you want to DIY you should DIY and take full responsibility for those decisions.
We have literally thousands of clients so even if a tiny percentage of those have not done well it is a large number, but we try to work that through with everybody. Some are reasonable, some are not. Some take personal responsibility for their decisions, some do not. The bright side is the vast majority of our clients are excellent clients who value our relationship and are loyal, long term investors with us so they see the results and stick with us. They know we have their best interests at heart.
That’s why I changed our product offering from portfolios to Managed Fund(s) of funds. I accepted that it would take years to prove outperformance but I have always been good at the research of picking (first) shares (and later) fund managers based on Buffett’s principal that it is the manager you need to pay most attention to. So we do the heavy lifting and research for our clients - people either invest or they don’t and we live and die on our results so we don’t have the unfortunate situation where somebody thinks they have taken our advice (by investing in one or two poorly performing funds instead of our portfolio) and have got under performance by doing so.
And PB can criticise all he likes but I am proud of our out-performance in those funds against their benchmark. The industry accepts this is extraordinarily hard to do. Now I don’t accept 100% of the credit for this because the fact is we picked some of the top performing managers in the asset classes.
So really what I am trying to say is just because you don’t want to invest in Managed Funds doesn’t mean to say they are not a valid investment. And it doesn't mean to say people can’t become “comfortable” or even “wealthy” by investing in them.
OK good – so now we’re generating intelligent debate and we’ll all learn.
My book “How to Build a $10 Million Property Portfolio in Just 10 Years” (or $10Min10Y as we call it) was actually the second of three books I wrote from 1997 to 1999 about investing which were supposed to be published in sequence. The first book (which was never published) was about manifestation and the philosophy of the rich. Funnily the publisher said nobody would buy it and I relish the opportunity to point out how well “The Secret” has done every time I talk with them.
The second was about how I made my “first fortune” (as the publisher liked to call it) in property and the third book was about how I made my “second fortune” in the share market. There were supposed to be called “Wealth Magic”, “Property Magic” and “Market Magic”.
Now if it had all stayed like that things would have been much easier. Instead the publisher loved the stuff in the first book about my personal life story and asked me to write more of that which I did – it took me just two weeks and they loved it and decided that should be the first book – “Wealth Magic” which was quickly changed to “From Broke to Multi-Millionaire in just 7 Years” – the headline we used on our most successful series of advertisements for our seminars back in the day.
So with little editing it was published and became an instant best seller – and has gone on to be translated into 7 languages and sell about 400,000 copies worldwide. Not as many as say “Rich Dad” but still a pretty good effort.
They wanted to publish “Property Magic” immediately and I should have let them, but I had already began changing my mind about a lot of things about property – certainly not as much as I have now but still a little.
Now I must say that everything I wrote in $10Min10Y was absolutely true for me at the time I wrote it and I have absolutely no problem with the book being in the market now because even though I have never read it, I know it is a true reflection of what happened (because I wrote it with my own hand) and many, many people love residential property and have done very well out of it. In fact I am presenting at a seminar being held this weekend and I had seven people come up to me today and thank me for writing the book. None of them has ever been to my seminars or invested a cent with me but all of them had done very well out of investing in property based on the information in my (and I presume others’) book. So that makes me feel good.
In fact I LOVE presenting at other people’s seminars – at our own these days it’s all about our performance, what went right, what went wrong, how we are going to address this, that or the other, what new services or products we have introduced and so on – all valuable and important stuff but at other people’s seminars I always get dozens of people come up to me who I have never met but may have read one or more of my books or been to a seminar with me years ago and they have lovely success stories to tell me.
Anyway before $10Min10Y was published I wanted to do a rewrite and add things that I had learnt over the ensuing years (between writing it in 1998 and it being published – if you say 2004 ok because I don’t have a copy at home to check), but I simply didn’t have the time. They added two chapters and re-jigged some of the other content but I was contracted to publish the book or return the massive advance they had given me.
It’s done quite well, about 70,000 copies sold but suffered with a similar title to another book that was published just before mine and of course that property slowed down round about the time it was published.
The third book is still waiting for the publisher to decide when or if they will publish.
Now here’s a quirky thing – if you take a look at the copyright in the front of the book you will see that it is owned by the publisher so really they can do and say whatever they like about the book including writing the jacket copy so when it says “Multi-millionaire financial adviser Peter Spann's property secrets that could make you rich..... Using clear and easy-to-understand language, Peter sets out the strategies he applies to select, acquire and grow rich from investment properties,” it should be simple to accept that I didn’t write it. Not that I have a problem with it because it is 99.99% true. It has only been more recently that I have started to distinguish between “comfortable”, “wealthy” and “rich”. I guess since I got closer to “rich” I started to understand the differences – and they are both subtle and massive.
The problem with a book, indeed even a forum, is that what is written is static. It doesn’t allow for any growth in experience, skill and mindset. Publishers very rarely create new editions of books – their investment in old technology typesetting etc make the cost of that prohibitive so many authors have work out there they would rather correct. I have not been a prolific writer which is a shame because I love it and prolificacy is the best way to keep your readers up to date with your thinking.
How many people would not say “If I only knew then what I know now I would have done things differently”?
Well, that’s true for me too.
Residential Property for me is like a first wife (not that I’ve had one but stay with me). She was beautiful, wonderful and amazing at the beginning but got more difficult as time went on, we broke up due to irreconcilable differences and now I wouldn’t go back.
It’s not that property is not a good investment for many people. It’s not that it will not build your wealth, it’s not that everything I said in $10Min10Y is not true it’s just that I, personally, have moved on.
I love shares today.
They are my second love! And I’m older, wiser, more cynical.
And I love them for a lot of reasons that are totally valid for me and may not be valid for you.
The biggest change is I saw how easy it was for people in shares to make money. How easy it was to get leverage and how easy it was to hedge a share portfolio. I started to realise that I could borrow 100% of my investment, have that fully capital protected (hedged), and generate tax advantaged cash flow from dividends that would virtually pay for the borrowing and extra yield from writing calls that made up for the rest and the surplus. So, I had a change of heart about how I could have made my “first fortune” if I had that knowledge and skill.
So today, with what I know now I would do it differently. I know it is easier to borrow to invest in shares, it is easier to protect my capital, it is easier to buy and sell, the transaction costs are much lower, there is no tax or stamp duty on my purchases, the yield is higher, more tax efficient and there are no maintenance costs, I can buy and sell them at my desk at the click of a button, there are no real estate agents, tradespeople, conveyancers, valuers, bankers and so on to deal with, no land tax to pay, they are massively more liquid, and most importantly of all no tenants!
And the very thing that frightens most people about shares is what I love – the volatility.
Property is hard to buy cheap in Australia. I think of all the more than 400 properties I have bought (and sold) over the years probably less than 2% were genuine bargains. Property prices in most markets are so scrutinised by so many people that prices invariably come to parity and you need to be in the right place at the right time to get a bargain and that’s not a reliable strategy. So a quality property is almost invariably priced accurately.
However there are often times when you can buy quality shares at bargains – like a few months ago. Beautiful blue chip shares that are money making, dividend spinning machines for a fraction of their intrinsic value and all I have to do is suffer through a little bit of volatility for the next few years.
Beautiful.
And I can use market leverage to add to my profits, protecting my positions on the upsides by buying calls and on the downside by hedging. I can increase the yield from my portfolio by writing covered calls. I could go on and on.
Now, NONE of these things may be valid arguments for you to shift from property to shares and you know what – I don’t mind one little bit. There are dozens of ways to skin a cat all that matters is the cat gets skinned!
But even my approach to investing in property has changed dramatically and if I wrote the book now it would be different.
OK, now back to Managed Funds...
Again horses for courses. I don’t think for one second I am going to seriously convert DIY Property addicts to investing in Managed Funds, but that wasn’t the question that started the thread now was it?
Amazingly there’s not a lot in Spiderman’s post that I disagree with. I will move through it but frankly I don’t have even the modicum of skill it requires to quote and requote etc so you’ll just have to bear with me.
If you want to actively get in and start a “sideline business” investing in property or shares then you will probably outperform a Managed Fund (although not always – the top managers have years of skill that means they do it better and more consistently).
However most people actually don’t want to actively control their investments – I know that sounds like an anathema to people in this forum but it’s true - it’s not a long bow to draw to say that people who want to control their own investing destiny and have a crack out outperforming would be over represented in a Forum dedicated to active investing in property – however most people just want somebody they can trust to manage their money for them, and that’s where Managed Funds are great.
We are professional funds managers – that’s how I make my money – I make no bones about it, sleep very well at night and enjoy what I do. If people want to passively invest and like our investing style then I hope we add value. Yes, most of our funds are down but as I have said all our equities based funds have outperformed their benchmarks (not a lot of funds managers can say that at the moment), and some have even produced positive results when the market has been in free fall.
As for not selling an investment generally that is true but I have always said there are three reasons to sell:
1. You need the money (converting capital to cash)
2. The money could be better invested elsewhere (opportunity cost)
3. Somebody offers you a ridiculous amount for your asset (“You only get one Alan Bond in your life time” – Kerry Packer about Bond’s purchase of the 9 network at a record (and ridiculous) price at the time)
So in my case I sold most of my property to invest in shares (pretty good idea) and my business (up and down).
Yup I agree 100% - not sure I get the point?
Shares can be bought with 100% finance (most property requires a substantial deposit) and 100% capital protection, either through a product (expensive) or market means (cheaper but needs skill). And margin calls ARE very stressful for investors – I should know – we had to deal with a lot of them last year and the clients were very stressed, un-needlessly so in most cases, but that’s hard to argue when a person is facing paper losses. But we acted quickly, deleveraged most clients and got their portfolios into better positions. So again horses for courses.
Yup – agree 100%
Yup, again agree 100%.
Yup but a LOT of people “drop the ball” in their own investments and in reality even though good fund managers DO make mistakes I would suggest they would do it less often than the average investor and recover quicker.
Yup and that’s why liquidity is so important – change of fund manager is an automatic sell trigger for us.
Yup, ideal and as I have said you may be surprised that there are a huge number of people who do want low involvement with and remain arms length from their investments.
Yes! And that’s where we come in because for those people who DO want to invest passively we do all that work for them – gee makes our 1% fee look positively cheap doesn’t it?!?!?! (I know, I know – give me at least a small break).
Now this I do have to disagree with. Buying and managing a property portfolio is a BIG deal – in fact I found it practically exhausting! The key to managed fund selection is not selecting the fund perse, it’s selecting the manager. Once you’ve done that it’s almost set and forget. It may be similar to the level of research you need to do on shares but again you don’t have to do that research quarter after quarter. You just sit back, relax and let somebody else do the work for you.
Again, I know I’m selling ice to Eskimos in here but you good folk are not my target market.
(Indeed I still think you should consider some investments in funds because I still think you should diversify and I can’t see of a good reason you should not actively get engaged in property and invest in managed funds at the same time but I long ago stopped trying to push dirt up hills so let’s just settle for “you are not my target market”).
Further more there are aspects of people’s investments we can look after (Superannuation for example) whilst they still have the majority of their assets actively invested.
So all I am saying is horses for courses.
I still believe investing “could” make you rich.
But in reality I have come to realise a few things about people:
1. Most people, whist they dream of being rich won’t actually DO anything about it
2. And when they do it is invariably too late to make a big difference to the outcome
3. Most people do not invest well – they do silly things with their money, buy and sell at the wrong times and would be better off investing passively
4. No matter how much education (financial literacy) that is pushed down people’s throat it only makes a difference to about 10% of people
5. We (Investment Managers) can make a big difference to the outcome of most people’s financial future so whilst the DIY Property Fanatics (all power to you) would rather invest elsewhere live and let live because a lot of people need Investment Managers to help them invest for their future.
OK, onto monetising enterprise.
Enterprise to me is any active methodology you apply to money making. That CAN be a business but as Spiderman points out most people fail at that.
But few people, after a certain period in their life actively try to make themselves better and better employees so their income streams from working for other people are constantly growing. Few people get themselves into employee positions where their enterprise for that company is rewarded through profit share and equity participation (and both of those things are monetising enterprise).
Regardless of how you do it if you want to be rich you must earn ever increasing amount (either through enterprise or investing), and apply more and more of that to diversifying your asset base (probably through investing).
[QOUTE] To do this would require a lot of energy that very few would have exerted. It is also known that those who frequent flip flop between asset classes may be motivated too much by prevailing sentiment and may not have gained as much as those who just held.
I see investing as a long term process of gradual accumulation and provided the assets are of good quality there is no reason to chop and change (unless there's clearly superior opportunities for which you need capital). [/QUOTE]
I agree 100%. Perhaps I didn’t explain myself well. Our average annualised return on our portfolio was 24.3% for 7 years. However not all of our investments did this well, some did far worse. But some did much, much better – that’s how we get to an average.
The issue actually is what you said here...
We put forward a portfolio of investments to our clients on the (perhaps naive) assumption that they would invest in to totality of the portfolio.
Not all of our clients took the entirety of our advice. Most of our clients invested in the whole portfolio and so got the 24.3% average return. Some decided they had the “freedom to make decisions” – perfect logic for a DIY investor and counter intuitive to what I am about to say... See, some clients only selected our worst picks and if they did that would not have been a good outcome for them. I’m guessing some only selected our best picks too but we never heard from them! My point is that if people had taken the totality of our advice they would have done very well. Maybe you either take advice or you don’t – if you’re in you’re in boots and all – if you want to DIY you should DIY and take full responsibility for those decisions.
We have literally thousands of clients so even if a tiny percentage of those have not done well it is a large number, but we try to work that through with everybody. Some are reasonable, some are not. Some take personal responsibility for their decisions, some do not. The bright side is the vast majority of our clients are excellent clients who value our relationship and are loyal, long term investors with us so they see the results and stick with us. They know we have their best interests at heart.
That’s why I changed our product offering from portfolios to Managed Fund(s) of funds. I accepted that it would take years to prove outperformance but I have always been good at the research of picking (first) shares (and later) fund managers based on Buffett’s principal that it is the manager you need to pay most attention to. So we do the heavy lifting and research for our clients - people either invest or they don’t and we live and die on our results so we don’t have the unfortunate situation where somebody thinks they have taken our advice (by investing in one or two poorly performing funds instead of our portfolio) and have got under performance by doing so.
And PB can criticise all he likes but I am proud of our out-performance in those funds against their benchmark. The industry accepts this is extraordinarily hard to do. Now I don’t accept 100% of the credit for this because the fact is we picked some of the top performing managers in the asset classes.
So really what I am trying to say is just because you don’t want to invest in Managed Funds doesn’t mean to say they are not a valid investment. And it doesn't mean to say people can’t become “comfortable” or even “wealthy” by investing in them.
Last edited:
Well for every argument there is a counter argument – one of the BIGGEST discussions we have in our Investment Committee Meetings is how active to be in our funds. I say we should let the market itself and the skill of our selected managers (remembering that our funds are fund of funds in nature) do the heavy lifting and “fiddling around the margins” will not help us out perform.
But you know puppies for the sidewalk, old dogs for the hard road.
I think that’s why Exchange Traded Funds and Index Funds are getting so popular – they are cheap, match the market and as you have pointed out outperform the vast majority of fund managers. Heck people have proven that monkeys can outperform most fund managers (gee way to sell it Peter!).
However, and this is where the value is added by fund managers - the top quartile performers can frequently and consistently outperform and as long as their fees are reasonable and don’t negate that outperformance then they are worth a look, and they are not hard to find – Morningstar ranks about 80% of Managed Funds in Australia and you’ll see the top end is pretty darn consistent over the medium to long term!
So to answer your question more directly. I don’t think any rich person rings up the local bank employed financial planner and says “give me some of dem managed funds you all got dar boy!”
But I do know they seek out the top performing, peer respected, consistently out performing fund managers and either poach ‘em to manage their own diversified trusts or if that doesn’t work screw ‘em on fees and invest. Heck some of them even buy the fund management companies!
As for commercial property – I haven’t invested in much directly – preferring AREIT’s. Now right at the moment that’s not looking too good because by and large they have tanked and that hasn’t been a quality outcome for me (or my clients). But gee if I had a spare $15million or two I would be pouring it into lovely high yielding, (comparatively) low risk suburban and regional shopping centres you see advertised every week in the Fin Review, doubtless being sold by Medium Net Worth Investors and Trusts that overstretched – now there’s a way to print money! I might have missed this cycle but don’t think my mind isn’t ticking over trying to understand how to get a piece of the action!
Having been in business for a few years, here's my take.
Yes, I agree. Business can be the best way to do fabulously well financially.
But then, business has an extremely high dropout rate as well.
I have been working very hard in my business for 4 1/2 years. It's just starting to turn a bit of a profit.
This may be because of the nature of the business I chose, or it may be because I'm not the best business owner around.
A franchise business, by its nature, will probably have a lower downside, but a lower upside as well.
It's certainly not because I haven't worked hard. 70-80 hours pw, probably 360 days per year.
But business has an extremely high dropout rate. At least I'm still around, still solvent, and still paying all the bills.
When I went to Peter's courses, he taught a way of being able to retire very comfortably, with very low risk. A combination of property and shares. The downside was small, but as Peter has pointed out now, the upside is limited.
Business has a much bigger upside, and a much bigger downside. IMHO Peter did well in not including it in a way to be able to retire well off. It's a way some have become extremely wealthy. But it's also a way in whcih many more have become bankrupt.
Property & shares can be a much surer way to retire comfotably.
But there is something else that this business business has taught me.
When the income has dropped, and profits have been tight, I've had to cut way back in what I spend.
I've done so, and I'm still OK and happy (finally) with what I'm getting.
One daughter is still in a good quality school, and getting benefit from it. Her schooling is our single biggest non income producing expense. (Our house is paid off, and redraws are financing the business and IPs).
There are big business loans which eat substantially into profits. But the single biggest loan is P&I, not long term- when that finishes there will be a lot more cream.
But without the cream, I'm OK. I have a lovely supportive wife, two beautiful daughters (one still at home), and a house paid off. And a business which at least pays the bills.
Peter gave some good posts on business a few years ago, which I cannot find. I know because I asked him specific questions on the role of business in building wealth. From memory, he was cautiously optimistic.
There's been some comments how Peter has changed his opinions over the years.
Sorry, most of us have. If we did not, we would be mindless non growing creatures.
I've offered opinions supporting Peter many times in the past.
But by the same token I have not been to any presentations for quite some time.
Refer to previous comments about not very much income
Why don't you start a blog Peter? Wordpress requires very little involvement of your time and is very easy to use. Heck, you could even give that infernal Twitter a go.
Well I know a few who are fairly wealthy from residential RE, and a few who have a bit more wealth from Resi & Comm.
It's hardly ever black & white as many will diversify and have various sources of income & business, but those sources originated from Resi RE as the bank will lend money to do many things with that security.
But I know of nobody at all who has gotten wealthy from managed funds.
Tony Perich and his RE holdings first appeared on the BRW200 at ~500mil. Did it all appear from nowhere? Just because they aint on that list, does'nt mean they dont exist... there's more than just him.
I agree though, and posted, that accumulating Resi IPs with high LVR will take a long long time to create substantial wealth and that adding cashflow investments along the way speeds up the process.
Yes Sir! Business provides the fuel for the fire:cashflow.
We sure agree on these points.
I bought 1st editions of your first 2 books, and got my $$ worth. But i was'nt much impressed with Property Magic audio, oh well.
And like others here I find it interesting that you changed your tune.
Now before you think I'm a diehard RE fan I'll say that I actively trade derivates markets since '96.
And that whatever anyone says, I have no simpathy for a fund manager who takes credit for a bull market, and then blames the market for losing 30,40 or 50% of funds. A good manager knows when to stay out.
Looks like we agree more than I thought, but I think they buying is about to get better.
Well that's a story I'd sure like to hear.
Peter Spann:
That is a great shame.
Your publisher (akin to) knocking back the Beatles.
However, another generation is gradually turning over, memories are relatively fleeting, manifestation and philosophy are of great importance....I hope we get to read this book.
I'm thinking if your publisher is still digging the heels in, perhaps we could just buy the company..this book perhaps the capacity to inspire a great amount of people. Please publish it.
That is a great shame.
Your publisher (akin to) knocking back the Beatles.
However, another generation is gradually turning over, memories are relatively fleeting, manifestation and philosophy are of great importance....I hope we get to read this book.
I'm thinking if your publisher is still digging the heels in, perhaps we could just buy the company..this book perhaps the capacity to inspire a great amount of people. Please publish it.
Don't worry Geoff - the jokes are pretty much the same!!!
On business - I said the "recipe" was simple, not the actual doing!
99% of the time business sucks and most people don't make it but hard to argue it's not (when you get it right) the No.1 way to being rich.
Mmm, my publisher is Harper Collins.
I think Rupert may just want a tad more for it than I have at the moment!
Unfortunately they own the rights to the book so they get to decide when (or if) it's published.
Not something I would do again (sell the rights to my own work) but I was young, they offered a HUGE advance on the three books and for all my ego I didn't think anybody would buy them!
