Caveat Emptor

From: Mike .


Hi Les or Anyone,

Why are the old posts in Caveat Emptor not kept as an archive record as with other conferences?

Reading a post by Steve Navra dated June 14, 2001 he said: "For further info, see CAVEAT EMPTOR below."

But, of course no thread exists from last year. What's the go?

Regards, Mike
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1
From: Les .



G'day Mike,

As I understand it, the decision to keep only a limited number of Caveat Emptor posts was to prevent old opportunities from becoming "dead flies".

That of course works fine when the posts are advertising opportunities, but is counter-productive where long-term info is posted there.

Regards,

Les


- "Eschew Obfuscation" - ;^)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1
From: Paul Zagoridis


That was my memory of the original discussion. No archives allowed.

Hopefully there is a Rules Post that survives or is reposted regularly (hint hint Les.)

If you want it archived post it here.

Paul Zag
Dreamspinner
The Oz Film Biz site is archived at...
http://wealthesteem.dyndns.org/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.1
From: Mike .


Thanks Les and Paul,

I was unaware that old content would be binned otherwise I would have raised this earlier. Although opportunities may expire I feel it is important to keep a permanent record of who presented those opportunities.

For example, I recall there was some discussion about Paul Murphy's Investment Institute. Now that thread no longer exists so a forum newbie reading Caveat Emptor would not know that this service exists.

The other benefit of keeping old references is to track the history of these commercial enterprises. For example, the principal may have changed company names or jumped ship. I'd want to be aware of that.

If Michael Yardney, for example, started offering co-developments in Queensland then a forum newbie may not know that Michael's home patch is Melbourne and, therefore, his knowledge of the Brisbane market may not be up to par.

Does anyone else agree or disagree?

Another benefit of keeping old posts is to learn how deals should be presented. At some point in our investing careers we may have to sell a property or form a joint venture and it would be an advantage to have some previous examples of good or bad presentations to guide us in presenting our case in the most professional way.

The final benefit and one that I particularly looked forward to was seeing due diligence in action. Observing the likes of The Wife dissecting a deal or service is priceless and surely should be preserved for us to learn from. I feel a rethink on this point is justified.

Thanks for hearing me out. If enough support is generated we may be able to persuade Ian to reconsider this issue.

Regards, Mike
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply: 1.1.1.1
From: Jas


> From: "Mike ." <mdengler@onetel.net.uk>

Hey Mike :)

> If Michael Yardney, for example, started offering co-developments in
> Queensland then a forum newbie may not know that Michael's home patch
is
> Melbourne and, therefore, his knowledge of the Brisbane may not be up
to
> par.
>

But maybe he went into partnership with someone who has detailed
knowledge of the area? This is where people have to start doing their
own due diligence, and not rely on the forum as a be all and end all.


> The final benefit and one that I particularly looked forward to was
seeing
> due diligence in action. Observing the likes of The Wife dissecting a
deal
> or service is priceless and surely should be preserved for us to learn
> from. I feel a rethink on this point is justified.

These sort of posts might well be worth preserving, but a) only one or
two of the very best, and b) shouldn't they be stored in the apprentice
guide?

Jas


To paraphrase Charles Mackay - By the vile arts of stock-jobbers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top