http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/16/1105810772993.html

I am not saying that that this is not sensible advice,
I have seen worse, but why is it that I cant read it
without reaching for the bucket ?

Is it the 'nouveau riche' ostentatiousness ?
A certain lack of class and humility ?
I dont know....

From:	Gregory Toomey
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:20:16 +1000

I phoned up Ms Lomas' company & got sent the following two documents.
The gather lots of financial information & seem to be offering something
very close to financial advice. But they claim not to be financial
advisers?!

http://gregorytoomey.com/Destiny_Analysis_Application.pdf
Very odd! I can't see superannuation listed as an asset.
But in the five pages thankfully there is a tiny space for shares/bonds.

http://www.gregorytoomey.com/Destiny_Brochure.pdf
"Our job will be to provide you with a blueprint which considers your
personal income, income and financial needs"
"We differ from financial advisers .."

gtoomey

From:	Chris p
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	17 Jan 2005 22:01:43 -0800

Gregory Toomey wrote:
> Fitzroy wrote:
>
> > http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/16/1105810772993.html
> >
> >
> > I am not saying that that this is not sensible advice,
> > I have seen worse, but why is it that I cant read it
> > without reaching for the bucket ?
> >
> > Is it the 'nouveau riche' ostentatiousness ?
> > A certain lack of class and humility ?
> > I dont know....
>
> I've got a great cash flow property plan too - commercial real estate
at a
> 9% yield where tenants pay outgoing expenses.
>
> Anyone recommending buying lots of individual cottages or a credit
card for
> mortgage reduction has rocks in their head.
>
> gtoomey

anyone recieving monies for giving advice should have to be licensed
and i cant see any asic number on her website, would love to see how
many cashflow positive residential properties are floating around at
the moment for her to buy. anyway just got back from 3 weeks in vietnam
and can highly recommend a visit there to anyone.
Chris P

From:	Gregory Toomey
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:05:51 +1000

Chris p wrote:

>
> Gregory Toomey wrote:
>> Fitzroy wrote:
>>
>> > http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/16/1105810772993.html
>> >
>> >
>> > I am not saying that that this is not sensible advice,
>> > I have seen worse, but why is it that I cant read it
>> > without reaching for the bucket ?
>> >
>> > Is it the 'nouveau riche' ostentatiousness ?
>> > A certain lack of class and humility ?
>> > I dont know....
>>
>> I've got a great cash flow property plan too - commercial real estate
> at a
>> 9% yield where tenants pay outgoing expenses.
>>
>> Anyone recommending buying lots of individual cottages or a credit
> card for
>> mortgage reduction has rocks in their head.
>>
>> gtoomey
>
> anyone recieving monies for giving advice should have to be licensed
> and i cant see any asic number on her website, would love to see how
> many cashflow positive residential properties are floating around at
> the moment for her to buy. anyway just got back from 3 weeks in vietnam
> and can highly recommend a visit there to anyone.
> Chris P

Maybe, but then again maybe not. The Investors Club & Henry Kaye seemed to
get away with it. I don't think your need to be licensed to write
mortgages, and certainly not to give seminars.

But http://www.edestiny.com.au/ has all the "classics" signs - offering
mortgages (and probably selling properties), seminars, courses, etc.

gtoomey

From:	phil_herring at yahoo.com.au
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	19 Jan 2005 18:49:26 -0800

Tom N wrote:

> Maybe once you have the sausage factory set up but the first sausage
always takes the longest.

No, it really does only take a very short time to write a crappy,
self-help-style book.

After a quick squizz in Dymocks, her books look to be roughly 50,000 to
75,000 words. (One looked much less - maybe 30,000.) If they know the
subject matter already, just about anyone should be able to knock over
2,000 words a day; do the arithemetic.

> They're listed on the Wrightbooks website (owned by John Wiley).
Doesn't look like self publishing to me, but
> then I can't say I've even held one of them.

Spot on - they are Wrightbooks. Not that it matters; my point is, it
only takes a few weeks to get a book into print, once it's written.
-- Phil

From:	Tom N
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	18 Jan 2005 13:27:50 GMT

Fitzroy wrote:

> http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/16/1105810772993.html
>
> I am not saying that that this is not sensible advice,
> I have seen worse, but why is it that I cant read it
> without reaching for the bucket ?
>
> Is it the 'nouveau riche' ostentatiousness ?
> A certain lack of class and humility ?
> I dont know....

This extract is rather telling:
"What was your first investment?

A two-bedroom unit in Cairns in 1997 "

First book published and reviewed in Your Mortgage magazine, Oct 2001 (allowing for printing schedules, the
review would probably have to have been written a month earlier).
Let's say she took a year to write the book, get it published, printed and reviewed (probably much longer than
that in reality).

She must have started writing books no later than Sep 2000. At that time, she had between 2.75 and 3.75
years of experience as a property investor.

Kind of looks like she became a property investor so that she could start a "guru" business flogging related
services.

From:	Travis Morien
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	18 Jan 2005 06:12:00 -0800

Chris p wrote:

> anyone recieving monies for giving advice should have to be licensed
> and i cant see any asic number on her website, would love to see how
> many cashflow positive residential properties are floating around at
> the moment for her to buy. anyway just got back from 3 weeks in
vietnam
> and can highly recommend a visit there to anyone.
> Chris P

The real estate industry has lobbied hard to retain its exemption from
licensing requirements.

Anyone recommending a financial product, like a $50 investment in a
term deposit, needs to be licensed or authorised by a licensee, but no
license is required to recommend someone invest in a million dollar
"off the plan" development.

Travis
www.travismorien.com

From:	Travis Morien
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	19 Jan 2005 22:11:28 -0800

Chris p wrote:
> yes well i cant see why the statements regarding a blueprint which
> considers personal needs hasnt raised the ire of the regulators.
these
> guys are giving personal advice and should have to be licensed

Personal advice, perhaps, but not financial product advice if they are
sticking with residential property and mortgage broking (though they'd
need a finance brokers license to write mortgages for WA residents).

I do however feel when reading the site that they probably should have
better disclaimers explaining their status as non-licensed quasi
advisors with a sole focus on only one type of investment.
Travis
www.travismorien.com

From:	Travis Morien
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	20 Jan 2005 05:58:55 -0800

> Plus would love to know where all these positively geared
> properties are...

A number of property gurus I've heard about are recommending regional
or rural properties for their yield.

Presumably liquidity risk and risk of losing a tenant and not being
able to find a new one for two years doesn't concern them much.
Travis
www.travismorien.com

From:	Travis Morien
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	18 Jan 2005 08:10:06 -0800

Tom N wrote:

> She must have started writing books no later than Sep 2000. At that
time, she had between 2.75 and 3.75
> years of experience as a property investor.
>
> Kind of looks like she became a property investor so that she could
start a "guru" business flogging related
> services.

While a plan to become a guru is a possibility, one should not overlook
the possibility that she simply looked at the returns on her property
and began to confuse brains with a bull market.
Travis
www.travismorien.com

From:	Travis Morien
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	18 Jan 2005 08:29:42 -0800

Gregory Toomey wrote:

> Maybe, but then again maybe not. The Investors Club & Henry Kaye
seemed to
> get away with it. I don't think your need to be licensed to write
> mortgages, and certainly not to give seminars.

In WA you need to be licensed to write mortgages and this system is
being phased in all over the country.

Most places have formal requirements for real estate agents so they can
sell houses but no license is required to give advice on real estate or
recommend property investment strategies.

You need a license for even the simplest recommendations for "financial
products" though, which means shares, funds, insurance, term deposits,
no matter how small the amounts.

If you want to tell someone to put $500 in ING Direct, technically you
should be licensed. If you want to put on a seminar like Henry Kaye
and advocate advanced and highly risky real estate strategies, you
don't need a license.

Kaye got himself in trouble because he made a variety of false claims
which could be prosecuted under Trade Practices Act, including a
statement that his courses were "ASIC approved" and ASIC believed that
the mezzanine finance schemes he was promoting crossed the line and
were financial products.

In the post Henry Kaye world ASIC and many others have been campaigning
to have the real estate exemption eliminated. If that happens real
estate agents will not be allowed to make representations about
property as an investment, if they do they'll need to go through the
same licensing and education regime that applies to financial advisors.
Travis
www.travismorien.com

From:	phil_herring at yahoo.com.au
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	18 Jan 2005 14:37:24 -0800

Tom N wrote:

> Let's say she took a year to write the book, get it published,
printed and reviewed (probably much longer than
> that in reality).

Well, I think your argument is sound, but you're missing a couple of
points.

Ms Lomas has 5 books with her name and photo on the cover. Books like
this don't take long to write - I'd say maybe less than 3 months if you
do it all yourself, and half that if you hire a pro to do the work for
you.

Also, the books are self-published. Publication times can be measured
in weeks.

-- Phil

From:	Tom N
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	19 Jan 2005 12:27:39 GMT

Phil Herring wrote:

> Tom N wrote:
>
>> Let's say she took a year to write the book, get it published,
> printed and reviewed (probably much longer than
>> that in reality).
>
> Well, I think your argument is sound, but you're missing a couple of
> points.
>
> Ms Lomas has 5 books with her name and photo on the cover.

Yes (I believe) I picked the one with the earliest publication date.

> Books like
> this don't take long to write - I'd say maybe less than 3 months if you
> do it all yourself, and half that if you hire a pro to do the work for
> you.

Maybe once you have the sausage factory set up but the first sausage always takes the longest.

> Also, the books are self-published. Publication times can be measured
> in weeks.

They're listed on the Wrightbooks website (owned by John Wiley). Doesn't look like self publishing to me, but
then I can't say I've even held one of them.

From:	Public Image Ltd
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	20 Jan 2005 17:52:45 -0800

Darrin wrote:
>
> Plus would love to know where all these positively geared properties
> are.

Mining/resources towns. Large cyclical risks.
NZ, reputedly. For that matter, lots of places ex-Oz :-(

From:	Chris p
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	19 Jan 2005 15:16:03 -0800

yes well i cant see why the statements regarding a blueprint which
considers personal needs hasnt raised the ire of the regulators. these
guys are giving personal advice and should have to be licensed

From:	Darrin
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:47:08 +0800

>yes well i cant see why the statements regarding a blueprint which
>considers personal needs hasnt raised the ire of the regulators. these
>guys are giving personal advice and should have to be licensed

From my understanding, if you don't provide product specific advice,
then you don't need to be licenced under the Financial Service Reform
Act.

I assume because they're dealing with mortgage products they fall
under different legislation/laws and may not need the same level of
disclosure and compliance as ASIC expects from financial planners.

Weird?

Plus would love to know where all these positively geared properties
are...

From:	ppp
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:08:13 +1100

In article <1q2vu0hrno7isj5m06oqbhrtoi2peup47i@4ax.com>, Darrin
wrote:

> >yes well i cant see why the statements regarding a blueprint which
> >considers personal needs hasnt raised the ire of the regulators. these
> >guys are giving personal advice and should have to be licensed
>
> From my understanding, if you don't provide product specific advice,
> then you don't need to be licenced under the Financial Service Reform
> Act.

As long as you avoid mentioning any financial products defined under
the Act. Someone who implies that they're offering rounded personal
advice under these circumstances might have saved themself the cost
of a license, but is being deceptive IMO.

>
> I assume because they're dealing with mortgage products they fall
> under different legislation/laws and may not need the same level of
> disclosure and compliance as ASIC expects from financial planners.
>
> Weird?
>
> Plus would love to know where all these positively geared properties
> are...
>
>

From:	Public Image Ltd
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	19 Jan 2005 21:56:57 -0800

Fitzroy wrote:

> Possibly because I dislike 'financial evangelism'.

Me too.

> In particular, the presentation of simple technical
> terms such as 'salary sacrifice', and 'positive cash
> flow' as an arcane science whose secrets will be revealed
> to those who read the books and attend the seminars.

I think the sad fact is that the world is full of people who
can't/don't read and want to hear it verbally. Anyone reading this n.g.
is probably not in that category by definition. Look at the relative
popularity of correspondence courses vis a vis attending lectures.
Incidentally, I could almost forgive her if she was pushing "negative
gearing" like they used to instead of "positive cashflow" - it might
leave more opportunities for me :-)

> Not to mention the alarming trivilialisation of risk.

I didn't really see that from the newspaper article alone. Presumably,
she's a goner if her rental yields dry up, but if they were going to
dry up they would have dried up by now? Otherwise, she could sit out
any resale down-turn. I would be much more alarmed if she was pushing
commercial property, as someone here was advocating.

From:	Public Image Ltd
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	19 Jan 2005 00:41:50 -0800

Fitzroy wrote:
>
> I am not saying that that this is not sensible advice,
> I have seen worse, but why is it that I cant read it
> without reaching for the bucket ?
>
> Is it the 'nouveau riche' ostentatiousness ?

Nouvea riche yes by definition, although I would have to know more
about her lifestyle to comment on the ostentation factor. Having a
bunch of kids doesn't exactly fit the yuppie stereotype.

> A certain lack of class and humility ?

Lack of class? I don't have the information to know whether she is
especially vulgar. The paper _did_ ask about her assets, after all. For
that matter, I dunno whether I'd like her any better if she came on
like she had some sort of breeding. Humility? She seems ready to admit
to mistakes, eg, regarding her original attitude to super. There
doesn't seem to be any evidence that she regards the rest of the
investing world with contempt, unlike some people around here.

> I dont know....

Possibly the fact that she is a she?

Possibly the fact that she doesn't seem to have paid her dues?
(whatever that means in an investment context)

Possibly the fact that she has learnt at a much earlier age than most
of us that chasing quick capital gains is a bit of a mug's game?

From:	Fitzroy
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:48:26 GMT

"Public Image Ltd" wrote in message
news:1106124110.920975.146190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Fitzroy wrote:
> >
> > I am not saying that that this is not sensible advice,
> > I have seen worse, but why is it that I cant read it
> > without reaching for the bucket ?
> >
> > Is it the 'nouveau riche' ostentatiousness ?
>
> Nouvea riche yes by definition, although I would have to know more
> about her lifestyle to comment on the ostentation factor. Having a
> bunch of kids doesn't exactly fit the yuppie stereotype.
>
> > A certain lack of class and humility ?
>
> Lack of class? I don't have the information to know whether she is
> especially vulgar. The paper _did_ ask about her assets, after all. For
> that matter, I dunno whether I'd like her any better if she came on
> like she had some sort of breeding. Humility? She seems ready to admit
> to mistakes, eg, regarding her original attitude to super. There
> doesn't seem to be any evidence that she regards the rest of the
> investing world with contempt, unlike some people around here.
>
> > I dont know....
>
> Possibly the fact that she is a she?
>
> Possibly the fact that she doesn't seem to have paid her dues?
> (whatever that means in an investment context)
>
> Possibly the fact that she has learnt at a much earlier age than most
> of us that chasing quick capital gains is a bit of a mug's game?
>

Possibly because I dislike 'financial evangelism'.

In particular, the presentation of simple technical
terms such as 'salary sacrifice', and 'positive cash
flow' as an arcane science whose secrets will be revealed
to those who read the books and attend the seminars.

Not to mention the alarming trivilialisation of risk.

From:	Chris p
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	18 Jan 2005 14:26:04 -0800

Travis Morien wrote:
> Tom N wrote:
>
> > She must have started writing books no later than Sep 2000. At
that
> time, she had between 2.75 and 3.75
> > years of experience as a property investor.
> >
> > Kind of looks like she became a property investor so that she could
> start a "guru" business flogging related
> > services.
>
> While a plan to become a guru is a possibility, one should not
overlook
> the possibility that she simply looked at the returns on her property
> and began to confuse brains with a bull market.
> Travis
> www.travismorien.com

Yes it is amazing how many so called gurus have only been buying
properties in the last 5 - 7 years, i would say it is more luck than
anything else. as far as selling something goes it is harder to sell a
dream than it is to sell reality. as for licensing anyone advising on
any security should have to be licensed and so too should mortgage
brokers, any clown can start up as a mortgage broker and join a
mortgage originator then advise an individual on probably the most
exoensive obligation they will ever have. it takes 4 years to get a
trade to build the house and 5 minutes to flog the home loan.

From:	Gregory Toomey
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:05:12 +1000

Fitzroy wrote:

> http://theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/16/1105810772993.html
>
>
> I am not saying that that this is not sensible advice,
> I have seen worse, but why is it that I cant read it
> without reaching for the bucket ?
>
> Is it the 'nouveau riche' ostentatiousness ?
> A certain lack of class and humility ?
> I dont know....

I've got a great cash flow property plan too - commercial real estate at a
9% yield where tenants pay outgoing expenses.

Anyone recommending buying lots of individual cottages or a credit card for
mortgage reduction has rocks in their head.

gtoomey

From:	Market Theory
Subject:	Re: Margaret Lomas hates positive cash flow property
Date:	20 Jan 2005 18:39:15 -0800

Public Image Ltd wrote:
> Darrin wrote:
> >
> > Plus would love to know where all these positively geared
properties
> > are.
>
> Mining/resources towns. Large cyclical risks.
> NZ, reputedly. For that matter, lots of places ex-Oz :-(

Gotta be a good time to buy coastal realestate in Sri Lanka you'd
think. Even before the tsunami I had SL on my screens due to the
improving economy and diminishing political risk.

cheers,
--mt.