Are all property educators "spruikers"?

With all the regular talk that occurs on the forum about various educators and "spruikers", I have to wonder what a REAL alternative is for people who are new to investing.

How do newbies know who is a good educator and who is not? What defines a good educator?
Are all educators Bad? Are they all Spruikers? How do we define what a spruiker is?

What are some good guidelines for a new investor to follow with respect to looking for assistance? Aside from obviosuly reading these forums with is a wealth of knowledge and picking up some good books.

How can we help newbies look for decent educators?

 

In my opinion a good educator/mentor is someone who:

1. First and foremost has a great deal of success themselves in the very investment vehicle/s that they want to teach about.
2. They put the client's needs first and always remain client focused.
3. Lets the client know that all or probably most of the information that they will teach is available freely on line, in books and various other places, however attending a course could save the person a lot of time which is also very valuable.
4. Presents knowledge in an unbiased, objective and methodical manner.
5. Includes in the course the topics of mindset development and risk management in some detail. Of course also presenting a thorough and comprehensive set of topics, case studies, etc
6. Can offer real life references to prospective clients.
7. Has completely, 100% no conflict of interests such as selling property, recommending property, getting any kickbacks whatsoever from any tertiary services.


To me, that would be a great mentor. Not so easy to find though, that's the major problem .

 

Good post Leo.

8. Doesn't suffer fools thereby ensuring the mentor makes most optimal use of their most valued currency............time.

 

I think it also depends on how.much they charge and if they recieve any kickbacks or not

 

How do I do multiple quotes in one post?

 

What does this mean @Player? Sorry, I'm not familiar with the meaning of that saying or what you mean? who's time are you referring to, the educator's or the participants?

 

That's a great post @Leo2413 But are there ANY mentors who have the qualities you list (apart from a dad)?

 

@BigKahuna they are not easy to find but do exist. Usually they are not well known at all, hold really small classes, just regular mum and dads who also possess all the points above and have an absolute passion and knack for just teaching others. That's just been my experience with it.

 

How would we know if the information was unbiased and objective?
I try to be an objective and unbiased person, but I think our own experiences or witnessing of others experiences can change and alter our bias. even when we think we are not being bias.

So this would include an education company that has its own (or a share in) a finance company and an insurance company etc?
Or a buyers advocate who also owns a rent roll?


Why should the business not be able to expand into areas that makes sense for it to expand into while also adding (potentially) more value and ease to their customer?

And this gets tricky because if we take education company and mortgage broking service offering together where by the educational company receives a kick back or is a part owner than there are two scenarios where this occurs and 1 is NOT OK, the other I don't personally have an issue with but believe participants should be told about in any event.

1) It just makes good sense for everyone and it means everyone is on the same page of how things need to get done effectively. Participants should be made aware of any comission sharing, kick backs or business relationship between the two companies
2) Where the brokers work with the educators to hide the true value of ones new investment purchase (Not Ok)

 

Kickbacks should be one of the disqualification criteria

 

I can't think of any off the top of my head. I know a guy who used to just run information sessions which were educational and people paid a few hundred for the course. He made no money off of any other services. He no longer does it. he also didnt charge a fortune either which I think is great.

 

what about in the instance where the educator owned a share in say a mortgage broking business as well and clients were introduced to the mortgage broking business?

 

Unfortunately more often than not the following rule applies:
Those that can, do.
Those that can't, teach.

 

[QUO"Lisa Parker- Buyers Agent, post: 167263, member: 927"]How would we know if the information was unbiased and objective?
I try to be an objective and unbiased person, but I think our own experiences or witnessing of others experiences can change and alter our bias. even when we think we are not being bias.

I agree. That's what makes it difficult. And you cant know what you don't know. There is no perfect system to find a mentor imo.

So this would include an education company that has its own (or a share in) a finance company and an insurance company etc?
Or a buyers advocate who also owns a rent roll?

In my opinion, yes.


Why should the business not be able to expand into areas that makes sense for it to expand into while also adding (potentially) more value and ease to their customer?

Not saying a business cant do that. Just imo it wouldn't be in the best interests of the client as its too tempting for conflicts of interest to arise. This is all just my take on it though.

And this gets tricky because if we take education company and mortgage broking service offering together where by the educational company receives a kick back or is a part owner than there are two scenarios where this occurs and 1 is NOT OK, the other I don't personally have an issue with but believe participants should be told about in any event.
To me that's not tricky. Its simple conflict of interest and I don't think it will ultimately be in a client's best interests. Just my opinion though. [/QUOTE]

 

This is another issue imo. The 'bad ones' charge a lot and imho the good ones know how valuable their time and experience is and also will charge accordingly. The 'bad' ones therefore make the few 'good' ones look bad.

I think its logical to assume that any mentor who actually can meet all the 7 points above will also charge accordingly. Just my opinion.

 

But not always imo.

 

That creates a conflict of interest and affects impartiality.

Cheers,
Inertia.

 

Why do you think this, @inertia and also @Leo2413

I don't have an issue with it in some instances but in other instances i do. Like Leo said, how does someone who doesn't know any better know how to differentiate. That's the bit I believe is tricky and perhaps why it just should rule it out as a no- go in the first instance just to make it easier for newbies?

 

Human nature.

 

In what way though? If the educator owns a share or receives a kick back but has nothing to do with the actual running of the business how does that impact the participant?

What are the potential conflicts?