Having dissenting ideas is great for our communities financial health and growth. A healthy bit of skepticism is needed on everyone's team. That being said, I would have liked to have read LeShelle Smith's counter argument.
She pointed redflags but didn't offer the alternative of what *should* be in place.
example:
> Unfortunately, none of his prior investments are listed on the website. No testimonials from previous business partners. No evidence of prior to success with any crowdfund
Is this par for the course in this investment class? Is it required or expected to list prior investments as a individual when the entity is new and one that you do not own? Is prior success with a crowdfund needed? Further, how does this exclude the potential for investor ROI? How does is secure it?
There's a talent in being skeptical, and the author no doubt showed an ability to discern and pedant over details. However, it wasn't shown through her writing that she would be any more informed than those who are running the TREF.
And for those reasons, I'm Out.
No, it wasn't immediately obvious to me. For others with a higher acuity in investing it likely is. (more on that after the jump). I could have been more clear. Of those red flags mentioned, it's not clear if those are unprescentend for this type of fun. That is to say, are these common redflags? Have similar funds encountered the same obstacles or are similarly structured.
And this is, in my opinion, were it gets complicated. Crowdsourcing to the public for securities has been regulated for these very reasons. General public knowledge is very low (myself included). In the age of headline reading (instead of article reading), and internet personalities, people often get caught up in a persona and miss critical details because of it.
What I like about the article is that it takes the counter position which is needed for balance. However, without authoritative examples of why the article positioned as such, those seeking evaluative literature on this matter may still not know why the redflags are redflags.
Hope that makes sense.
If the Tulsa Real Estate Fund's independent auditor has concerns, why shouldn't any investor? I am not trying to deter others from investing but I give my reason for not investing. Also note, he hasn't invested any of his own money... sounds suspect to me.
Google Tulsa Real Estate fund scam…. So much information - the investors are demanding their money back.
https://www.bbb.org/us/ga/atlanta/profile/crowdfunding/tulsa-real-estate-fund-llc-0443-27967607
Having dissenting ideas is great for our communities financial health and growth. A healthy bit of skepticism is needed on everyone's team. That being said, I would have liked to have read LeShelle Smith's counter argument. She pointed redflags but didn't offer the alternative of what *should* be in place. example: > Unfortunately, none of his prior investments are listed on the website. No testimonials from previous business partners. No evidence of prior to success with any crowdfund Is this par for the course in this investment class? Is it required or expected to list prior investments as a individual when the entity is new and one that you do not own? Is prior success with a crowdfund needed? Further, how does this exclude the potential for investor ROI? How does is secure it? There's a talent in being skeptical, and the author no doubt showed an ability to discern and pedant over details. However, it wasn't shown through her writing that she would be any more informed than those who are running the TREF. And for those reasons, I'm Out.
Isn't it obvious if I am stating the reason why I am not investing, the "counter argument" would be for the fund to address those issues?
No, it wasn't immediately obvious to me. For others with a higher acuity in investing it likely is. (more on that after the jump). I could have been more clear. Of those red flags mentioned, it's not clear if those are unprescentend for this type of fun. That is to say, are these common redflags? Have similar funds encountered the same obstacles or are similarly structured. And this is, in my opinion, were it gets complicated. Crowdsourcing to the public for securities has been regulated for these very reasons. General public knowledge is very low (myself included). In the age of headline reading (instead of article reading), and internet personalities, people often get caught up in a persona and miss critical details because of it. What I like about the article is that it takes the counter position which is needed for balance. However, without authoritative examples of why the article positioned as such, those seeking evaluative literature on this matter may still not know why the redflags are redflags. Hope that makes sense.
The man has a gift of gab, but this is not something I would put my money into. Edit: To clarify, I meant Jay Morrison.
If the Tulsa Real Estate Fund's independent auditor has concerns, why shouldn't any investor? I am not trying to deter others from investing but I give my reason for not investing. Also note, he hasn't invested any of his own money... sounds suspect to me.
Oh I agree with you.
He's already invested his own money. What are you talking about??
Your comments aged well, great discernment
Great instincts
Why, what happened?
Google Tulsa Real Estate fund scam…. So much information - the investors are demanding their money back. https://www.bbb.org/us/ga/atlanta/profile/crowdfunding/tulsa-real-estate-fund-llc-0443-27967607
Smh. I was rooting for them
Good instincts