I think what he said (meant) was they pay HIM well. Who knows about the ROI

My wife's cousin just got into one of these Amway-type scams. You buy their products (at slightly inflated prices), and they put some money in a savings account for you. As if that's not bad enough, they got my future brother-in-law hooked on it.

(He's one of those people who will spend his whole life chasing the big payout while his finances deteriorate. I've known him for 1.5 years and he has had six different jobs in that time frame. He always expects his new job to pay out big in a short timeframe, and always leaves his old job when he discovers he needs to put in hardwork/gain seniority/produce to up his compensation.)

I tried to explain to him that the "unlimited growth" is actually limited by the population--and further limited by the fact that not every man/woman/child in the country will be willing to sign on. His response: "You're not thinking positive."

Besides, Amway and all of these other scams are closely controlled by a few "families". They make the money, everyone else makes the money for them. Unless you marry in, you aren't hitting the diamond level.

To my understanding the share holders are suppose to have full discloser an equal percentage investment as the corporation. So the share holder should be getting half of 100-200% not 10%. Apparently the corporation doctors their documents and pockets the riches.

keep in mind the corporation has 0% capital invested in the deal.

Although I could care less. I invest in cars and boats. That were the real return are.:rolleyes:

I like the real estate ones. Find people facing RE forclosure through public records. Approach them, and offer to pay their loan current for a fee, and they pay you back. Sounds legit and honest, right? The good part is, you ask for them to sign over their property deed to you as collateral until they pay you back. Then you give them the boot and re-sell the house you just bought for $5k. Another lovely fast track to hell.

A fool and his money are my best friends. ;)

Greed breeds stupidity. if you are greedy enough you will do something stupid to feed your grered and that is why these scam artists exist. They promise something they can't deliver and people pay money to get ripped off. I actually don't feel sorry for them at all. If they are that dumb or that greedy they don't deserve to have money.

Where can someone who's behind on their mortgage sign over a deed to anyone? They don't own the house if there's a mortgage on it and any other financing takes a subordinate lien position.

Rick, I'm not really sure. That was just how it was explained to me. I agree, they could not sell it in the conventional sense with a lienholder. Maybe they sign over their property rights through some other method?

Sure fire way to make a small fortune:




Start with a big one.

Rick check out last Sundays Washington Post. Article in there about an ex-stripper doing the mortgage thing. The scam was, IIRC, they would get you out of foreclosure and promise to sell the house back to you in a year (during which you lived rent free). No scam yet right? Well as soon as they had the deed they borrowed every last cent of equity in the house and turned their world into their own personal rap video.

Pigs.

I don't doubt that there are countless scam artists out there. It's just that it's impossible to sell a house without paying off the lienholders. Every mortgage I've ever seen is due upon sale of the house securing it. So someone has to pay those guys off before anyone can touch the deed.

Not sure how it works then, that's just how I heard it explained. But you are right, there is no way to transfer ownership without paying off the lienholder.

If you bought the home under a corporation you could can easily add partners. If they were given the majority ownership than hat would give them equal rights to the equity, sale, etc.

With a straight home sale to a single personal owner I'm not sure how someone could borrow money against equity on a property they didn't own. If they transfered the mortgage over to the stripper then borrowed that would work. But they would be assuming all the debt and credit issues when it defaults. I don't see the plus.

yup; i'd guess the bad guy paid off the existing mortgage with funds borrowed based on the equity available. when you make the assumption that your investment will go up considerably in value over a short period of time a lot of hairbrained ideas start to sound good.

at best the scheme was probably loaded with huge fees and the rent to be paid at buyback was probably above market as well. at it's worst it was theft on a massive scale facilitated by the ignorance and trust of the victims.

look up the article guys. i'm not making this stuff up. no need to speculate as it actually happened.

Link?