Navra & Spann Funds

Have read several posts which mention the above funds.
I know nothing about Navra but I did a Spann seminar several years ago which gave me the initial momentum to get into investing, so I thank him for that.
However is there any thing special or "better" about their funds...or is it that they are contributors here that makes their funds more desirable to forumites??

Peter & steve please feel free to comment

Thanks
Greg
 
You shouldnt go with any fund unless you are comfortable with the risk, fee structures and have a look at their track record performances.

www.morningstar.com.au is a good site to get some of those information.
 
Thanks Obi I will check out the thread

Dca .. I am not really into managed funds because I beleive the managers take too much of the profit ( I am yet to be convinced otherwise but open to it)

But i was wondering what all the fuss was with these guys? and why people thought they may be better than the bigger fund managers? And then I might look into investing with them. I am only guessing but I assume the capital is no more protected in their fund than anyone elses. Are their returns better?

Cheers
Greg
 
I am hoping these two "boutique" managers can outperform the "general fund manager pack" - hence my investment with both.

Steve's is an "income fund", Peter's is a "Buy Hold / Cap Gain" fund - however unless I am completely mistaken (Murray-Walkerism here - happy to be corrected :) ) Peter's fund Fox Invest is no longer open to new investors.

As Steve's is an open eneded fund, I found the liquidity and minimum investment amounts easier to deal with.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

The Y-man
 
Greg,

I'm invested in the Navra fund and have a detailed, dey-by-day analysis of its performance over the last four months relative the ASX200 index. I'll post this with some narrative around my perception of the relative strengths and weaknesses of this fund versus some alternatives in a few hours time.

Its 12:15pm now so I've got to go and do my 1.5hr daily workout. Its back and biceps today, a favourite! ;)

Post summary when I get back.

Cheers,
Michael.
 
Grego said:
Dca .. I am not really into managed funds because I beleive the managers take too much of the profit ( I am yet to be convinced otherwise but open to it)

Grego - I think that is a limiting belief on your part.

How about looking at the end result and determining whether the track record of a fund manager is better or worse than the performance you can achieve yourself.

Whether they take 1% or 10% is largely irrelevant if they are delivering a better endresult than you can get otherwise.

Going cheap on fees is a path to dealing with mediocre managers. I would cheerfully split half my returns with a manager if he delivered a substantial return that warranted it!

Cheers,
 
OK,

Back from the gym now so promised response forthcoming...

I've been in the NavTrade Retail fund since 14-Oct-2005. I was fortunate enough to buy in just after the October correction and have riden the subsequent recovery. To date the fund has returned me 6.62% in total growth over the 4.5 months to 27-Feb-2006. This represents a gross profit of $37,013 and profit after interest expenses of $22,225 as I am fully leveraged into this fund. So, in other words, had I NOT bought into this fund as I did on the 14-Oct-2005, I would now be $22,225 before tax worse off.

Having said that, you need to consider that this has been a nice little period of a strongly rising ASX market. To put this growth into context you need to consider alternative fund managers in this market and how they might have performed. The benchmark index for fund managers is the ASX200. i.e. Beating that index should be the stated objective of all Aussie fund managers, or else you'd just buy the index with an index tracker like StreetTracks ASX200 (STW), which has historically marginally beaten the index consistently.

So, when I compare the NavTrade Retail managed fund over this admittedly VERY SHORT timeframe which may not be representative of their long term performance, I get a less upbeat appraisal. In fact, over the same time period the ASX200 has gone up 11.66% representing an underperformance to the index of 5.04% by my fund. The "opportunity cost" of this underperformance is $28,153 after interest expenses (as these are fully absorbed in my original net profit). In other words, had I "bought the index" over this period my net profit would have been $50,378 instead of $22,225.

Ain't hindsight a wonderful thing! ;)

That's not to say that you should rush out and buy the index instead, as Steve's fund is purported to do very well in flat or falling markets. Its just that it typically under-performs the indices in a rising market due to its trading methodology. So, you need to understand what the markets you are investing in are likely to do in the investment timeframe you are envisaging, and then buy the investment vehicle that best suits that environment. You also need to consider whether you prefer an income or growth fund and understand the tax implications of each.

I, for one, anticipate that the ASX as well as the other Asian markets will continue to be bullish in 2006 on the back of the prolonged resources boom. This suggests I should diversify my managed funds to some other growth or index funds. I am currently contemplating divesting a portion of my NavTrade units and diversifying into the StreetTracks index tracker I identified above as well as the Platinum Asia fund. I believe this combination would give me diversification benefits of reduced variability of return as well as the potential for increasing my likely return.

The problem is that when you open the "which fund" can of worms you can get inundated with potential alternatives. I would stress that if you do nothing then your opportunity costs can be significant. If I had done nothing I would be $22,225 poorer today. So, once you have thoroughly done your due diligence, then don't delay your decision until you've found the "perfect" fund or mix of funds. I bought Navra believing it was a good fund and have been proved right by my recent profits. I am now tweaking my portfolio in the anticipation of even better returns.

I've attached a detailed spreadsheet showing how the NavTrade Retail fund has performed over the timeframe discussed in this post for my specific situation in case you're interested.

Best Regards,
Michael.
 

Attachments

  • Navra fund performance.xls
    90.5 KB · Views: 135
One question.

Didn't Narva used to have their performance charted against the ASX on their web site. I can only see the funds performance now.

See Change
 
see_change said:
One question.

Didn't Narva used to have their performance charted against the ASX on their web site. I can only see the funds performance now.

See Change
See Change,

Yep, certainly used to be posted on their website. I guess that what happens to your marketing when it no longer paints the picture you'd like it to...

They also changed their fee accrual rules too. It used to be that they only earnt management fees when the fund beat the index for the full year based on quarterly accruals when they beat the index in those quarters. Now the full year check is gone and they'll get paid quarter by quarter when they beat the index. So, in theory, they can fail to beat the index for the full year but still have been paid out-performance management fees.

I hope this isn't a trend developing, and I expect it isn't. Probably just a result of tough times for them when the ASX is going straight up and they can't keep up. Not as suited to their model as bearish and flat markets.

Cheers,
Michael.
 
Thanks for the clarification

MichaelWhyte said:
Probably just a result of tough times for them when the ASX is going straight up and they can't keep up. Not as suited to their model as bearish and flat markets.

Cheers,
Michael.

I've been developing my thinking over the last six months . Posts by Top cropper and the post / spread sheet about changing from shares to property etc ( was it Keith ? sorry , I gave you kudos at the time ) , as well as watching the underperformance of Navra over the last few month, and while Navra may aim to provide income stream , I think the greatest profits occur in any market while that market is strongly trending as is the stock market is at the moment or as the property market was in 2001 - 2003.

From the point of view of longer term wealth creation , you should be aiming to maximise you profits during these periods by investing in vehicles that aim to take advantage of the strong trends to gain maximal capital growth during these periods.

See Change
 
see_change said:
From the point of view of longer term wealth creation , you should be aiming to maximise you profits during these periods by investing in vehicles that aim to take advantage of the strong trends to gain maximal capital growth during these periods.
Now that's a gem! And worthy of some kudos of your own...

I agree completely, and the whole concept of holding both categories simultaneously is, to my mind, diworsification. You're better off, as KiethJ posted and you alluded to, holding the performing asset at that time and divesting the other. Except property which has too expensive switching costs.

The trick is picking the long term trend. If you truly think the ASX is going to keep going up in a nice bullish way then something like the CFS geared wholesale share fund is the go. Its done 60% odd annually for a while and a lazy $1M fully leveraged into that could really help your bottom line. The problem is that the downside risk is huge. If you pick the trend wrong and it reverses your left with the bank foreclosing on your mortgage. Not sure my SANF would allow me to place all my eggs in one bid risky basket.

You got any ideas on how to pull it off without exposing yourself to too much downside risk?

Cheers,
Michael.
 
MichaelWhyte said:
OK,

Back from the gym now so promised response forthcoming...

I've been in the NavTrade Retail fund since 14-Oct-2005. I was fortunate enough to buy in just after the October correction and have riden the subsequent recovery. To date the fund has returned me 6.62% in total growth over the 4.5 months to 27-Feb-2006. This represents a gross profit of $37,013 and profit after interest expenses of $22,225 as I am fully leveraged into this fund. So, in other words, had I NOT bought into this fund as I did on the 14-Oct-2005, I would now be $22,225 before tax worse off.

Best Regards,
Michael.

Michael,

I must be missing something.... but to me it looks like you are tracking Navra unit price which makes no allowance for income distributions. It is my understanding that after an income payment the unit price drops accordingly and then has to track through a recovery phase in the next quarter.

MJK
 
MJK said:
Michael,

I must be missing something.... but to me it looks like you are tracking Navra unit price which makes no allowance for income distributions. It is my understanding that after an income payment the unit price drops accordingly and then has to track through a recovery phase in the next quarter.

MJK
MJK,

If you have a look at the attached spreadsheet then you'll see that I add back the distribution to my unit price to calculate the actual return over the period, not the net of distributions return. The December distribution was 2.7c per share so I just add that to the post-distribution share price to get my actual return.

Cheers mate,
Michael.
 
MichaelWhyte said:
The trick is picking the long term trend. If you truly think the ASX is going to keep going up in a nice bullish way then something like the CFS geared wholesale share fund is the go. Its done 60% odd annually for a while and a lazy $1M fully leveraged into that could really help your bottom line. The problem is that the downside risk is huge. If you pick the trend wrong and it reverses your left with the bank foreclosing on your mortgage. Not sure my SANF would allow me to place all my eggs in one bid risky basket.

You got any ideas on how to pull it off without exposing yourself to too much downside risk?

Cheers,
Michael.

I think it comes down to doing your due dilligence on investing in each sector and then having someway to work out which sector is the one to be in. I havn't seen any definitive work on that.

In hind sight ( great thing that , works 100 % of the time ;) ) 2003 was the time to change , however at the current stage the share market is approaching fair value ( by all reports ) so it's reasonable to assume it will and truly over shoot before it corrects on a long term basis.

As far as the amount , and the amount of leverage , that comes down to how much of a risk you want to make.

If you consider that Buffett has averaged less ( from what I recall ) than 20 % to get were he is , as long as you don't want overnight success , you don't need to get the sorts of returns you're talking about. You just need to get good returns ( in a tax efficient manner ) on a consistent basis , so not sticking you head out to far , is probably as important as anything.

See Change
 
  • Like
Reactions: ani
MichaelWhyte said:
MJK,

If you have a look at the attached spreadsheet then you'll see that I add back the distribution to my unit price to calculate the actual return over the period, not the net of distributions return. The December distribution was 2.7c per share so I just add that to the post-distribution share price to get my actual return.

Cheers mate,
Michael.

Its a good job you do Michael.

MJK:D
 
Just remember too, that any fund compared to the all ords would need to be compared to the all ords accumulation index [that's including dividends], if the fund performance is including distributions.

I suppose that would add 4% or so to the all ords performance.

See ya's.
 
I've yet to see any fund outperform what I can achieve independently and know a number of others who find the same thing. It's really about how well you understand what you're investing in and your level of commitment to hands on investing.

If you want to be hands off and trust in a funds manager, go for it. Just ensure you understand the fund manager and their system - because they are who you are investing in!

Steve Navra is pretty good in that his methodology is fairly transparent, this allows you to see both the strengths and weaknesses of the Navra Fund's approach. Some other funds are quite esoteric and it can be very difficult to understand their tactics despite their duty to have a clear and open investing strategy.

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Nice piece of info Michael Whyte. Glad to see you applying your MBA (and Somersoft time) practically :)

Have I noted you evolve your PI strategy in the last 3-4 months to focus on investing closer to home?

Top Cropper, astute observation as usual.
 
thefirstbruce said:
Have I noted you evolve your PI strategy in the last 3-4 months to focus on investing closer to home?
Bruce,

Yes, on the back of some sage advice from one of the senior members on this forum. ;) I know my local neighbourhood is a bit of a sleeper and well placed for solid future capital gain, so have decided to become the local RE expert so I can identify true value in this blue ribbon postcode when it appears.

Thanks mate,
Michael
 
Back
Top