Why the Navra Fund
- Thread starter obiwan
- Start date
Hi all,
I have a few questions of the disciples of managed funds, whether the Navra fund or any other.(plus one for the Navra followers)
Do you believe in the axiom, cut your losses short and let your profits run??? or do you make exceptions to your "normal" rules because a particular fund has such a wonderful theoretical performance??
Do you have preset points where you will say enough underperformance is enough, or do you hold "for the long term" as good companies will always come back??
Mark Lasz, When you post about how you will pile in to a fund when it is down, you should a least have the courtesy to tell the new forumites who may be viewing, that you have a personal interest as you are an employee of Navra.
Of course I know nothing about the Navra fund, but I can remember reading somewhere about how it traded a certain group of companies based on good fundamentals. If the price went down, it bought more shares in those companies, as the price rose it sold down some of those shares. As such, it should not surprise the investors into that fund, that as some stocks continue to make new highs week after week, the fund will hold less of those shares, but as other companies within the list continue to make new lows the fund will hold more of those.
Could any of the knowledgeable followers of the strategy indicate if they feel that be an accurate (short) assessment of the fund???
If it is, then where is the surprise at the underperformance compared to index funds that reflect performance of those large cap stocks that rise the most??
bye
I have a few questions of the disciples of managed funds, whether the Navra fund or any other.(plus one for the Navra followers)
Do you believe in the axiom, cut your losses short and let your profits run??? or do you make exceptions to your "normal" rules because a particular fund has such a wonderful theoretical performance??
Do you have preset points where you will say enough underperformance is enough, or do you hold "for the long term" as good companies will always come back??
Mark Lasz, When you post about how you will pile in to a fund when it is down, you should a least have the courtesy to tell the new forumites who may be viewing, that you have a personal interest as you are an employee of Navra.
Of course I know nothing about the Navra fund, but I can remember reading somewhere about how it traded a certain group of companies based on good fundamentals. If the price went down, it bought more shares in those companies, as the price rose it sold down some of those shares. As such, it should not surprise the investors into that fund, that as some stocks continue to make new highs week after week, the fund will hold less of those shares, but as other companies within the list continue to make new lows the fund will hold more of those.
Could any of the knowledgeable followers of the strategy indicate if they feel that be an accurate (short) assessment of the fund???
If it is, then where is the surprise at the underperformance compared to index funds that reflect performance of those large cap stocks that rise the most??
bye
Which seems to be a similar principle to Lichello's AIM:Bill.L said:
http://www.aim-users.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~beand/cpt/aimbasic.htm
Cheers,
GP
Bill.L said:
I was waiting for that to come up. As I have said in the past, I come on here as an individual, not as an employee of Navra. I don't see where I have a 'personal interest'? Well, not anymore than someone who may own units in the fund or shares in the company.
Maybe everyone of those people who post should 'declare their interest' also? Like I've said in the past - and will say again - I come on here as an investor, not as an employee of Navra. I am not selling anything, nor do I ever have the intention of doing so. I word my posts relating to Navra very very carefully so as not to come across as selling anything.
I made that comment Bill because that is what I would do personally, and I made that very clear. I did not, nor would I ever encourage others to do so because it is my own personal decision and it is a decision made very carefully. I most certainly wouldn't be so careless with my 'hard earned' as to blindly put it into anything simply because it was 'down'.
Your views on when to put money into the market are well documented Bill and I respect those views. They have obviously worked for you and that's great. Shame you can't accept that others like or prefer to do things differently to you. But this conversation has been repeated so many times, I'm just going to walk away from it.
Mark
To Bill,
I would agree that your estimation of how the fund works is accurate. Yes, it buys shares as they fall in value and sells them as they rise. That's the way the system is designed. Does it have flaws? Of course! Show me anything ever produced by man that doesn't have flaws.
But I would like to ask some of the detractors this question: If it is such a bad system, why is Steve so confident that it will work over the long term (by work I mean outperform the index) that he (or NavraInvest rather) only charge a fee to unitholders if it does outperform?
Yes, I understand that this issue has been thrown back and forth for a ridiculousamount of time and will continue ad infinitum but I don't recall off the top of my head the question I just asked having been asked, so I was just curious as to what some people thought in regards to it.
Mark
I would agree that your estimation of how the fund works is accurate. Yes, it buys shares as they fall in value and sells them as they rise. That's the way the system is designed. Does it have flaws? Of course! Show me anything ever produced by man that doesn't have flaws.
But I would like to ask some of the detractors this question: If it is such a bad system, why is Steve so confident that it will work over the long term (by work I mean outperform the index) that he (or NavraInvest rather) only charge a fee to unitholders if it does outperform?
Yes, I understand that this issue has been thrown back and forth for a ridiculousamount of time and will continue ad infinitum but I don't recall off the top of my head the question I just asked having been asked, so I was just curious as to what some people thought in regards to it.
Mark
Bill.L said:
I've heard of the axiom, but I am too undisciplined/slack/lazy to follow it.... tend towards selling out as soon as I see a few dollars...
On the MF front though, I tend to hold.... not for any particular reason other than just being too lazy to do anything with it I suspect....
I do occasionally attempt to "rebalance" by investing some of the returns (or proceeds of sales for that matter) into a fund that has become a bit "underallocated" due to under performance (non-performance?
)I have Navra funds, but they form less than 4% of my entire managed fund portfolio, and he is one of 12 fund managers I use.
Bill.L said:
As I have posted previously, there should be no surprise at all. If people think the October move was significant, they haven't seen nothing close to serious volatility......
Cheers,
The Y-man
Macca said:I do not have funds with Navra as I do my own investing, BUT with the index making new highs all the time it does suit buy and hold funds rather than the Navra type fund.
The Navra fund method really performs best in a market going nowhere.
just my thoughts on it
Probably more accurate to say a market channeling thru highs and lows than a truly flat market would be the ideal for a trading fund.
A buy-write fund would be the best for a truly flat market.
Cheers,
The Y-man
The Y-man said:
I would have assumed though , that that was the degree of volitility that the fund was looking for and should be expected to perform in. Earlier this year was more volotile ( from my perception ) and my trend following system hit every stop, though ( from memory ) in October only one of my trades hit a stop .
I'd be suprised if the fund was expected to perform only when the market is extremely volotile.
See Change
Last edited:
Hi all,
Mark's quote
Does the PDS allow for a change in the fee structure??
If the stocks in the index always stayed the same, then the system would have a better chance of beating it over the long term. Todays top 50 stocks (by market cap and hence index weighting) are vastly different to that of 20 years ago.
This is probably the first acknowledgement by a promoter of the fund. My main criticism has been centered around this point. All I ever see from the promoters of this fund are the positives. Full discussion for education purposes should spell out what these flaws are, what the risks are (not just the bland "there are risks with any investment").
Anything less is just plain advertising which should not be what this forum is about.
You have got to be kidding.
bye
Mark's quote
Does the PDS allow for a change in the fee structure??
If the stocks in the index always stayed the same, then the system would have a better chance of beating it over the long term. Todays top 50 stocks (by market cap and hence index weighting) are vastly different to that of 20 years ago.
This is probably the first acknowledgement by a promoter of the fund. My main criticism has been centered around this point. All I ever see from the promoters of this fund are the positives. Full discussion for education purposes should spell out what these flaws are, what the risks are (not just the bland "there are risks with any investment").
Anything less is just plain advertising which should not be what this forum is about.
You have got to be kidding.
bye
Win or Break Even are good odds!
The answer is simple. Assume a fund beats the index 50% of the time - it get's a whopping outperformance fee. The other 50% of the time it underperforms and so gets nothing. So the fund manager either wins or breaks even.
How about playing heads or tails - head I win, tails I break even - wanna play with me?
If a fundmanager was really confident he would pay the unitholders for any period that he underperformed.
The other point to make is that if someone cannot lose then it often encourages them to take bigger risks.
Cheers,
KJ
Hi Mark,Mark Laszczuk said:
The answer is simple. Assume a fund beats the index 50% of the time - it get's a whopping outperformance fee. The other 50% of the time it underperforms and so gets nothing. So the fund manager either wins or breaks even.
How about playing heads or tails - head I win, tails I break even - wanna play with me?
If a fundmanager was really confident he would pay the unitholders for any period that he underperformed.
The other point to make is that if someone cannot lose then it often encourages them to take bigger risks.
The point has been made before here.MarkLaszczuk said:
Cheers,
KJ
Last edited:
Kieth,
Good response. And something I was thinking myself. Interestingly, Navra have just changed their fee accrual process too. In the past they accrued their fees in quarters where they beat the index but only received payment from those accruals if they beat the index for the full year. That used to go a long way to ensure they actually had to outperform the index consistently before they earnt a penny.
Now, they've removed that full year check and get paid their fee quarter by quarter based on performance over that period. In other words, they can have a great quarter and get paid a nice commission thank you very much, then have a dog of a quarter and get paid nothing. They can finish the full year well behind the index but will still have been paid that nice commission in the good period that they had.
This recent change to their fee structure completely removes this "no performance/no fee" point of differentiation in the market as far as I'm concerned.
Cheers,
Michael.
Good response. And something I was thinking myself. Interestingly, Navra have just changed their fee accrual process too. In the past they accrued their fees in quarters where they beat the index but only received payment from those accruals if they beat the index for the full year. That used to go a long way to ensure they actually had to outperform the index consistently before they earnt a penny.
Now, they've removed that full year check and get paid their fee quarter by quarter based on performance over that period. In other words, they can have a great quarter and get paid a nice commission thank you very much, then have a dog of a quarter and get paid nothing. They can finish the full year well behind the index but will still have been paid that nice commission in the good period that they had.
This recent change to their fee structure completely removes this "no performance/no fee" point of differentiation in the market as far as I'm concerned.
Cheers,
Michael.
My bolding of the text.MichaelWhyte said:
Michael I think this is double speak.
At any point in time the unit price of the fund represent the liquidation value. If everything was sold you would simply multiply the units x the unit price (minus commissions for share sales and other administrative costs if there are any) and that would equal the cash pile left over.
I just don't like the language 'holding much value' or 'holding unreleased potential' as I think it's true but potentially very misleading.
Every time I buy a share It has 'unlimited potential' and 'huge future value', even more so because I just bought it
It doesn't change the fact that it's not worth any more than the price I just paid for it though. And also my purchase has 'large potential losses' built in as well. Nobody can tell the future.Perhaps someone can explain to me what I'm missing here?
Last edited:
Mark Laszczuk said:
I would just like to state here that I apologise for insinuating that the fee structure was still the same as before, as it has indeed recently changed. This was an unintentional mistake on my part.
Mark
Andrew,Andrew_A said:
Again spot on. I made this point myself over on InvestEd and was assured that there is in fact some unrealised value not represented in the unit price. I'm confused by this and made the exact same point that you did above. The answer from Steve was that its all very complex and that we should probably have a face-to-face session and explain it and any other questions to unit holders. I like Steve and his company, and obviously trust him enough to put some big money into his fund, so am looking forward to the face-to-face session to get to the bottom of a few of my concerns. At this stage I'm reserving my judgement.
When I do get some hard answers to all the questions I've raised I'll post them here now that they've been aired on SS.
At the end of the day though, I've underperformed the index since being in the fund. BUT, I've still turned a 6.5% gross profit for the quarter which makes me $25,000 better off after interest expenses are taken into account. That was my point in the original reply to this thread. You can "do worse" than turning a $25K profit before tax in 3 months. Just would have been even better had I bought the index...
Cheers mate,
Michael.
This post gets better each time i read the updates ,and varies
from person to person,imho such personal variations may account
for the distortions in a story passed from member to member of a
investment group,Michael if you do like the numbers on your money
then unlload your holdings,and do the deal yourself you may well
find that you can do no worse,or better than the fund you are in..
good luck
willair..
from person to person,imho such personal variations may account
for the distortions in a story passed from member to member of a
investment group,Michael if you do like the numbers on your money
then unlload your holdings,and do the deal yourself you may well
find that you can do no worse,or better than the fund you are in..
good luck
willair..
Hi Y man,
As this is a property forum I was trying to keep it simple.
This discussion about Navra keeps getting dragged up, with some very inexperienced people clearly not understanding that there are many different types of funds and that the performance of funds will vary according to market conditions.
They also don't seem to comprehend that when a fund states that "we do it this way" then, by law, that is the way they HAVE to do it. They cannot chop and change their strategy at whim.
There are also some experienced people deliberately stirring the pot and I think it is a little unfair to the Somers to continually use this forum to discuss the same share fund ad nauseum.
There are a lot of investment and share forums that these questions can be asked on , there are heaps of investment books available in libraries, it is OK to ask for a few pointers to these forums from the likes of you and I (and others) but , gees guys, give Navra a rest please
As this is a property forum I was trying to keep it simple.
This discussion about Navra keeps getting dragged up, with some very inexperienced people clearly not understanding that there are many different types of funds and that the performance of funds will vary according to market conditions.
They also don't seem to comprehend that when a fund states that "we do it this way" then, by law, that is the way they HAVE to do it. They cannot chop and change their strategy at whim.
There are also some experienced people deliberately stirring the pot and I think it is a little unfair to the Somers to continually use this forum to discuss the same share fund ad nauseum.
There are a lot of investment and share forums that these questions can be asked on , there are heaps of investment books available in libraries, it is OK to ask for a few pointers to these forums from the likes of you and I (and others) but , gees guys, give Navra a rest please
Thanks Michael (Whyte) for all the honest info you are providing the forum.
I, for one, would be interested in any updates as you go (your meeting with Steve) etc.
Thanks
Lily
I, for one, would be interested in any updates as you go (your meeting with Steve) etc.
Thanks
Lily
Macca said:
Macca
I don't think anyone is deliberately stirring the pot... but if the same / similar questions keep getting asked again and again and some people have strongly held , but divergent views ( assuming that these views are presented in a reasonable fashion ) , should members restrain from giving their opinion ?
If people restrained from giving their opinions , then the people asking questions wouldn't get the full range of opinions existing on the forum and might come to conclusions that they otherwise wouldn't come to.
Isn't getting different opinions what this place is all about ?
Surely those on the forum who are bored with questions re Navra should have learnt to ignore these posts by now
... and the rest of us See Change
Excellent points there see_change. Vigorous debate is what make the forum so great (if sometimes frustrating)!
Mark
Mark
Football Membership
If your football team does not perform...do you cash in your membership before the end of the season???
Imagine this...
You buy a membership to a football club.
Part of the information package of the membership said the club will aim to beat the opposition each year by a minimum of 5 points each game,
Membership information also said this membership type is ideally suited for a full season.
You buy (a considerable sum in your language).
After about the first quarter of games and approaching half way through the season, the team does not win every game by 5 points.
In fact it lost some, won some, and drew some.
Do you decide to sell out and then go and support another football team????
Have football teams not been known sit around the middle of the table getting to near the middle of the season and then something clicks and the team pulls out a miracle set of performances for the rest of the season and wins the minor premiership???????
Does this sound familiar??
I have nothing invested in Navra Funds but have used managed funds previously.
The fund's objective is to outperform the index by a considerable margin.
The PDS states the minimum investment time period of 5 years. Some of you have invested for only 4 months and are already complaining because you are looking over the fence and seeing what appears to be greener grass.
If you have invested, one can only assume you read the PDS, as I am sure all of the "sophisticated" investors have done, made sure you understood the investment, as I am sure all the "sophisticated" investors have done, and made a "sophisticated" decision to invest!??!!?!
OSS
If your football team does not perform...do you cash in your membership before the end of the season???
Imagine this...
You buy a membership to a football club.
Part of the information package of the membership said the club will aim to beat the opposition each year by a minimum of 5 points each game,
Membership information also said this membership type is ideally suited for a full season.
You buy (a considerable sum in your language).
After about the first quarter of games and approaching half way through the season, the team does not win every game by 5 points.
In fact it lost some, won some, and drew some.
Do you decide to sell out and then go and support another football team????
Have football teams not been known sit around the middle of the table getting to near the middle of the season and then something clicks and the team pulls out a miracle set of performances for the rest of the season and wins the minor premiership???????
Does this sound familiar??
I have nothing invested in Navra Funds but have used managed funds previously.
The fund's objective is to outperform the index by a considerable margin.
The PDS states the minimum investment time period of 5 years. Some of you have invested for only 4 months and are already complaining because you are looking over the fence and seeing what appears to be greener grass.
If you have invested, one can only assume you read the PDS, as I am sure all of the "sophisticated" investors have done, made sure you understood the investment, as I am sure all the "sophisticated" investors have done, and made a "sophisticated" decision to invest!??!!?!
OSS
