Libel and Somersoft

Steve Navra said:
Sadly, I regret posting the 5 Chapters on the forum.

The joy I had in writing it and offering it to forum members is far outdone by the horrible outcome of having to put up with your continual negative abuse.

As such, I have to say that my ongoing participation on this forum is under serious personal review as a result of these continuous and unpleasant episodes.

Hi Steve

I've only been a member of the forum for a short time and in that time I've leaned a lot from you and others.

The 5 chapters you posted have opened up to me (and i have no doubt to many others) concepts I've never heard of, let alone considered. So, please don't have any regrets as I for one am richer in knowledge for them. (And in the future hope to be a lot richer financially from them too :p )

One thing i do know is how it feels to write a post in good faith giving an opinion, another point of view or a different angle of looking at something and then having the wind knocked out of your sails by some of the unexpected negative comments that some are so willing to give. If it wasn't for the encouraging comments, pm's and kudos I probably would have stopped posting a while ago.

So take heart, there are plenty of us here that appreciate your posts and the time it takes to sit down, type them and then construct them in a logical order so its easy for us to read and understand.

Cheers :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
Well said SOS!

Well said SOS :D

You have put into words what a lot of us are thinking. :cool:

I for one have personally got a lot out of the forum. After reading Jan's books the forum has made me keep growing and learning.

Being a bit isolated in Tassie I have found the resources on the forum invaluable. I see it as a starting point ie I kept reading about HDT's...hmm I thought maybe we should look into this....then purchased Dales books and Mr Muz and I decided it was for us.

I now have an Accountant in Victoria and a Broker in Sydney. All sourced from this forum. I have printed out Steve's 5 Chapters and when I have a chance will read it, give it to Mr Muz to read and then decide we will if we will go to Steve's Seminar.

So please don't stop contributing oh knowledgable ones.....your words inspire more than you know :)
 
Thank You Steve !!!

I think people need to take a chill pill.

Some people obviously have something missing in their life, far more powerful than worries about future financial security, to continue personal crusades against valuable posters such as Steve in this forum.

Keep it in context ... if you attack people with dishonest statements you DESERVE to be threatened with legal action and MORE !

Scare-mongering by others and making it sound as though legal action will become commonplace only fuels the problem.

Steve, please stick with us, not only do you have the voluminous support of most able-minded people to hear about your strategies, there are the many who also don't type the words to express their appreciation. In total the positive onlookers must be in the hundreds or thousands. Please weigh this up against the one or two with the knocker personalities and thier inherent petty jealousies.

People, Steve reacted to an individual making dishonest statements about Steve's commercial product. The poor b******* spent all his time free of charge to share his amazing knowledge, only to be 'pursued' by someone who appears to have issues that are best dealt with outside this forum.

I think it is great that people challenge and question Steve's views, as it provides a balancing thought process for me, provided the posts are well thought out and properly informed, with the right motivation (ie. to help others here).

I have read Steve's posts thoroughly and I have dealt with him for 2 years and I can assure you he is 100% honest, extermely switched on, and a good bloke too, and the system he has showed me definitely creates wealth. I haven't had the 'pleasure' of meeting some of his open detractors or seeing proof their supposed knowledge actually creates wealth, but I can guess the type of personality they are.

I feel sorry for the type of people we're talking about, and more sorry they have affected others on the forum with their closed-mindedness.

Steve, PLEASE keep up the GREAT work !!
 
I must say that I'm disappointed in the legal threats.

I've had some arguments with Bill before, and I've always thought his arguments were fair. I think he knows more than I do. I can see Bills concerns about DCT. There is always people with inside information in the market, that could cause a share to plummit, and not recover. I really can't see anything dishonest in Bills comments.

But I love Steve's posts too. Hopefully, we can all cool down, and get on with it.

See ya's.
 
I must say I was very suprised to see Steve's post, initially I thought he was joking! There must be other things behind the scenes, as from what I have read here, Bill was very courteous in his criticsms.

Steve, I enjoy your posts immensly. Please keep posting. You too Bill!
 
Having watched this discussion for a long time I can appreciate Steve's point of view.

He has gone out of his way to provide help and support for others. Unfortunately I don't see the same from the 'other side' - simply scaremongering and a constant refusal to accept that there may be other - even better - approaches to investing that are valid.

After Steve has offered a free course, free consultation & addressed every major concern in depth (valuable time) only to have each and every one of these offers refused, ridiculed and evaded - my real question is what's the motivation of the knocker really?

I'm in favour of healthy and intelligent debate and criticism where warranted, but there's a line......

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Hi all,

Always_Learning, this is a sad but true reflection on modern times that this thread has come about.
Apparently you can only comment about a professionals services if the comments you say are positive. To suggest that people take a look more closely (read negative comments) means the professional leaps to attack.

Where does this leave a forum?? Instead of open and honest discussion, we end up with only platitudes for every type of investment option that gets presented by a professional.

Is this what people really want?? Only one sided discussions, not reality checks as to what can go wrong with whatever??

This issue of legal recourse to opinions expressed has suddenly split the forum into several camps, this is indeed sad. I read comments like the ones that Acey just made in the previous post and wonder if he really did follow the full lines of discussion carefully enough (I know that is from my perspective) but I invite those who think that I am so in the wrong to post in the thread "opinions of investment". Please say whatever you like (about me), I will not look to issue any legal actions.

OFF TOPIC

Just a small aside.

Steve said

"I would like to say to all forum members:

Please do not be afraid or shy to ask me whatever on the forum! I am always happy to reply and answer ANY query and in reality it is the ultimate truth of the matter that is important."

This was in the "Reality check, LOE " thread.

What was I meant to think??

Ask a dorothy dixer??

bye
 
If you can do better ...

Bill.L

This is still on topic, as it was your postings that generated the mention of legal action that started this thread.

You probably wouldn't generate such disagreement from people if you presented some alternative methods and arguments of positive actions instead of just canning other people's advice.

I appreciate you playing devil's advocate as it helps balance the arguably overly optimistic view I generally take. However, unlike Navra, you don't make your alternative investment strategy clear, and you don't publicise what returns you have made. You've gone to the trouble of combing through the Navra prospectus, but actively avoid learning more detail about Navra's DCT even after his offers to you. Yet you still keep coming back with questions, that would likely be answered if you had taken Steve up on his offer.

I personally have invested with Navra and done very well, compared to what I could have done on my own.

Following your threads of discussion with Steve you are like a rabid woodpecker, and I imagine Steve's threat of legal action would be similar to the punch in the head you'd get if you kept badgering someone at your local pub to the point they 'cracked'.

Maybe your motivations are well-meaning. IMHO its the execution that leaves something to be desired.

In another thread I suggested you put your money where your mouth is, and both you and Steve start with a hypothetical sum and measure its growth over 12 months using each of your suggested investment alternatives. Then you would have more credibility and some us may well eat our hats. Or maybe not.

Sue me or otherwise, I don't care ...

Cheers
TryHard
 
Last edited:
Let's get back to commonsense... and civility

G'day AL and others,

I'm with you. We CAN disagree - and, in doing so carefully, it can provide a tremendous resource for all. Isn't that what we've been attempting to do here for the last 5+ years??? Occasionally, though, the written word can be misconstrued, misinterpreted, even just a plain mistake!! People, DO re-read what YOU write BEFORE posting.

Yes, AL, I take your point that some more guidelines might be warranted, but, until we arrive at this, what do we do? We don't want to just "shut down the forum" do we?

And (sorry, AL - this WAS the catalyst, I'm sure -so I've got to bring it up again) the Steve vs Bill debate is really nothing new. I tended to see the whole debate as akin to "positive vs negative gearing" (i.e. THEY are BOTH RIGHT - for some people).

The problem I saw was that, no matter what Steve proposed, Bill would continue with the same questions. It sounded like Steve tried everything to assist Bill to see "the other side" - to no avail. Bill stuck to his guns, and the same questions (and questionable statements) that led to Steve taking a hard line. Bill (the positive gearer) just couldn't see HOW "negative gearing" could work - unfortunately, instead of asking HOW, he laboured the "It CAN'T work" side of things.... rather than asking HOW it COULD work.

Can't say I blame Steve for protecting himself and his sanity (and his company) by refusing to answer any more questions from Bill. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, we could also "miss out" by not hearing Steve's answer (but I'm sure he has one ... and he had also offered to answer any other member - just not Bill) so....

Edited later:- I can see how THIS question (below) could take the whole thread RIGHT OFF TRACK - so, please give me a few minutes, and I'll endeavour to provide a link where we can continue to discuss this enthralling subject.
Watch for the link - please hold off on this one, Steve - and others

[Later Again...] And Steve had already beaten me to it:-
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showpost.php?p=143274&postcount=1
This thread includes an example of a share dropping greater than 20% - so it really goes a long way toward explaining what I was about to ask below. Of course, this is just ONE share, but it gives an idea of how DCT performs. Would it out-perform Bill's way? Hell, I don't know - if the whole sharemarket has tanked, which way is up???

Steve, would you mind explaining to us just how your DCT system would react to a general market downturn?

And, if that downturn continued to (say) an overall 20% drop, or even greater, (Oct 87, or 9/11) what would be the likely results for the fund?

In short, would it survive - and, if you would, please add any other thoughts that would indicate the likely performance of the fund in "bad times".



Steve, we already appreciate what you have provided so far. It's over to you now whether to indulge us one more time..... Over to you,

Thanks for your indulgence, AL - you can have your thread back now ;)

Re your original post, I'd like to see us all get back to where we were.... And to where we have been for most of the last 5 years. Every now and then, a subject pops up which starts to lean toward "the courts". I sincerely hope we can keep out of that realm by (as DaleGG says) "playing nice"....

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Comparison

Les said:
Would it out-perform Bill's way? Hell, I don't know - if the whole sharemarket has tanked, which way is up???

I think in this thread :
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19809&page=2&pp=15

where Bill has kindly outlined his suggested system, it actually would be possible to choose 10 (randomly chosen by others! ;-) ) bluechips and have Steve and Bill show what their results would be over a certain timeframe, if they would both indulge each other. (Please!)

I for one would be extremely keen to see the results, as whichever system works best to build up some reserves for the next property, with the lowest risk attached, would be very interesting. One thing I have been convinced of lately is that there is a role for equities to play in creating wealth through property.

Cheers
TryHard

PS Sorry Al, take your thread back - it is sort of on-topic, as these types of challenges and comparisons may avoid further threats of legal action :D
 
Hi all,

Tryhard,

What you don't seem to understand is the point I have been trying to make. Yes, you are correct I have not been clear enough.

It is not about what makes the most. It is about what loses the least in bad conditions, risk minimisation. Perhaps you could do some reading about the "turtles" type of trading to get a better idea of where I am coming from.

I do not believe that any system of trading can provide profits in all market conditions. Markets change and have a habit of upsetting most participants on an irregular basis.

By the way Tryhard, where exactly is my "negative tirade" against Steve??

Les,

I have to disagree with a couple of things you said. At no point have I stated that " It CAN'T work".
On the contrary, I think it will work most of the time. What I was questioning in the original post that caused the ruckis was, had the forum member considered the risk (especially with margin as was stated). What if.....

On another thread I questioned the ongoing returns of ....%, because the underlying assumptions were that they could continue indefinately. Again I could see situations arise that could undermine those assumptions. None of which are "end of the world" type situations.

The examples that Steve has provided are much appreciated by everyone (including myself) and they give a great insight of how his system works. But what about.....

The general difference is not along the theme of two types of investing (ie neg vs pos cashflow) but of determining/controlling risk, of which we obviously see differently.

Trying to bring the thread back on track, if people start to threaten legal action just because someone has got under their skin in the past and then posted what if type situations, where will it leave us??

bye
 
I had vowed to stay out of this argument but what the heck!

I can't see why there is any onus on BillL to table a "better" strategy than Steve's. He is not a professional and is not selling anything. He has a right to dissagree with DCT as a dangerous practice if he thinks so. I also believe that trading blue chips on margin is fraught with danger. Selling a good share is like divorcing a good woman. You MAY find better but you run a risk. If on the otherhand you think the share is no longer good value you sell. Simple.

If you want to trade you do a lot of reading first. I read international economics to get a sense of which sector has the best prospects (long time readers know my favourites) and look for the hopefuls in the sector. If I'm right they will become div paying mid-caps. They are still volitile and can be traded along the way. I must have traded BSG 20 times but I will be a holder when they start pouring silver.

Buy the best shares in your chosen sectors and hold until they cease to be the best. Use margin if you wish to offset some income with interest. Join the catfish at the bottom of the pond though, for fun and profit. Can't remember the code but a gold prospector went up 125% in a day on good assay results. Obviously I didn't hold or I'd know the code. LOL

I don't trade Bill's way but it has structure and can be explained. I have no structure in my trades so it would be impossible to explain further than the above brief note.

Regards Thommo.
 
Hi gang,

I don't think it is a good idea to compare trading systems. Even if you did it would take years to really be able to get a meaningful comparsion. The reason being that different systems will work better depending on levels of trend and volatility in the market.

Bill's method of trading appears to be a traditional trend following system. Whether it be based on the Turtles trading system or Weinstein's breakout system etc etc they all rely on catching part of a new or established trend.

I may be wrong but I think at least part of Steve's system is more volatility based and hence there is a possibility it will also perform in choppier markets.

But anyway it will be very difficult to compare the two systems. There are many different ways of trading and unfortunately for "most" of us the boring old buy and hold investor will usually perform better in the long run.

I came to the conclusion that I didn't have the right personality for trading (futures trading in particular). If I feel the need to boost my returns outside of buy and hold investing I will invest a small part of my funds with a competent fund mgr like NavraInvest etc. I think a good fund mgr (particulary the smaller botique mgrs) can certainly add value especially when it comes to Acitve Trading and Smaller Coys.

Cheers - Gordon
 
Hi all

I think Bill in the "Opinions in Investment" post summed it up really well

Bill L said:
I believe this to be almost the opposite of the "Navtrade system" but stand to be corrected. It adds to winning positions and gets rid of losers.

The point is, the two systems are complete opposites and Steve & Bill will never agree on approaches, because the essence of the strategy is too dissimilar.

We need to keep in mind that Steve is personally and professionally motivated to put forward his strategy's and to defend these approaches when they come under attack.

For those that have put a lot of time and effort into pointing out the risks and downsides of the approach, that is fine, but the line is drawn where facts and figures are mis-stated which essentially then become defamatory and misleading from a legal point of view.

I think that Steve, at this point, has every right to threaten legal action with what I have read so far, he needs to protect his personal and professional reputation. It would appear that Steve has given Bill plenty of opportunity to read, understand, come and see him before he has gone down this path.

Ultimately, the reality of the situation is that we all need to take responsibility for what we say and write in open forums and we cannot go around making comments that could be interpreted as defamatory and misleading.

Best Wishes

Corsa
 
Here Here - Well said Corsa. We should all realise that this forum & the contributions in it is a team effort, so pull to gether people & let's all do it MY way ;) :D
 
Hi Forum Members,

I feel this and the many related threads, have gone on for long enough:

There is no right or wrong method, there are only different choices.

Each to their own; and each investor will choose a method and risk profile that makes them feel comfortable.

Debate is very necessary, it is the heart and soul of the forum. Such discussion can be carried out with due respect for other members opinions.

It is NOT NECESSARY to attack an idea and certainly it is unacceptable to personally attack another member or their ideas.

Statements of disagreement should preferably not be made, UNLESS they are STATEMENTS OF FACT.

If one is not sure, or doesn't actually know as a matter of fact whether anothers methodology works or not, then it is perhaps better to ask the question.

Examples:

Statement of fact:
This particular share system will be minus X% if the market goes down.

Note: this statement might well be UNTRUE and would therefore be a very unfair assessment of the product.

The better method would be to ASK THE QUESTION:
"If the market went down by X% wouldn't the share system also go down?"

Notice that no offense can be taken to the question; and that the question can in fact be answered.

So I suggest that we all try to debate in "ASK" mode, rather than in "TELL" mode.

Perhaps we can now continue with the purpose of the forum, that is to learn from each other in a pleasant and civilized manner.

Regards,
Steve
 
I’m not even sure where to begin.
I’ll preface this by saying I know Steve Navra is a big boy and does not require people to run to his defence, but he’s going to get it anyway. :p

I’m a long time lurker of these forums, approx. 3 years, I found them from a link off the Steve McKnight forums and had just finished reading one of the Margaret Lomas books, I was fairly Pro-Positive Cashflow properties at the time.
But then I noticed some discussion about a guy by the name of Steve Navra. Of course I did a lot more research into the posts made by this guy and working out why people were always talking so highly of him. I soon realised from reading his posts that he had the ideas and techniques to get me where I wanted to go.
As many people on the forum said, if you only attend one seminar on investing make it a Steve Navra course. I had attended a number of other investment seminars and decided it was a great idea. Unfortunately the next Sydney course was a number of months away. In the mean time I read more of Steve’s posts. The more I read, the more I got excited and even started to worry about things that may see the course cancelled.

Now as fate would have it, I had two impacted wisdom teeth the weekend of the course, for anything else I might have cancelled, but ended up just popping pain killers like a Crack junkie and attended the course. (I had the teeth out on the Sunday night immediately after the course finished)

Why do I tell this little story- cause I think the course was more than worth it and if I had to do it again to remain a Navra client, there would be no question. :eek: (a bit over the top, maybe, but I’m that pleased – what can I say)

So you may say I’m a Navra fanboy. (Fanboy (fanboi) -a term used on other forums to denote a blind or near blind following to a cause, company or person) If so, that’s ok - I can think of a lot worse things to be called.
But why is this so? I’ve lost money to Financial planners in the past and lost money in supposed expert methods of stock trading, I should be very wary in these areas and I AM.

All I can base my opinions on are the results of my relationship with the Navra group. Starting off I was given free, on these forums, without even being a member, a vast amount of IP from this man, now in the 18+ months I’ve been an official Navra client, my financial stability has been greatly improved, I get money in my pocket on a regular basis from the Share fund, and with the help of Steve’s organisation I am in the process of buying a property with a good expectation of CG (but trying not to be predictive).
All with a high level of SANF.

Even though the end goal is financial freedom, I have found in this short time that with Steve’s (people) help I now have a lot more financial choices, 18 months ago a new addition to the family would have been “how will we afford that”, which has now become a “no brainer” – the wife (or me) could take a significant amount of time off work with little financial impact. Yes it would very much slow the asset accumulation process, but it’s now an option I (we) have.

So why do I join the forum today after 3 years of lurking and feel the need to pour all this out? Because when I saw that Steve is rethinking his position on being a regular contributor I thought something should be said. I of course have read the post that was the catalyst for this issue being raised, and trying to keep out of the legal argument and sentiments, I have flown my colours and am asking Steve to reconsider.

Maybe not even for us on the forum, but for those yet to find the forum, yet to lurk the forum and yet to post on the forum.

Steve, while I understand the reasons why you are reconsidering, also consider, that as I understand it, you do this to help others, well here is one person saying you have helped me and I THANK you for it. Please also consider people who have not yet had the chance to benefit from your knowledge. I also think your absence would leave a VERY large hole in this forum.

While this post may not be directly be about Property investing and may be a bit emotional, I suspect there may be a few more like it, if this thread was on the General area, the Legal area doesn’t get nearly the same amount of traffic.

Hope to talk more soon.
 
Corsa said:
Ultimately, the reality of the situation is that we all need to take responsibility for what we say and write in open forums and we cannot go around making comments that could be interpreted as defamatory and misleading.

I suppose this is the core of the issue for me, we cannot go making comments that could be interpreted as defamator and misleading. Excepting trolling/flamewars (pointless) between individuals (forum alias) uses we can be quite "robust" in our comments about each others personal ideas and methods etc. Generally nobody is going to get legally upset if one person says for example Perth is the best place to invest at the moment (for bla bla bla reasons) and another says it is the worst ( for bla bla bla reasons). For example if I said "Well if Sydney moves down -10% Perth will be down -15%" nobody is going to get upset legally.

Even at it's worst two individuals on the forum will simply stop talking with each other, flaming (verbal abuse) is easy to spot and the moderators can remove it quickly.

However once it is a company and we are talking about ideas, processes as intellectual property, then the matter is a whole lot more complicated and individuals would/should need to take more care in there responses as the legal stick probably would be used to silence disagrement and plan negative beligerence about a companies ideas.

In the case of Bill.L. and Steve, this issue wouldnt have happened if Steve Navra was simply an individual with a trading system. They could agree to disagree for ever and a day about the merits or demerits of a system. However Steve is a respresentive of a company and he must act to prevent misleading information being said about his companies intellectual property.

For example I know Sim and I work for companies that offer competitive products to the same markets. Actually I would be fired if I offically said negative things in public about my companies products (if such a thing was possible :D). If Sim and I were to discuss the merits/demerits openly and offically about our companies products we would have to be dance around like crazed chickens to avoid misrepresentations. (many little *'s and footnotes). eg. My companies PMT version 3.2 is 132% better at generating java dumps, and his product has girl germs. *1
[*1] According to Icelandic girl guide association

My point is simple, How the heck do I know who I am disagreeing with a person or a company? How robust can I discuss my perceptions of the negatives of someone else's ideas?
 
Last edited:
always_learning said:
My point is simple, How the heck do I know who I am disagreeing with a person or a company? How robust can I discuss my perceptions of the negatives of someone else's ideas?
Hi always_learning,

The answer is just as simple:

Disagree by all means, there is no need to worry whether it is with a person or a company.

The real point is that one should NOT STATE a point of view or opinion as a TRUE FACT OF REALITY. (Simply because our opinion might be incorrect)
I invite all members to question "whatever". (And I will always provide, to the best of my ability, an answer.)

Stating an OPINION as a TRUE FACT is different to asking the question:

I refer you back to the examples quoted:
Steve said:
Examples:
Steve said:
Statement of fact:
This particular share system will be minus X% if the market goes down.

Note: this statement might well be UNTRUE and would therefore be a very unfair assessment of the product.

The better method would be to ASK THE QUESTION:
"If the market went down by X% wouldn't the share system also go down?"

Notice that no offense can be taken to the question; and that the question can in fact be answered.




If we all show this due respect to the views of others, I’m sure we will enjoy a much better Forum environment.



Regards,

Steve
 
Back
Top