Living off equity – a Reality Check

Thommo said:
Would you please combine the five chapters of Steve's "book" into a new thread, lock it and make it sticky?

Such good work should not be lost. It should be available for reference at all times. Ta!
Just to make sure that people have seen it- this has been done.

See Living on Equity
 
thanks Dave, Glebe & Steve - re margin lenders for NavFund. Saved me asking that as the next question.

Dave, you don't need that mouse wheel, mate. Just use the ol' up / down arrows, or page up / down. Ergonomically superior?
 
Last edited:
Hi all,

Firstly, I would also like to thank Steve for putting forward all the information he has. By doing so he has naturally left himself open to all the different comments and/or critisisms that may come along. This is out of the ordinary compared to other plans/systems put up by various gurus who do not give the detail.
So despite my constant questioning/critisisms of parts of the overall "Navra method", I am very thankful that Steve gives the opportunity with his detail.
My opinion is that his method outlined in his "book" :D is more than likely to work most of the time.

My questioning is still related to risk, not the risk/risk averse nature of the individual investors that is included so far, but market risk.

If the Navra fund is fully invested 100% shares, and the market continues to fall, and then trades around a level 10-20% below where it is fully invested, it cannot continue to trade. It has no more money to buy the stocks that are now cheaper, and then when the price rises off the lows to where it would have sold some to make the profits, it can't do it, because it was unable to buy at the lows.(unless the fund then borrows, but I did not see this in the PDS). At what % decline of the u-beaut 25 stocks (it could be only 10 according to the PDS) would the fund be 100% invested??
If the fund had 2 bad years of 20% falls, then 3 years of 15% gains, the 5 year average is still below 0. Unlikely to happen? sure is, but the posibilities still need to be included.
This is not end of the world, doom and gloom stuff, but normal market behavior, for instance some of the major banks fell 60% in value between 89-91.

There is not the acknowledgement of the potential for such possibilities in the grand plan, everyone wants to be positive and think of nothing but the rosy future. If Steve could show how the plan would work given that there was a 5 year period when not only did property growth go backwards, but the fund also did not perform well due to "unforseen circumstances", I'm sure it would be greatly received.

For those planning/looking into LOE, it is not the good times, nor the average times, they wish to see. It is how something performs in the bad times, that influences them the most.

bye
 
Bill.L said:
If the Navra fund is fully invested 100% shares, and the market continues to fall, and then trades around a level 10-20% below where it is fully invested, it cannot continue to trade. It has no more money to buy the stocks that are now cheaper, and then when the price rises off the lows to where it would have sold some to make the profits, it can't do it, because it was unable to buy at the lows.(unless the fund then borrows, but I did not see this in the PDS). At what % decline of the u-beaut 25 stocks (it could be only 10 according to the PDS) would the fund be 100% invested??
If the fund had 2 bad years of 20% falls, then 3 years of 15% gains, the 5 year average is still below 0. Unlikely to happen? sure is, but the posibilities still need to be included.
Dear Bill.L,

You obviously DO NOT UNDERSTAND the DCT concept and how the actual trades occur.

As such, you statement above is totally incorrect and is LIBELOUS.

Courteously, I have invited you in for a free demonstration and explanation of the system, which you choose not to do.

Furthermore I have warned you in writing to desist from making LIBELOUS statements.

Until such time that you actually have an understanding of the concept, you are NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE COMENTS about what the system can / or cannot do.

Your above statement is made in ignorance.
I accept that you mean well, but quite frankly you don't know what you are talking about.

Beyond this, I will now ignore you on this forum, because I find you to be negative and you will "Knock" a concept for the sake of it, EVEN when you do not have a clue.

I will NOT ignore you legally beyond this point.

Steve Navra
 
Dear Forum Members,

Please accept my apologies for the unpleasantness of the previous post.

I try my best to add value to this forum and have always been happy to answer any question.

My extreme frustration is that I cannot refute a nonsensical and untrue comment.

Clearly Bill.L DOES not understand how DCT works and as such he SHOULD NOT make these wildly inaccurate claims.

My apologies again that such a post is necessary.

Regards,

Steve
 
  • Like
Reactions: Les

Sim

Administrator
At 250 replies, it's time to close this thread. If people want to continue the discussion, feel free to start a new thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muz
Top