Navra Cashbond?

[Bill.L]

Hi Mikhaila,

The situation I am discussing involves a particular property in a middle residential suburb of Melbourne. The numbers I used were based on actual house cost, interest rates we paid, and rent levels in the area at the time.( I followed these as I argued with my wife at the time how we would have been better off renting than paying high interest rates, Doh! we all make mistakes). I also allowed for rates,insurance and property management fees to be taken out of returns.

The property originally cost $42,000 and we spent another $2000 doing up the bathroom very early on. Hence start price of $44,000. The interest rates we paid were fixed early on(our choice) at 13.5%. The rent at the time was $65 pw. After allowing for a 50 week per year rental the loss in the first year came to $3716. I then added this first year loss to the capital base $44,000 to get $47,716 as the loan size in year 2.

After 22 years this no money input purchase, would currently have a loan size of $217,338, a rent return of $200 pw. Also a current value of around $220,000-$240,000. Remember this is a straight investment return without allowing for any tax benefits. Interesting how over the long term by doing nothing the investment would have returned nothing.

This all leads to 2 questions

1/ How do annuities(cashbonds) effect the final outcome??

2/ Why invest in property at all??

Answer 1/
To service the original loan an 5 year term annuity of around $30,000 would have been needed. There is a cost to this of(according to Steve) of 2.5% pa or $750 in year 1. You would have to add this cost to your first year losses, which now become $4466 instead of $3716. So year 2 has a higher starting capital cost. As this keeps adding to the capital cost every year, the compounding accumulated losses mount up.
Whilst you can shave around the edges an reduce the 2.5% that Steve mentioned, in the 80's the margins between borrowing and lending were far higher than 2.5%. Also the figure I gave in an earlier post of $237,877 is incorrect. The figure is a LOT higher, as I hadn't allowed for extra cost to fund annuity, only ammount to fund property and assumption of upfront payment of annuity to reduce interest not possible.

Answer 2

For every dollar you are able to put into a property deal, it effectively earns a compounded, tax free rate of return equivalent to the interest rate you are paying, over an asset that you have complete control. In other words the magic of compounding is working at it's best rate for you.

So over the long term even the tax benefits re-invested help to earn you this compounded rate of return. It also means that the more you can put into the deal over the long term the better your results will be. Hence I am an advocate of Jan's philosophy of IP investment as it has to work in the long term.

sorry for the long post

bye

 

[Mikhaila]

Hi Bill

Thanks for detailed post. Before I start I’d like to say couple of things. I wasn’t interested in PI in the early 80 as I was in my early teens far away from Australia. I don’t have a feeling for how it was nor about the investment climate at the time. I don’t question your investment decisions or views. This is just how I see it from 2003.

The CB can be employed as a vehicle to help either with keeping existing assets(i.e. serviceability) or for acquiring more assets. It works together with all other usual technics – i.e. you still use NG and all tax benefits etc. etc. The asset you want to keep or acquire however should be worth keeping/acquiring. This is because CB costs you about 2.5% give or take, and even without CB this principal still applies.

The numbers you provided are really bad. It just doesn’t make sense to buy such a property. It produced a loss of 8.4%(3716/440=8.45%) of the purchase price on the first year and didn’t do much better after that for awhile as I understood. You can’t get such rent underperformance even on today hot market for seriously upmarket Toorak mansion or Brighton waterfront! Why would one buy properties in the 80s with such appalling numbers? I have recently settled on the property in Burwood. The purchase price was 301K and rent is 285pw. So, it creates losses just 1.4%(285*50/(301K * 5.9%) of the purchase price. I clearly understand we have the lowest interest rates in years and lowest rent yields too, but surely loss percentage should stay relatively stable regardless.

 

[Bill.L]

Hi Mikhaila,

Firstly congratulations on your new purchase. Did you use Steves cashbond to fund it?

Let's look at a couple of points you bring up. At the purchase of our property in 1981 the gross yield was 7.6%. The gross yield of your purchase is 4.9%.

The loss that you claim of 1.4% doesn't allow for rates,insurance or property management fees that will raise your loss.

The early 80's and for that matter the rest of the decade were a time of EXPECTATIONS of high inflation,high interest rates, and EXPECTATIONS of high growth(which were mostly delivered).

The real world example given that you call really bad numbers, is almost exactly what you would expect. If you had put nothing into a deal then after a period of time to go through several cycles the cost would be the same(the numbers are different because of inflation). If you have read Jans book of 101 Stories, in it she mentions how the ratios of price,interest rates,rents and wages seem to have a similar comparability going back to the 50's.

Relating this all back to annuities(cashbonds are just a fancy name), it shows that you have an EXTRA cost over the actual no cashin deal. If the no cashin deal leaves you exactly where you were after 22 years, the extra cost, compounded, HAS to leave you worse off.

In the current lending environment where Lo Doc loans can be obtained at a fraction above current variable rates of interest, with only asset backing and no need for income statements, the use of an annuity just becomes an expensive irrelevancy.

The whole point of the number crunching is too see what works over the long term. Just because a particular strategy has worked over the last 4 or 5 years, but doesn't work over a couple of investment cycles as a whole, starts too ring alarm bells.

bye

 

[Steve Navra]

Dear BillL,

No offense meant, BUT:

Originally posted by Bill.L

Interesting how if someone offers an alternative point of view using numbers of an actual example it's BASHING.

All opinions are valuable . . . perhaps an informed opinion might be preferable.

It seems clear to me that you unable to differentiate between how to properly structure a property portfolio and the advantages of certain methods that might be able to enhance the process. (The “IRRELEVANT” Cashbond.)

I call what you doing BASHING because. . .

The example you present is a sad indictment of the potential of property investment and this has NOTHING to do with using a cashbond.

You seem able to throw a few numbers around . . . so it must be patently clear to you that the structure you are utilising is in some way faulted if after 20 years you are unable to show a return on the asset.

Alternatively if this is as good as it gets, then why invest in property in the first place?

Originally posted by Bill.L

Steve, it's 22 years too late to suggest I never buy property and 19 years for the second one, and 16 years for the third one etc. Please re-read my post and comment on the long term use of your cashbond strategy over the last 20 odd years.

Originally posted by Bill.L


Interesting how over the long term by doing nothing the investment would have returned nothing. .

22 years later . . . and you should be at approximately the figures suggested by Kieran . . . many mega millions of dollars of value. So, with or without using a cashbond, what has gone wrong??

I humbly suggest that you might well look at reviewing the structure of your portfolio.

Originally posted by Bill.L

To service the original loan an 5 year term annuity of around $30,000 would have been needed

WHAT??
You stated that the original loan was approximately $40,000 . . . if you believe that a $30,000 (!!!!!) cashbond is required . . . Pfffffff, sorry but you haven’t got a clue what a cashbond is, or how it might be structured.

This perhaps is why you have ‘revved’ me so . . . you are offering an uninformed opinion about (Yes bashing) a structure that clearly you do not seem to fully understand.

The problem with your example is NOT a problem pertaining to the cashbond, it is a PROBLEM WITH HOW YOU HAVE STRUCTURED your property.

Also you talk about ’rolling’ the cashbond over continuously through the 20 years????

WHY???
Clearly this tells me your understanding of the cashbond is lacking.


Sincerely I wish to suggest the following:

1) I particularly dislike sparring on the forum . . . it should never become personal.
2) I offer my help on this forum to whoever asks . . . free.
3) I run courses on Investment Structure . . . please do attend, I am sure that the cashbond and how it fits into the structure will become evident. (If the marginal cost of the course or a weekend of your time is the issue, please approach me and I will help you out.)
4) Please continue posting on the forum, you make a valuable contribution and YES the wide spectrum of opinion is what it is all about.

Kindest regards,

Steve

 

[Tibor]

Hi Bill,

Firstly, thanks for your detailed postings and analysis. You are obviously a seasoned investor and like to do your homework properly.

I'd like to state that I am personally a believer of cash bond / annuity strategy (albeit I am also using Loc Doc loans) and while I agree that financially under normal circumstances it does not necessarily makes sense, once the numbers start to increase (coupled together with other issues), cash bond to me makes sense. Let me give some reasons, albeit I have to say they are very unique to my specific situation and not suitable to everyone.

1. Have large equity base, but have negative overall cash-flow due to loosing well paid work. It effects immediate quality of life as well as long term wealth creation plan.

In this situation you either sell (and while you gain cash and reduce debt, you also loose future income and cap gain, as well as will loose large part of gain to sale cost and tax liability) or seek alternatives like refinancing (non deductible debt if you are using to cover negative cash-flow) and eventually will run out of sellable equity

or

get a cashbond, buy income producing asset (business, shares, property, whatever you fency) and turn too negative cash-flow into positive and have have deductible debt

I am doing latter.

2. Have large equity base and run out of 'serviceability', but see opportunities. I know LoDoc loan is a solution, but if you can still afford to purchase property (being able to service not according to financial institution 'guidelines', but based on your cash-flow situ) and property in well researched and excellent growth area is cash-flow negative (like today), you either sacrifice lifestyle or dip into your equity by purchasing cashbond and have a life as well as have cap gain and income.

This is what I call opportunity cost and due to the fact that I did not know Steve about 18 months ago

I did not do it.

What was the opportunity I lost? Heaps, much, much more than the cost of cash-bond would have been 18 months ago. Some properties in the area (where I could not buy any more) have increased up to 100%, and basically all were strongly cash-flow positive. I could have another couple of thousands of dollars equity heaps more income and would be the verge of financially free. At that time LoDoc loans were 2% to 3% higher (not 1% as they are now) than 'normal' loans, so I did not pursue it. What a mistake it was!!! I would have covered cashbond losses for the rest of my life!!

3. Eventually (after having very sizeable asset base) you'd like to start to live off the assets (retire). Here you can sell again (pros and cons already mentioned above) and repay loans and live off debt free and pay lots of tax. I think there must be something smarter than that. Peter Span and Kevin Young have suggested
that you draw equity and use it for living (tax free), but it will become non deductible debt. This is already a better strategy, but could it be improved? Yes, have cashbond to live on and to purchase further assets. Then the interest will become tax deductible. To me this is rather for my liking. I still will have the same assets (as a metter of fact I am increasing it), fully tax deductible loans and tax free income.

I am sure there could be other variations (Dale could provide something using the 'right' structures), but to me again this is good enough.

This is what I am planning to do in the future.

In summary, while LocDoc today is an alternative, I still very strongly believe that cashbond has a very valid application when it is suitable and as far as the perceived 'higher cost' concerned, I call it (ala HK) this is the 'cost of doing business'.

Just as a last comment on LoDoc and Cashbond. I am also taking into consideration into the total cost of the eventual refinancing of loans when situation allows it to take advantage of lower interest rates offered for traditional loans. If I do not have to refinance from a Lodoc, then I am also saving money.

Cheers,


Tibor

 

[Bill.L]

Hi all,

I'll bite!!

Tibor,
No arguments from me about borrowing against equity for funding annuity in retirement, sounds like a fair strategy.
I also have no dispute whatsoever about the effectiveness of using ANY method to purchase "good" property over the last 5-6 years.

My point is to look at the numbers over the long term to see if the strategy holds up by itself. If it holds up well in the short term but not over the long term, well you can see the dilemma. Maybe I'm wrong, I have asked Steve to show some long term examples(using actual numbers not hypothetical ones), 5-6 years is not long term, 20-25 years are.

Steve, Steve, Steve,

You read my post in detail picking it to pieces in lots of places, my character must be so floored, I must be so poor, I obviously don't have a clue about anything to do with investment.

So enlighten me with numbers. We will start with one question at a time because I'm so slow.

In response to
"
WHAT??
You stated that the original loan was approximately $40,000 . .
. if you believe that a $30,000 (!!!!!) cashbond is required . . .
Pfffffff, sorry but you haven’t got a clue what a cashbond is, or
how it might be structured.

This perhaps is why you have ‘revved’ me so . . . you are
offering an uninformed opinion about (Yes bashing) a structure
that clearly you do not seem to fully understand."

The year is 1981 and interest rates for our loan are 13.5%, the amount we wish to borrow is $44,000. The rental return is $65 pw.

The Question. How much would the cashbond cost(5 year) to fund both itself and the property? Assuming we have enough "other" equity.

Question 2/ no sorry that's too many for me, I need the answer to first question.

bye

 

[brains]

This is an interesting debate. I've spoken to a few people who i consider financially savvy (my accountant, 2 x FP, bank relationship manager, finance broker) over the past few months about the LOC-->annuity and not one has positive comment.

The main sticking point is borrowing money at higher rate than you are lending it, (which at the moment is 2% but can be higher as Bill points out) which seems at odds with all fundamental financial sense, regardless of what that money is used for.

Besides this there are the fees for the bank supplying the LOC and the company suppying the annuity involved to set it up and maintain it.

Bill,

Its the nature of this forum to consider having a differing opinion on a concept "bashing", informed opinion or not.
Just recently ive witnessed a forum member leave the forum for posting something at odds with the general "opinion" of the forum and the implication and not so nice replies to her posts was she was racist. Besides that ive copped it and seen quite a few posters personally attacked over their differeing views. They usually leave for good.

Ive had numerous private messages of support by posters who agree with my sometimes contentious issues but were too afraid to post their views on the forum due to as one put it "to endure a public flogging".

Im not sure if the Somers intended this forum to become what it is now. A forum by definition is a place for people with differing ideas to be discussed and debated. Its a shame that this forum has sometimes generally morphed into something completely different.

 

[Steve Navra]

Originally posted by Bill.L

Steve, Steve, Steve,


The Question. How much would the cashbond cost(5 year) to fund both itself and the property? Assuming we have enough "other" equity.

Okay . . . I accept the peace pipe


Hi BillL,

ANSWER: . . . depends

Couple of questions first:

1) What is the current borrowing rate?
2) What is the annuity rate?

Assuming we have enough "other" equity.

Ahem . . . you perhaps mean "enough other income"?

Then:
3) What term cashbond? (Doesn't have to be 5 years)


In any event, based on an annuity rate within 1.5% to 2.5% of the cost of borrowing the money:

Point:
The cashbond required will be merely the cost of the dollars for the cashbond itself plus the difference in rental at 80% to cover serviceability.

Example: Property Price $350,000 achieving $350 pw

Assuming NO other income:

$350 X 52 X 80% = $14,560
Bank 'buffer' rate at 8.2%

Therefore serviceability up to $216,537
Shortfall to 80% LVR = $280,000 - $216,537 = $63,463

Extra serviceable required for the property $63,463 at 8.2% = 5,204 pa

Therefore for a 5 year cashbond $5,204 X 5 = $26,020

However, add in the amount needed to service the actual Cashbond itself $26,020 X 8.2% = $2,133 X5

So the cashbond would need to be $26,020 + $10,665 = $36,685

A 4 year bond would be 20% less . . . and so on.

Back to your original example:

Assuming the interest differentials where the same, then a $40,000 purchase would require a cashbond in the order of:$5,000 (Not the $30,000 as suggested. )

And . . . you would only need one cashbond!
No need to 'Roll' it over . . . assuming the original loan was for a 25 year term. (You only need the serviceability boost that once.)

Keep smiling,

Steve

PS: More questions . . . come to the Structure Course

 

[Bill.L]

Thanks for that brains,

I too have had PM's of support, and have noticed that the number of hits to this thread has been rising rapidly in the last few days, without many commenting.

Steve, thanks for the quick reply, however the question was not fully answered, maybe I didn't ask it properly.

Assuming NO other source of income but asset rich, so you would have to take the cashbond over 5 years and expect inflation and growth to work in your favour. You keep using the 5 year time frame in current examples, so lets project the strategy to the 1981 scenario. You scoffed at my suggestion that I would need a $30,000 cashbond. What would be the amount then?
The figures again;
Property purchase $44,000.

Rent return $65 pw.

Interest rate 13.5% on loan

Bank "buffer" rate 15%.

Cashbond earning rate 11%

The $5000 answer you gave is over one year only and because the property is negatively geared, it it not just an issue of bank serviceability but real serviceability. We are looking to see if the deal is OK on a stand alone basis.

And no when I said assume enough other equity, that is what I meant. We have to assume no other income (except the rent) as thats what we are using the cashbond serviceability for.

bye

 

[Steve Navra]

Originally posted by Bill.L
Assuming NO other source of income but asset rich, so you would have to take the cashbond over 5 years and expect inflation and growth to work in your favour. You keep using the 5 year time frame in current examples, so lets project the strategy to the 1981 scenario. You scoffed at my suggestion that I would need a $30,000 cashbond. What would be the amount then?
The figures again;
Property purchase $44,000.

Rent return $65 pw.

Interest rate 13.5% on loan

Bank "buffer" rate 15%.

Cashbond earning rate 11%

$65 pw X 52 X 80% = $2704 / 15% buffer

Borrowing amount available from Rental Income = $18,026

Shortfall required from cashbond: $44,000 - 18,026 = $25,973

$25,973 at 15% buffer rate = $3,896 pa

5 year cashbond of $19,480 plus $19,480 at 15% ($2,922) = $22,402.

So at the higher interest rate . . . a higher cashbond will be required. AHA you might be saying, the question remains then is a cashbond worthwhile at the higher interest rates??

Cost per anum of the cashbond portion of the loan:
The difference between the cost of the loan and the return on the annuity = 15% - 1.5% (buffer amount) = 13.5% - 11% = actual cost per anum of 2.5% of the amount borrowed.

So: $25,973 x 2.5%pa = $649.33 pa X 5 years = $3,247.

A $44,000 property would need to achieve capital growth of 1.434% pa to cover the FULL COST!

Any capital growth above that figure is the reason that justifies the cost of using the structure.

Brains . . . what I am suggesting is that the accountants / other advisors might be ignoring the potential benefit of the capital growth by looking only at the interest cost difference. (Which is typical of most accountants )

Hope this helps

Originally posted by Bill.L

The $5000 answer you gave is over one year only and because the property is negatively geared, it it not just an issue of bank serviceability but real serviceability. We are looking to see if the deal is OK on a stand alone basis.

Bill . . . I don't understand this comment???
The $5,000 answer is the five year amount, NOT just one year.

Kindest regards,

Steve

 

[Steve Navra]

Originally posted by brains
This is an interesting debate. I've spoken to a few people who i consider financially savvy (my accountant, 2 x FP, bank relationship manager, finance broker) over the past few months about the LOC-->annuity and not one has positive comment.

The main sticking point is borrowing money at higher rate than you are lending it, (which at the moment is 2% but can be higher as Bill points out) which seems at odds with all fundamental financial sense, regardless of what that money is used for.

Hi Brains,

Well then . . . every time you borrow money to buy property, you are borrowing at a higher rate than the rental income less expenses. Unless of course it is +ve cashflowed.

So do your advisors then rule out everything else??

Leverage / capital growth . . . this is excluded??


Regards,

Steve

 

[brains]

Hi Steve

When using the cashbond to buy property its the cost of the gap in the cashbond v LOC rate plus the interest rate you are borrwing the money at to buy the property plus all the associated fees for LOC + annuity + property loan along the way.

Youd have to factor in cap. growth and rental return in your eg.

Originally posted by Steve Navra
Hi Brains,

Well then . . . every time you borrow money to buy property, you are borrowing at a higher rate than the rental income less expenses. Unless of course it is +ve cashflowed.

So do your advisors then rule out everything else??

Leverage / capital growth . . . this is excluded??


Regards,

Steve

 

[Steve Navra]

Hi Brains,

Yes, f course you would . . .

Then as per my example with Bill . . . what capital growth will be required on the property to justify spending this extra money?

IF the growth required is less than 5% pa . . . is the structure then justified if it gets you the property?

Regards,

Steve

 

[Bill.L]

Hi all,

Steve, I'd love to answer your question to me, but want just a little more information, like the price,purchase costs, rental return, property management fees, rates, insurance and vacancy. Thanks. That way I can work out the real growth rate needed.

"A $44,000 property would need to achieve capital growth of
1.434% pa to cover the FULL COST!"

Wrong, instead of FULL COST it should be EXTRA COST!!

My original quote
"To service the original loan an 5 year term annuity of around
$30,000 would have been needed. There is a cost to this
of(according to Steve) of 2.5% pa or $750 in year 1."

Your answer
"So: $25,973 x 2.5%pa = $649.33 pa X 5 years = $3,247."

So I get heaps of abuse at the absurdly large figure, and I have not got a clue and the difference in cost is.... $100 per year.

So sorry for huge error, I allowed a 16% buffer in my first calculation of AROUND $30,000.

For everyone else,

I have used(and will keep using ) the example of an average house in an average suburb with average growth and rental return as I have the actual figures, not hypothetical ones. If you had not put a cent into the deal and allowed the negative cashflow of the property to be re-capitalised every year then as I stated before, the $44000 loan would have grown to $217,338 today, almost the same as starting from scratch and buying the same property today.

Was this property a good purchase?? Steve seems to think not and offered the following advice
"Dear Bill.L,

I strongly suggest that you NEVER buy a property:"

This is the type of property that Jan suggests you buy in her books and explains why.

Was it a good investment?? opinions please.

 

[Mr. Fabulous]

Bill and Steve,
First I just wanna say, maybe yall should just agree to disagree. In my opinion, this thread ain't gonna go anywhere, because one person believes the cashbond works in all situations, the other doesn't, and that's okay.
Secondly, I think the biggest problem here is that you both have different ways of purchasing property. Bill looks for (from the example) no money down deals in average suburbs with average growth. No problem with that at all.
Steve looks for properties in above average areas (growth wise) with 20% deposits. It's difficult (in my eyes) to make comparisions between each other because you look at strategies very differently, with is a-okay.
Bill, Steve can give you many real life examples, since he has an extensive property portfolio, one that many people on this forum would drool over. Just wanted to let you know.

Mark
'no hat, some cattle (but the herd is growing)'

 

[quoll]

Thank You

This very informative discussion has answered lots of my current questions. (I have been trawling through old posts about annuities and serviceability) Thanks to all concerned.

Anyway. I'm happy, I've found out about annuities and the cash bond concept. There are some great examples in here. This would be a really good start for a FAQ.

Hopefully the wife can get a bit of work and bring in another $10k - $15k so I don't have to use this new tool (yet), that is now in my tool box.

Once again, thanks.
Quoll.

 

[Donna L]

I think the other thing that is being forgotten is that you are only looking at the cashbond's improvement in your serviceability. In Steve's example, the 20k bond p.a. gives you roughly 138k borrowing power AS A STAND ALONE. However, the property you purchase brings rental income with it so you may be buying a 200k house because the rent further improves serviceability. I have since bought a 300k block of land. New loan officer looked at all my existing borrowing and said I could only borrow 50k more (based on pay rises). I said "Is that including the annuity?" Tap, tap, tap...... oh, OK that's fine. So the bond allowed me to buy 2 properties valued at 800k, my husband's salary went up by the annual amount of the bond in 2 years so the bond now provides serviceability for the land (or vice versa). It works well as a time-biding action as well - if you know your salary will be rising or perhaps an inheritance will be forthcoming in 5 or 10 years and you can pay out the loans anyway.

Just a thought.

Donna L.

 

[Mikhaila]

Wow, I was on the conference all day and miss quite a bit in discussion…

Bill, thank you for congratulation. And no, I didn’t use the cashbond to fund this property. I’d love to discuss if your example was a good investment or not, as it may provide some valuable information for people who weren’t into the IP in the 80s. I’ve opened new thread for that, as I believe there are plenty of numbers above and the annuity discussion can go forever - http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=64375#post64375.

Brains, it is sad to hear that financially savvy people you talked to don’t see the reason why to pay 2% more for the money if you have an opportunity to invest with better returns. Yes, it is risky(suicidal actually) if you invest in lemons, but it is rewarding otherwise. To give you an example, my friend in the US saw the opportunity to buy a primary water front blocks of land. He went to the bank, couldn’t get a loan as he was in the country for less than a year, then asked me to partner. I decided not to due to unknown to me market (BIG MISTAKE!). Lastly he found private US investor who decided to lend him money at a 5%(!!!) premium to current rates. He sold one block less that in 12 months for more than double of original purchase price, and still keeps other two. The moral – it’s self-explanatory I believe.

As for the fear of “enduring of public flogging” and members leaving the forum, it is a bit rich. After all if you have an opinion and believe in it – prove it is right, fight, debate, argue … It is rather difficult to flog someone who has informative opinion, and of course if it gets really bad report the post to a moderator.. I see often “agree to disagree” outcomes – this is what it is all about.

 

[paulzag]

They get it or they don't

If you want to wade through some tedious numbers, knock yourself out. There are even some interesting worked examples by Steve and others.

Let's ignore the emotion of the debate. As an aside, there are people who love nothing more than debates. The truly wealthy people I've met don't play those games, they're too busy making deals or friends. Why hang around with debaters?

If I summarise Bill.L's position as "prove that cashbonds are a good idea in all cases". Steve has a good swing at doing that, but I see it as a futile exercise. People either get it or they don't.

Steve says "here is what works for me". Naysayers respond, "here is why it will never work". Only one is right, but also, only one can make money. But the point is not that it must work in 100% of cases, only that it works in my or your case. Let the rest of the herd believe it can't be done.

Regards

Paulzag
Dreamspinner

 

[Steve Navra]

Re: They get it or they don't

Originally posted by paulzag
. . . Let the rest of the herd believe it can't be done.

Amen . . .

Says Steve