What's the best reason you've heard for investing from people?

[shaunwalker]

i grew up in a very poor family, just mum and us 5 kids.
we never really had enough for anything bar surviving.
i'm not complaining, i'm sure my mother did everything she could for us. and although i wasted the first 12 years of my navy life spending every pay packet (and coming home from sea to an empty house, not once but twice!).
i still remember what its like to see kids in the street buy an icecream from mr whippy and having never had one (still havent by the way).
when i find myself not acting or doing, i just remind myself of those days, and how i would never want to be that poor again. for me its not about the money, its about the freedom that money will give me

 

[qaz]

[

"take your 10k in savings, add 12K a year to it and invest all of it and you can retire in 10 years with a passive income of 80k a year in today's dollars". I was like, "sounds good to me".

Wow qaz - 10K + 12K per year and 80K passive in 10 years - can you elaborate??

You'll have to talk to Steve Navra about the mechanics of it all. I don't understand them either.

 

[geoffw]

Wow qaz - 10K + 12K per year and 80K passive in 10 years - can you elaborate??

If you could get 23% pa you would be able to do this. That presumably could be done with something like a combination of a good share fund and property investment.

 

[Steve Navra]

If you could get 23% pa you would be able to do this. That presumably could be done with something like a combination of a good share fund and property investment.

Well . . .

The answer is about STRUCTURE:
Dollar working 6 times at 5% less expenses = 15% and the Net portfolio value will double every 5 years.

I never project more than this; mainly to stay within a conservative range. (Property @5%; Shares @ 5% and cash @ 5%) And so as NOT to offer 'pie in the sky' expectations.

What Qaz is referring to is the projection of using the dollar 6 times with:
Property @ 7%
Shares @12%
Cash @ 5%

On this basis, the Net portfolio value would triple every 5 years. (Hence Qaz 10 year result)

Please note that I am NEVER predictive ; so will always prefer a conservative projection for the first year followed by REACTING at the end of each year to the previous years CG.

Regards,

Steve

 

[Jacque]

i still remember what its like to see kids in the street buy an icecream from mr whippy and having never had one (still havent by the way).

Hehe, Shaun. You're not missing out here, believe me! My family was similar and the Mr Whippy van was absolute torture for us five, as it always drove past our place and instead made a beeline for the family at the end of the street who often bought its wares.
I can still recall the first time I had one of their ice-creams yrs later and being substantially disappointed at the aerated mock cream like texture that I always thought should have tasted much better! Twas all in the appearance after all- still prefer good old Blue Ribbon from Woolies (when it's on special is even better!)

 

[Theresa]

i grew up in a very poor family, just mum and us 5 kids.
i still remember what its like to see kids in the street buy an icecream from mr whippy and having never had one (still havent by the way).



Mr Whippy brings back memories. My mother told my sister and I as kids that it was the MUSIC VAN ," LISTEN TO THE LOVELY MUSIC , SHE WOULD SAY".Well that worked for a while until a friend informed me otherwise.
Theresa

 

[likewow]

On this basis, the Net portfolio value would triple every 5 years. (Hence Qaz 10 year result)

If qaz can achive this for any length of time he'll end up owning half of Australia before long. Meanwhile back in the real world..............

 

[Sunfish]

If qaz can achive this for any length of time he'll end up owning half of Australia before long. Meanwhile back in the real world..............

In the real world these results are achievable for a reasonable number of years.

There are many reasons none of us end up owning half of Oz, but the two which spring to mind are
1/ The Law of Diminishing Returns. I can punt on a junior miner and my $5k does not make it favourite. Fundies can't buy $5m though because they are not available.
2/ The Law of Diminishing Hunger. Most middleaged millionaires are in cruise mode.

That's what I reckon anyway

Thommo

 

[geoffw]

Mr Whippy brings back memories. My mother told my sister and I as kids that it was the MUSIC VAN ," LISTEN TO THE LOVELY MUSIC , SHE WOULD SAY".Well that worked for a while until a friend informed me otherwise.

For a number of years, my children believed me when I told them the music meant that they were out of ice cream

 

[Pete]

HAHAHA, Geoff. I hope that is a joke .............

 

[quiggles]

I used to tell my elder boy, "Shh! Sit quietly and the music truck may come up our street!". Of course sitting quietly prevented him from going to the street to see the ice cream advertising on the van.

 

[JD]

If youth is wasted on the young, than retirement is wasted on the old!

I always have to fend off questions as to why I can do the things I do without a real job! Sometimes I feel I should refrain from wealth creation, get a job and satisfy the general vision (or lack of it) of our community. Yuk!

JD

 

[qaz]

If qaz can achive this for any length of time he'll end up owning half of Australia before long. Meanwhile back in the real world..............

Theres nothing unrealistic about Steve Navra's system.

http://www.navra.com.au/pdf/7percentgrowth.pdf

That was the spreadsheet that Steve put me in front of (with different input values obviously). Maybe you should consider checking it out before passing judgement.

 

[likewow]

Theres nothing unrealistic about Steve Navra's system.

http://www.navra.com.au/pdf/7percentgrowth.pdf

That was the spreadsheet that Steve put me in front of (with different input values obviously). Maybe you should consider checking it out before passing judgement.

Qaz

Maybe you should ask if i had seen the spreadsheet before assuming i hadnt. I have. What i was saying is unrealistic tripling your portfolio value every 5 years for any meaningful length of time. And investing should only be about a meaningful length of time.

 

[qaz]

Qaz

Maybe you should ask if i had seen the spreadsheet before assuming i hadnt. I have. What i was saying is unrealistic tripling your portfolio value every 5 years for any meaningful length of time. And investing should only be about a meaningful length of time.

You've seen it?.

Good. Then you can explain to me in which part of Navra's system he makes a bad calculation or an unreasonable assumption which makes his system "unrealistic".

 

[WillG]

Theres nothing unrealistic about Steve Navra's system.

http://www.navra.com.au/pdf/7percentgrowth.pdf

That was the spreadsheet that Steve put me in front of (with different input values obviously). Maybe you should consider checking it out before passing judgement.

Nice Spreadsheet,

Nothing unrealistic as long as you :-

1. Purchase 9 IP's in 10 years
2. Have growth of 7% or more
3. Continue to pay current mortgage and property holding costs.
4. Have an LVR of apx 80%
5. Can borrow money from the bank (I suspect a Navra cashbond will look after this)
6. Are comfortable haing $9.2mil in loans (The banks will love you. Perhaps an interest rate discount should be factored in for this amount of loans)

The spreadsheet is theoretical but gives a picture of how it could be done. There may be years of 3% growth and years of 10% growth. I suspect the funds will not be available in years of slower growth while 2 IP's may be purchased in years of 14% growth.

 

[likewow]

You've seen it?.

Good. Then you can explain to me in which part of Navra's system he makes a bad calculation or an unreasonable assumption which makes his system "unrealistic".

I think i have that spreadsheet on a cd somewhere. Navras system? It might be news to you that not everyone thinks Steve is god and follows his spreadsheets religously. In fact i know of a few forum members who agree with me on that.

I make better returns from shares and/or property than Steve's 'system'
or fund or property investing concepts because i do it my way and my way is best for me and therefore more successful then someone elses way.

But, not once did i say his system is unrealistic. What i did say was that tripling your portfolio value every 5 years for any length of time is. If you think its realistic because a spreadsheet tells you so, then good luck mate.

 

[likewow]

Nice Spreadsheet,

Nothing unrealistic as long as you :-

1. Purchase 9 IP's in 10 years
2. Have growth of 7% or more
3. Continue to pay current mortgage and property holding costs.
4. Have an LVR of apx 80%
5. Can borrow money from the bank (I suspect a Navra cashbond will look after this)
6. Are comfortable haing $9.2mil in loans (The banks will love you. Perhaps an interest rate discount should be factored in for this amount of loans)

The spreadsheet is theoretical but gives a picture of how it could be done. There may be years of 3% growth and years of 10% growth. I suspect the funds will not be available in years of slower growth while 2 IP's may be purchased in years of 14% growth.

Great in theory. You forgot to mention what yield you require to service 9.2 mill in loans. And what interest rates might be like in 5-10 years. And the prospect of negative growth for the next few years. And any amount of unkown variables the spreadsheet doesnt allow for in the next 10 years.


You might say that buying in good areas assures good growth but it also assures low yields as well, and that will be fun with 9.2 million in loans.

Buying 9 properties in 10 years sounds easy when looking at a spreadsheet but the reality is its a lot tougher when the market is dead flat or negative and interest rates are at an all time low with only one way to go.

I owned and IP with 17.5% interest rate, i could even contemplate buying one more at the time, not to mention 8 more. And does the spreadsheet ensure even 10% rates wont be around within 10 years?

 

[WillG]

I believe the net yield was set @ 4.5%.

There was no note that said 'it was going to be easy' or risk free but you've gotta take risks if you want to make money.

You have to start with some sort of plan. If you would have started with this plan 10 years ago you may well of been financially independant

 

[likewow]

I believe the net yield was set @ 4.5%.

There was no note that said 'it was going to be easy' or risk free but you've gotta take risks if you want to make money.

You have to start with some sort of plan. If you would have started with this plan 10 years ago you may well of been financially independant

1..At 4.5% gross yield you are already neg gearing with current interest rates at record lows. Like i said,neg gearing with loans of 9.2 mill will be fun.

2..Theres risks and theres risks. This plan is more than risky its something that an experienced investor would never take on as a fixed plan. But it looks great on a spreadsheet.

3..Aint hindsight great. Its easy to say that from this end of the biggest property boom ever but that strategy would have looked like total madness in 1995. They would have certified you.