long time no promotion seems like during bad sales season only they give discount.


why sell it?

OK, let's see... declining currency, shrinking economy, massive number of unemployed, government spying on people, rampant cronyism, using government agencies to harass dissenters, rapidly rising food prices, endless class warfare rhetoric. Now who am I referring to? Venezuela or Obama's America?

It seems like I following the herd.. All the oldies including me bought in AmDynamic few years back.. Now everyone selling, so I'm selling

As like Putin, I'm not a judge... and this is not a court!

Just that I stopped reading after coming across this "IMO, higher distribution is better..i.e. more units is given to the holder. No doubt, total amt profit/loss is the same, but once NAV is gaining, your profit is getting fatter & fatter.."

It's not an opinion, it's whether you got it right or not, and you got it wrong.

No matter how many units you have, 1000, 2000 or 100,000, any gain (in terms of percentage) is still the same percentage. More units from distribution do not give any extra gain. So you see, it's a matter of maths, not "opinion".

Distribution as mentioned was for a) marketing (as like Apple splitting their shares) and b) cash distribution, as opposed to re-invested distribution. So distribution can be necessary, and you seems to get it wrong again!

Still got a little...

Seems not performing.. CMF looks better for now.

"Slightly" depends on how much you have invested. 0.4% of Rm500,000 is an extra Rm2000 a year over ten years that is Rm20,000 People only DCA when they can't stand to lose money. It reduces short-term risk at the cost of long-term gain.

DCA is better than not investing, but not better than lump-sum, as far as long-term capital growth is concerned.

This post has been edited by wodenus: Jun 16 2014, 02:46 PM

What's wrong with it? for long-term capital growth, lump-sum is always better just like buy in cash is better than HP, in the short term you take a big hit, but in the long term you come out ahead

how do you know lump sum is better? Unless you can time the market, you know when is the lowest point you should buy in.

whereas DCA is a risk averse method due to you buy in at different point of the time, no matter the price is high or low. Therefore minimise the fluctuation.

either way also can achieve long term capital growth but lump sum purchase is more for risk taker

Based on that guy's study? and many others.



The point here is to increase long-term profit, not to decrease volatility.



Yea it's more risky in the short-term but then we are talking about profits not risks.

based on whose study? Which economist can beat the market consistently over a long term period?

profit and risk are inter-related, can you ignore the risk while chasing for high return?

anyway, there is no way to justify lump sum investment approach can generate higher long term profit because there are other investment approach such as VCA. Some of the members here use this method including myself.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/dollar_cost.htm

http://ibd.morningstar.com/article/article...Id=12,%20brf295



It's actually all about perceived risk than actual risk. People DCA because they can't stand to lose money. Maybe it's better if they lump-sum and manage their mental state instead of their money

The point is this.. do you believe that it is going to go up? if yes, why aren't you all in now? if not, why are you in at all? the market won't be so volatile that the edge you get in investing small sums at market downturns can beat the edge you get being invested with a large sum as the market rises.

It just makes you feel better. It doesn't make you more money, but it makes you feel better psychologically.

Also, who is going to DCA your account after you are dead.. you have to consider that as well. Suppose you DCA your account.. maybe you have a beneficiary account in your son's or daughter's or nephew's or niece's name. He/She is a year old now.

Stick Rm500,000 in it, with your fund manager, and a clause in your will that says this money you can't touch for 50 years. Next year you are in a traffic accident, or have a heart attack and pass away. Your money is still safe, in 50 years' time your beneficiary is a multi-millionaire, won't have to worry about retirement.

If you have say Rm10,000 with your fund manager, with plans to invest Rm500,000 in your lifetime and the same thing happens, your beneficiaries won't nearly be as rich, you can't guarantee that they won't spend the money that you leave to them.

That's something you have to think about.

This post has been edited by wodenus: Jun 16 2014, 04:57 PM

You bolded the word 'more often' means you can't be 100% sure that you can earn more by using a lump sum approach. Some more the word long term is too vague, at accounting POV, it is 5 years and above, it can be 50 years either.

I do agree that DCA is a conservative approach. To a certain extend, the above article is correct but not 100% true since you may invest at peak price today, the next day stock market crashed and cannot come back to the same level even after 5 years. The lump sum approach may have got you in deep trouble

i think most of the research stats are based on longer term than 5 years - 10s of years or rolling 20 to 30 years.
"Knowing" that equities goes up in time, IF one has say $100K, the stats are for the lump sum investment instead of breaking it up to do DCA for RETURNS purposes.

DCA in above situation is more for psychological acceptance / "staying power" (ie. not run helter skelter).

However, in normal terms where we dont have $100K lump sum every year or three, then DCA, VCA or value hunting makes more sense coz if we just hold and time, bila nak masuk?

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dca-fight.asp
...
DCA Vs. Lump-Sum Investing
Both lump-sum investing and DCA have their appropriate time and place. The research shows that lump-sum investing pays off about 66% of the time, which is a long way from all the time. It certainly makes sense to look carefully at the current market conditions. If you hit that bad 33% in lumpy style, you can lose a lot of money.

On the other hand, many DCA users fail to monitor their investments after they start. The mere fact that you are investing in small pieces does not mean that you don't need to rebalance your portfolio, watch for changes in fund managers or in the economic environment, etc. So part of the problem is not DCA itself, but the fact that other investment issues still have to be taken care of. Indeed, one broker refers to the "no-brainer DCA", the equivalent of Smyth's "blind DCA".

Conclusions
DCA does not provide any real kind of guaranteed return and/or risk reduction. And it certainly does not work well in all market situations. Furthermore, research in the area indicates that lump-sum investing tends to perform better over the longer term.

Nonetheless, DCA is far less nerve-wracking than a lump-sum investment, and if there is a major bear market around the corner, it can really pay off. In some situations, it is an ideal way of controlling both risk and stress.

You can also treat DCA as just one of the strategies that you use in your overall portfolio (in other words, it makes sense to use it as a form of diversification), but as with those other strategies, you still need to monitor, manage and rebalance your DCA investments. (Read more about diversification and balance in Risk And Diversification and Rebalance Your Portfolio To Stay On Track.)

Finally, regular investing is a lot better than no investing at all. If the choice is between putting away $50 a month or treating yourself to an extra night on the town, it is clear which option will see you through your old age.
...

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Dollar_cost_averaging
...
When you are ready to invest money, a common question is whether you should invest it as a lump sum or Dollar Cost Average (DCA) by splitting your investment across several payments. The answer depends on your psychology.

In most cases, you are moving your money from cash (or the equivalent, a low-yielding money market) to some mix of stocks and bonds. The expected value of both stocks and bonds are higher than cash. However, their volatility is higher as well. The risk is that just after making your investment, the market could crash, causing you to feel bad that you invested when you did.

Of course, according to Bogleheads Investment Philosophy, you should only be investing in the first place into a diversified asset allocation. Also, you should only be holding volatile funds like stocks and bonds if your investing horizon is long enough to ride out their volatility.

For a completely rational investor, lump sum investing will always produce a higher expected return, because it immediately moves your funds from asset classes with lower expected returns to ones with higher expected returns. Note that higher expected returns do not guarantee that your actual returns will be higher. According to an investopedia article, [6] studies indicate that lump sum investing has produced higher returns 66% of the time.

Some investors have the goal, not of maximizing their expected returns, but of minimizing their potential regret. For those investors, dollar cost averaging is superior because it reduces the chances of investing just prior to a market drop. If you instead decide to invest 1/6th of the money each month for 6 months, you will reduce the chance of buying just before a crash. Instead, as the price fluctuates each month, you will buy more shares when the price is low and less when it is high.

Many new investors are more interested in minimizing their potential regret, and it's important that an ill-timed market drop not scare them off from investing in the future. Many experienced investors are more interested in maximizing their expected returns. You can also decide to split the difference, where you invest half immediately and the other half over 6 or so months.
...

Pink Spider aka MOD:

Can consider to throw all your past reply abt CMF to your front page? Trying to dig out some questions about CMF but don't know how long was it ago..

Wanted to find out how many working days to get the money out from CMF to your bank account; AND

What's the difference in procedure between buying through bank account and CMF. Don't recall buying process got any "TRANSFER FROM CMF" steps..

hope this is what you seek....
http://www.fundsupermart.com.my/main/faq/faq.svdo?id=9718#17

Thanks uncle Looi. Always can count on you on questions Been a little messy here with all the arguments (don't even know how it all started).

What I wanted to know in the 2nd question is the buying process.. If buy using cash, we press "buy", invested amount, tick the cheque/transfer something like that.. Then sign in bank account, and do the transfer.. But what about if do via CMF? There's like a "CMF purchase button"?

Q: How do I invest into unit trusts using the Cash Management Fund?

A: Simply submit a buy order and indicate the “Cash Management Fund” as the payment method. The holding of your Cash Management Fund indicated will be used for your cash purchases on the same day if received before 3pm on any business day. The buying price will be based on the T date, where T is the day we process your buy order.
The sales charge of the unit trust will be incurred and deducted from your investment amount.

btw, there is a buy method using CMF...just tested it



Attached thumbnail(s)

Thanks. Don't have the second option on my side. Maybe cause the system captured that I don't have any balance to utilize in CMF.