Completely and totally incorrect.

If you have more units, your NAV decreases accordingly. No doubt NAV will grow in future, but your DECREASED NAV will grow less accordingly, in future. So that overall, you are no better and no worse off.

To say "NAV is gaining" while ignoring that fact the NAV has shrunked has nothing to do with "IMO" opinions. It's just plain wrong.

If giving distributions will make investors better off, they will do it everyday. Why not? Because it makes investors better off, doesn't it? So why not did it everyday?

Why not? Because it makes no difference. Or put it another way, there's no free lunch.

Or do I need to @summon Pink to explain to you further?

PS: ah, someone else beat me in replying.

But on an added note, this "more units the better" has been proposed by people who write financial blogs, and disturbingly, by agents I dealt with.

This post has been edited by howszat: Jun 13 2014, 10:58 PM

If people bothered with actual figures, they would not jump to the wrong "IMO" that more units are better.

For some reason, they work on "IMO", not spreadsheet figures.

It's already been explained to you.

Nobody said UT made no difference. People said distributions made no difference.

Obviously, you can't tell the difference.

If you are adventurous, India has a good outlook according to analysts.

The election was in the past, I'm wasn't talking about that.

I'm talking about the outlook for the new government. Here's one eg., http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/12/...N0EN1LC20140612