In my opinion Value Averaging is superior to Dollar Cost Averaging

Hello Mr DA™
Found some new places  
Last nite...    

Value Investing
Found this link

HAHA    
If i can get rich by then.. 35 years old is 16 years from now..    
Lai go eat buffet~

Simplified example...

U started with 2 funds, ABC and XYZ with RM1K each

DCA:
Every month u blindly top up RM100 on each fund

DVA:
Month 1
ABC: RM1.1K
XYZ: RM900
U top up RM200 on XYZ. Nothing on ABC

Month 2
ABC RM1.2K
XYZ: RM1.1K
U top up XYZ RM100. Nothing on ABC

Get it?

tunjuk ajar ku seefoo

Only applies if you are trading stocks directly.. funds are all over the place. If a fund manager is good, the value of the fund goes up. So what you are saying is, with VCA the better he gets, the less you are going to invest?

Okay now assume two fund managers, one which is good, and one which is not so good. Fund manager A loses money in a bull run, fund manager B makes money. So it would follow that fund A's value drops in a bull run, and fund B's value goes up.

So now following VCA, you will be throwing more money at fund A and less money at fund B. If everyone does that, the funds which perform the worst, will have the most funding. Does that make sense to you?

Now assume that there's a market downturn, and fund A loses even more money, while fund B, because of superior stock-picking skills, manage to make even more money. The result of this is.. fund B is again punished for being really good, while loser fund B gets even more money. Again, this makes no sense.

The reason va works for individual stocks is that stocks can be overvalued. There's only one counter, and if it becomes overvalued, it becomes overvalued. It is not a fund. A fund has a cash component. Unless it is a passive index fund, it needs more money to chase more prospects.

Suppose I told you this, that I want to make 10k profit only this month. So if you are my sales person, the more money you make for me, the less I am going to pay you. The day you make 10k, I am going to totally stop paying you. And somehow you think this is a good idea.

  Den Did u buy MAS when it's around 16 cent per share?
     
Haha.. Not all is applicable to that

Algo algo full of vigor,
Let this seeker ask for guidance proper,
What shall you reveal o'algo?
So that this seeker shall benefit and prosper.

small cap increase by forty (%) seems proper,
US equity double and you will prosper,
Local large cap reduce
for it is not an asset in favor,

Listen to O'algo ye seeker,
And may ye shine and prosper.

Xuzen

Lazy to entertain u...u should get what I mean

PM can transfer into FSM ?

WAH... Master sifu Wong high roller..

Are you into share investment? Can't really remember..

In-term of benefit PM Gold, in-term of low sc FSM, that is why PM still got its market and demand.

Most FD is capital guaranteed and PIDM insured. So therefore it's "secured" and returns are "guaranteed".
Return as of now is about a max of 4% annually
UT on the other hand is not capital guaranteed.

The average return of UT (that is available on FSM) is about
1 yr: 11.3% annually
2 yr: 9.69% annually
3 yr: 8.79% annually
5 yr: 8.09% annually
10 yr: 7.98% annually

Out of 219 funds that are available (that has more than 3 yrs of data), looking at 3 yrs performance
9 (4%) had -ve returns
35 (16%) has less than 4% return annually
the rest, 175 funds or 80% had above (and mostly way above) 4% return

So in conclusion (in FSM, taking into account only funds that is longer than 3 yrs old), 80% of UT has better or WAY better returns compared to FD. And that's taking today's FD rate (it was lower previously).

Nope.. need to pay wan... dun wan lar!

My algo sendiri tulis punya (proprietary product - patent pending  ).. pakai excel punya makro learned during college/uni days. Those days used to pakai Windows 3.11 wan leh.... now you know how ancient I am liao hor...

Xuzen

On this issue of income distributions and unit splits, and the NAV price per unit, there are some sites which give the info on the min and max NAV prices.

I think they are misleading, as they lend unwanted credence and importance to NAV price.

Maybe they were copied from sites on market indices, and maybe from the stock market, without much thoughts.

Unit splits as in Apple, I'd understand... as they lower the entry price per share/lot for people to get in.

But in UT, the units are not sold in fixed amounts.

You paid RM1, you get RM1 worth of units. You pay RM100, 1k, 10k, 50k, whatever, you get the equivalent amount worth of units (minus of course, the service charges if any).

If the fund grows 10%, 15%, 20%, whatever, you still get 10%, 15%, 20%, whatever growth in your invested amount.

AND THIS IS DISREGARD, whether the nav price is 0.2500, 0.5000, 1.0000, or whatever.

That minimum of 1000 units to switch? In a way, yes, unit splits will lower the price/unit and creates more units.
And the fund house can keep the nav price within a certain price range, and allow investors to have the switch or redemption amount consistently within a certain range.

When the nav price goes too far above its price range (because of growth), without the unit splits, the investor will be forced to switch in a larger amount if he is switching at the minimum number of units.

It is an advantage to an investor with a matured portfolio. But to a younger investor who is beginning to accumulate and invest into UT, it might not be any advantage.

==============

BTW The post was to show that any investor into UT should disregard the NAV price when comparing and making a shortlist of funds. Just sharing a common knowledge that any UT investor would already knew, except to those just starting their research...

And to support my opinion that it is a marketing myth... that fund managers were trying to trick people into selecting their funds because they have cheaper nav prices.

Or maybe not, as some still insists that it is better to buy after distribution with lower nav prices!