still going on yklooi? but you better make it clearer la.

I dont agree i over simplify things.

A and B both invested same amount say RM10k and  invested same Ut, otherwise  people say you compare apple to orange.

Say A  used his RM10k and got 15000 units and B entered at higher NAv got only 10,000 units.

A is doing better since he got more units from same RM10k same UT.

Someone earlier argued that, A must have invested longer - Yes , only if this Ut price is always on the up and never drops when A and B entered (different time of course, otherwise how can 1 get 15k units and another only 10k units)

I disagree becos price fluctuates up and down. we are not talking abt price drop from distrib. We are talking about buying at dips , unrelated to distribution.

So if you (B) buy at 0.54 last month and i(A) buy now at 0.50, sure for the same RM10k you get less units compared to me now. And you have invested longer than me.

Then come yklooi's theory.

He said i got more units, "no use, dont be too happy, can even be more dangerous". He is saying I can also lose more when the time comes when the market crash. Here i disagree with him, if market crash, price drops, I (A) cannot be losing more than you (B) just becos i have more units .

yklooi, your theory could be correct only if A got more units solely becos he invested in larger amount of money.

So your theory will be correct if  A invested more money say RM20k and so naturally got more units compared to B who invested only RM10k and thus lesser units.

Who ever buy more (at same price), when market crash, sure will lose more then those who buy less (lesser exposure).

But we are talking about buying same amount (RM) and getting more units - A prudent buy if you wish. You are not going to lose more just becos you got more units from your prudent buy , by entering at lower NAV time.

Again i see NAV and number of units matter, nothing to do with your perennial arguments on  "increased units from distribution" ok?