just made a simulation.....
if my % of ROI since invest were to increase by 10% pa from now till DEC 2019,
my IRR is just 6.33%

what are my chances of getting 10% pa percentage of ROI since invest continuously for the next 4 years?
my guess is, it will be VERY slim....so are my chances of having IRR > 6% 
is my calculation wrong or my expectation of investment is wrong...

any TAIKOR(s) can help comment? 

Let me assist you:

Let's say on 1/1/2016 you buy a ASX fund at RM 1.00 / unit. The fund made 20cts per unit, or market up 20%. By now your fund NAV should be RM 1.20 right? You sell it, you should get RM 1.20 right?

But how much is ASX price? Forever RM 1.00, what happened to your 20cts?  They declare a 7% dividend and all of you go ga-ga! This means ASX only pay you 7cts, what happened to you other 13cts?

ASX FM then use the 13cts to keep in their holding.

Let's say next year the fund lose 20% and the NAV is now RM 0.80 and you want to redeem it immediately. They will use the rollover profit to pay you at RM 1.00.

You will say that this is good, as you are assured of RM 1.00 all the time. But for those who are financially savvy, we want full disclosure and be compensated accordingly, i.e., follow market force. We want to be able to fully able to enjoy the whole 1.20 when it is time opportune.

Now you get it?

Xuzen

p/s  for the past 10 years tracking, KGF annualized return is 16% p.a. How much is ASX? 7 or 8 % maximum right? Now you see how much opportunity cost you have lost?

Sunshine perhaps, green day everywhere

"Accumulation" is somewhat different from "buy-and-hold".
The latter means buy-and-hold for umpteen years.
The former means buy, buy, buy for umpteen years. DCA method... buying when it is low as well as when it is high.

Maybe this will helps in your timings. Get to know about moving-averages. Be patience, and buy only when the index is below its 200-day ma.
Depending on what category of funds - balanced or equity. The fund manager cannot pull out everything and swing from 100% to 0% as he likes. Only you can pull all out.

What the FM can do is beating the fund's benchmark. He cannot 'cut loss' for every single investor... if investor buys lump-sum when the market is hot, that's the investor's problem, not the FM's.

Question:
Most funds benchmark against the index. The index don't take dividend payout into consideration right? In fact, a share price usually adjust down after a dividend payout. However, a fund gets the dividend and adds it into it's NAV. Therefore, for a fund to merely beat the benchmark is a very low target. I just buy all the shares of the index and keep the dividend and I will be able to beat the index already.

I'm not sure what dividend payout you're referring to. In a share, yes... indices like KLCI or STI, should be too since they are based on the values/price of the share.

Yes, you can do that - buy all the components of the index accordingly to the weightage of the components, similar to a ETF. Most of the UTs are 'actively managed' - the fund manager is selective and weights each components differently.

As to whether you, as a normal everyday investor, can do better than the fund manager... who knows. This is the reason why there is a market for UT and many fund companies were set-up to service this demand.

Lastly, with a minimal of 1k, you can buy a diversified UT of different shares (usually around 30-70) selected by a professional who has done some analysis of maybe over a hundred or so companies.

How much money would takes to have all shares in a index, I have no idea - don't have direct interest in the share market and not bothered to know more - but I presumed it would be a lot of money. And remember that it is not a one-time-buy-and-hold, but buy, buy, buy on a regular basis... I will have to be loaded with lots of cash to able to 'buy the index' frequently.

What index performance? The first post, me got lost already... if you are trying to introduce a new idea because you know better than the UT industry, then clarify it further...

If the benchmark of the fund is KLCI, than that's the benchmark to compare the fund against. We can also compare similar funds in the same category and compare their performances too.

If you think the growth in the index is too moderate (say KLCI) - that you can easily performed better with better expected returns on your own, that's your decision.

If your expected returns is higher, and you are willing to take the risk, then maybe invest in more aggressive funds, say small-caps. And the benchmark for the fund to beat will be the Small-caps index.

So what were you trying to say? Beating the benchmark is all too easy for the fund manager to do, and the benchmark should be "modified"?

Bear in mind, not all funds performed better than their benchmarks... and beating the benchmark does not mean that the fund has positive returns; both the benchmark and the fund could be down, but the fund is higher and not as negative as its benchmark.

In the fund prospectus, the details of the fund are highlighted including its benchmark... we bought the fund on this expected risks and returns. It is a 'no brainer' that whatever new performance index will be shot down.