I repeat - KNOW WHAT IS A UT

A UT is not an entity, not a company. It is a composite of securities and cash. And it is dynamic i.e. it's composition could change from day to day.

Period.

Acceptance is the word.
accept that NAV price "matters", at time you buy and again at time you sell.

When you refuse to accept that fact, you would hide under various pretexts such as "invested at the wrong time",
another word of saying NAV price was high.

If that sifu is blind to his own poison, someone tried pointing it out but was ignored
What is TIME, TIMING, ultimately it sinks down to NAV again.

Other pretext used is LUCK-
ultimately it refers NAV price again, luck means he got it cheaper.

more example here, the bottom line in discussion there is NAV price to buy and more units to get
for the same amount of money right?

This post has been edited by guy3288: Oct 3 2016, 06:21 PM

Actually I did not, I even acknowledged that mathematically when you look at ONE fund what you argued is technically correct.

But instead of just looking at that one tiny sand, even though that one sand is pricking your eye and irritated you so much, I asked you to step back and look at the bigger picture.

Let me try again, and hopefully we can move on after this.

what I was trying to say is, say everyone has rm10k to put into 1 fund. Do you just buy into the fund that ur friend bought at a price that is 10% higher? Or do you consider other factors? Of course any sensible person will tell you they will consider other factors, to try to buy into a fund that they think got better chance of making more money in the future, and hopefully not lose so much in the process

So why are you still fixated about buying the fund that you can buy at a lower price? Fell 10% may not be as good as another fund that only fell 4% as I illustrated earlier. There are more than 1 fund or 1 counter to buy. Talking about just 1 fund is meaningless in the grand scheme of things

Ok. Let say if I want to be really nice about this. What you are trying to explain is what the fancy finance people call value cost averaging where investors are advised to buy more of the fund when the price fall below certain point (not due to distribution). And it's a more than acceptable way of investing. But the way you explained obviously did not make it easy for ppl to understand

Wah boss, the most meaningful comment the whole day
How do you deal with those who are stubborn to prove that they are right and would not look at things from a different perspective even when they were told to do so?

This post has been edited by dasecret: Oct 3 2016, 05:47 PM

A and B both decided KGF is good and bought RM10,000.

A bought on 28.8.2016 at NAV 0.9855 got 3.2% more units than B who bought
on 29.9.2016 at NAV RM1.0175.

Does it matter to A what stocks KGF held on 28.8.16 when he bought, compared to what
stocks KGF held on 29.9.16 when B bought?

Aren't both of them going to have their rewards from whatever KGF 's profit the same?

Hello maam, you are so far off track! You must read before you reply.

We have already moved on, see Xuzen's post there as the ultimate reply!

We are not talking about must buy 10% cheaper and whatnot!!
We are not asking what factors to consider before we buy, what to buy etc...
We are just saying you buy cheaper you win as simple as that.

This post has been edited by guy3288: Oct 3 2016, 06:28 PM

Stubborn people are like a glass full of shitty water. You pour in distilled water, won't go in. dasecret give up ba

ok seriously, bring your vendettas elsewhere. both of you have something against each other and it's not helping the group with your spat. if you wanna argue, do it somewhere else.

Why ? A forum is the right place where people can discuss and argue. Why are we afraid of arguments and differences ? It's only bad if people don't argue and don't discuss but focussing only personal insults.

I'm actually surprised some people don't consider what's happening around here as hostile in nature. Is it just me?

This is what I "see"..."YES and NO"

buy at lower NAV?
YES,.....if I am focusing on just 1 fund that I wanted to buy.....

BUT this lower NAV cannot be used as a fixed comparison benchmark over a longer term of (1 year as most distribution are annually)
usually the NAVs moves in a range band width....after distribution it goes down then "normally" it moves up again..

thus if one were to buy lower and compared it to another that bought at higher NAV, it does not mean that the lower price time of entry is the winner.....if he did not take distribution in it.
well that is for the effect of distribution....thus cannot use longer termed historical NAV price movement as the "timing" of entry.

BUT,....if for occasional dips, YES those who bought at that time is at an advantage of "cheaper NAV"...as mathematically proven to be correct...

buy at lower NAV?
NO,...if I were looking at funds

as explained in post# 961 by Idyllrain and also in
FSM's article "Don't Let The High Fund Price Deter You "
https://www.fundsupermart.com.my/main/resea...-Apr-2012--2288

well, that is what i "see", but for many time, what i saw had been proven to be "mistakes" too

OT: Idyllrain...very long time no see your post,...welcome back...nice to drop by.

that's what i "see" too

i felt that atmosphere too, but i pretend not to "see" those not relevant "nouns" or "adjectives"....i focused on the points / facts that i "see" can add value to my mistakes or understandings.
i guess each are just trying to proof / presents their own facts and believes....
it will be +tive to other readers if no names callings are involved...

I wonder why a straight forward statement by you got such nasty replies. Maybe some just don't read to understand. What you have been saying is correct, buy cheaper will have advantage over those buying at higher price. A friend of mine is still having negative ROI over some China fund that he bought almost 10 years ago. If bought the same China fund 4 years ago would get him quite a nice profit.

I always time the market during top-up. The only time I did not time the market is when buying into a new fund as there is no way for me to predict when (not if) the price will drop much lower later. It may drop lower but it could be years later, next month, next week or even tomorrow. In the mean time, I better ride on the profit that it might give me now.

Reason being i have stirred the hornets "taboo words", NAV, TIME the market etc.........

I salute you for having the courage to say it out loud.

Not that they dont do it like you, only they dare not say it direct ie using those taboo words
or else sure get whacked by the so called sifus.

you can find those whackings regularly whenever some one 'steps' on it.

This post has been edited by guy3288: Oct 4 2016, 09:14 AM

Guy3288 made an assertion, he made a statement saying thus, "Buy at lower NAV will be better off at buying higher NAV". This is true as shown mathematically.

Then he continues," He agrees that timing the market is impractical as in his post #956 on page 48. "

Knowing that buying lower NAV is better than buying at higher NAV (shown mathematically to be true), the main question is, is it executable in a systematic fashion? Can it be executed repeatably and predictably?

Also If I were to follow your logic that you want to maximize the units per RM transacted (get more units per buy), then it is most likely you would want to buy into a risky asset that is forever on a downtrend. Sounds funny to me leh!

Your past post seems full of irony.

Here's Irony for you courtesy of Alanis Morisette:

Let's all sing to it:


Xuzen

This post has been edited by xuzen: Oct 4 2016, 10:56 AM

your friend is an idiot for keeping the fund for 10 years without rebalancing the fund and blame his lazy ass for not monitoring the portfolio. it's not about buying cheaper or not. Jesus.

Well...you can say he is an idiot but that is true for most out there who relies on agents to advise them. If agent don't do anything or saying it will go up later, he will just follow them. It could also because the drop is so huge that selling it would incur a big loss. BTW, this is a PM fund.

You're correct that it can be done only in a systematic fashion and I have my own indicator for that purpose. Here are examples of buy triggers for the last 2 years for some of our favorite funds. If no indicator, just use regular DCA loh.

Ponzi 1.0 - 24/10/14, 4/9/15, 5/2/16
EI Small caps - 26/12/14, 4/9/15, 9/9/16
TA GTF - 24/10/14, 19/2/16
KGF - 24/10/14, 26/12/14, 4/9/15, 10/6/16, 8/7/16
Ponzi 2.0 - 18/12/15, 19/2/16

i am starting to get confused liao....
isn't what was stated by kimyee about his friend that bought at high (10yrs ago) and would have been better of if he had bought at "low" (4 yrs ago)
almost similar to what that had been discussed these few pages about mathematically correct about the advantage of lower NAV over higher NAV?
which was further explained with example as in post# 965?

Read the reply and read again if you cannot catch the drift.

FYI can everyone stop talking about buying funds that have cheaper NAVs.

This post has been edited by Avangelice: Oct 4 2016, 02:14 PM

Lai Lai, come come and share share....

What indicator?

Sure win wan boh?


What do you wanna talk about next?

Talk about Viet-moi friendship?

Talk about bones? Phallanges connected to the Tarsal bones, the Tarsal bones connected to the metatarsal bones, the metatarsal bones connected to the .....

Xuzen

This post has been edited by xuzen: Oct 4 2016, 03:20 PM