18
« on: May 30, 2014, 04:47:28 pm »
Patrick, actually you are wrong. There is a big component that you are missing. You can't compare apples with apples. Somebody mentioned earlier in this forum about "probably due to the price fluctuation. Rand cost averaging". Remember, over a 3 year period you will via your monthly purchases, buy the dips. That would give you more bang for your buck as you are purchasing in those dips giving you more "shares" in the ETF for the same amount of money.
In those dips, the lump sum option will actually lose money and will most probably make it back once the market rises again, but the monthly oke got more out of that dip.
What I do agree with you is that the table is not correct. The comparison should be between a lump sum of R10800 and doing it monthly to a total of R10800 with R300 increments.
Of course there is another component that will mess all this up. Dividends. Let's say the lump sum oke got 1000 shares for his R10800 on day one and of course he gets dividends on 1000 shares for a period of 3 years. The monthly oke starts with, aaaaa, let say R300 and has 50 shares. Hmmmm thinking of this the monthly oke might start small but will have more shares at the end than the lump sum oke. So the month oke should earn more dividends towards the end.
Dem it would be nice to unravel this precisely with true blue information. Any volunteers?