The answer in plain English
The concept is net portfolio assets divided by units outstanding. Plans and options can have separate NAV histories. A distribution can reduce the option’s NAV, so a price-only comparison that ignores distributions can misstate performance. An ETF’s exchange quote is another figure and may differ from its NAV.
What to check
- Match the full scheme name and AMFI/security identifier.
- Check the NAV date, plan and growth/distribution option.
- For historical analysis, preserve actual observation dates and corporate/unit adjustments.
- Use the applicable transaction NAV in your statement rather than a later public website value.
A useful comparison
| Illustrative item | Value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Net scheme assets | ₹200 crore | Assets after relevant liabilities |
| Units outstanding | 10 crore units | Denominator |
| NAV per unit | ₹20 | ₹200 crore ÷ 10 crore units |
| ₹10,000 subscription at ₹20 | 500 units before transaction adjustments | Unit arithmetic, not guaranteed allotment timing |
Make the distinction clear
The example is deliberately simplified. Actual allotment can involve applicable stamp duty and the scheme’s transaction rules. For an existing investment, keep the recorded units, NAV and dates together. Changing unit denomination does not create wealth: equal amounts gaining the same percentage produce equal gains regardless of the starting unit price.
One final question before acting
Does the figure or document match the exact scheme, plan, option, period and purpose in your question? Keep the source date with the answer. For a real transaction or personal decision, the current scheme documents and your own records take priority over a saved educational example.