QUOTE(hocklai8 @ Aug 6 2009, 05:12 PM)
I'm smelling something fishy with AS1M, so I'll be staying away from it.
Points to note:
1) It's going to invest in equity (70%) but the benchmark return is KLIBOR (which is about the FD rate), and maybe just slightly higher. Being an equity fund, shouldn't it be benchmarked against the KLCI?
2) (Hear-say) I didn't read it first hand, but the prospectus/brochure available at some branches mentioned in its fine print that this is not capital protected, but a fixed priced fund. Well, basically its the same, but they're playing with words... I don't like how "smart" people twist with words.
3) Why is our government trying to take so much money from the citizens recently? Sukuk, ASM, ASW, and now AS1M, and they're even trying to get some from our EPF. Where are all this money being invested?
Well, just my 2 cents... It's your hard-earned money.
1. It is a benchmark means the fund is aim to meet or exceed the benchmark figure. Just like you take money out of FD, your benchmark return rate from the investment should be more than FD rate is giving which is the most basic logical sense.
In my definition/view, the benchmark carries no credibility nor it signals anything. More like paper work and tellling only. Just like you sit on exam, you aim/benchmark to beat your friend or score 70 points. Whether it achieves afterwards or not, it doesn't relate at all. In other word, it is just a target set by you.
2. Although it is still the same for most people, they can't use the word guarantee.
If said fixed price, means they will fix the price at Rm1.00 as long as they could <-- but this doesn't mean guarantee as if something really bad happening, (which is unlikely but not guarantee), as if it did it could shatter investors confidence across, which gov won't let it happening, unless gov goes under as well. But think deeper, if gov goes under, your/our Rm in bank also won't spare from it.
As it is an equities fund, they cannot guarantee your capital. They also can make loss in equities market, once they loss money and no longer have Rm1.00 as same as initial capital, they cannot guarantee your capital.
Just they will maintain the RM1 fixed price as much as they could. If their portfolio loss 50%, while every unit holder made redeemption at fixed price at RM1, then it is not sustainable for them to do it anymore.
On equities part, over long term, it tends to rise, so chance of fund losing big over the long term is low as long as fund managers are doing an ok job. PNB fund managers also not stupid, they are investing in good dividend stock across as well. Although they might invest in some part on GLCs which has no good track record, but a lot of investment are on Sime, Maybank etc those big blue chips which paying good dividend one. Those corporate are money making machine for them. Even one might say Maybank might not as good as other better well run one (which I also view the same), still it is a money making machine for them. As long as they are making money for PNB enable them to pay 5-6% which is much higher than FD rate, little people will redeem their unit.
So RM1.00 fixed price is intact.
Also bare in mind, they are controlling how much money can be into those AS1M, ASM, so basically, they have lot of control on the fund running ability to pay annually.
The fund risk or only can collapse, if everyone invested Rm1.00 initially, and PNB use the money invested in equities and equities value drop let say 50%, then everyone redeem back at RM1.00 at the same time, then they will have some trouble already in this scenario, which is unlikely to happen.
Unlike capital guaranteed fund, the 90% of the fund money is parked at gov highly secured bonds or AAA rating bonds etc, which you can get back the capital after maturity. <-- that's where they can use the word capital guarantee because it is expected to be happening, unless those bonds also being defaulted, which is another different story.
3) Gov is running on budget deficit, funding need to come from some source, either raise borrowing, issue debt to foreign investors or source it from domestic. Actually it is not that bad for gov to source the funding locally. As instead paying 4-5% interest to foreigner by issuing foreign debt, why not pay to your citizen that eager to look for some return rate that higher than FD one? A win-win situation. Also locally our financial market got lot of liquidity which people save a lot in bank, which the money could be doing nothing actually.
I don't mean gov budget deficit is a good thing, too high deficit indeed a worry. Just instead getting money from overseas and paying interest to foreigner, it is better to fund it locally and keep the money flow within the country.
One of reason of budget deficit is due to stimulus plan.