The word "Dividend" in the name of the Fund does not mean anything by itself. You still have to read up on the objectives of the fund, and what the fund actually does.

There is no difference between distribution and dividends as far as funds are concerned. In fact, funds use the word "distribution" rather than "dividends".

Funds "that give out dividends" is purely a marketing gimmick. Distributions are irrelevant. You need to look at the total gain in $ value of your investment, not how much distribution the fund has given out.

Public Mutual has THE best website around in terms of showing the actual gain of your investments in graphical form.

Public Mutual is also guilty of announcing "distributions" as if it means anything useful or relevant. Distributions are meaningless. Ignore them.

My own tracking of the performance disagrees with your conclusions.

As a quick check, PB Balance Fund graph shows about 31+% gainn for the past year (hard to tell exactly from the graph).

My own database tracking this particular fund shows 31.926% gain. So far, no evidence to say there is a 10-20% difference.

If the investor already has a PB Internet Banking account, it looks like you can do PMOnline registration via this account.

---

Added on April 19, 2010, 10:37 pmThis fund has been doing well, so many wants to buy. But being SMALL cap, there probably aren't enough shares around to buy without pushing the prices up to ridiculous levels.


This post has been edited by howszat: Apr 19 2010, 10:37 PM

It doesn't look like PM has any "feeder" funds, ie you buy a PM fund which buys into other foreign managed funds.

That way, it would suite those investors who want a foreign managed fund, and yet deal through a local company.

I haven't read through the details of every fund, so I could have missed something.

There would be some additional hidden fees, but I don't expect it would be significant or anywhere up to "double". In fact, as far as initial charges are concerned (for the ones I know), it's exactly the same as what the fund house would charge. The fund house may earn less, but then they don't have to do anything more than channeling the funds to another party who would be making all the investment decisions.

If you were to decide on a foreign fund, the main criteria should be how much the fund can potentially outperform the local funds (at least say 5% more) rather than the 0.5% you can save on fees. Fees are insignificant when you put these things into context.

Lastly, some investors may prefer dealing with local companies rather than some foreign websites, and to them that is worth a lot more than any percentage numbers we can put on fees.

If you read correctly, I put "double" in quotes. That means don't interpret it too literally.

The point about fees is really only one of many factors. The point should be how much you expect to get in hand, ie actual returns after all the fees and charges, and after all the non-tangible factors like dealing with local companies etc, the invester makes his/her decision.

True, there is a limited choice of feeder funds. But one is obviously not limited to feeder funds, only.

Indeed it is. And that's was my whole point - that it's a choice, and that such a choice is not available through PM.

Now that we are still on this topic, what your current favourite foreign fund managers/websites? Name the top 3 if you have more than 3.

PS: forget about those who might complain this is a PM thread and not foreign fund managers.

Thanks

IINM, only the 5.5% is payable, and not the RM25.

---

Added on July 1, 2010, 10:36 pmMost funds bought in the later half of 2007 would have suffered a similar fate. Quite a few in fact would still be in the red.


This post has been edited by howszat: Jul 1 2010, 10:36 PM

To be fair, this is not just PM - it applies to every other fund manager out there.

Letting the professionals handle our investments may be what many people believe, but the reality is quite different. Many funds have quite well defined objectives, like investing in particular sectors or in particular regions, and maintaining a certain % in equities. The fund managers are tied to these rules regardless of market conditions. Which means that if you buy into these funds, the decision making is not completely the responsibilities of the fund managers - you have to decide what to buy, when to buy, and when is a good time to get out, as the fund managers have to stay in, regardless. And once in a while, it is the investors causing the problem when they redeem in panic situations, and the fund managers have no choice but to sell the equities at rock bottom prices.

There are certain types of funds where the objective allows the manager wide variations in asset allocation, depending on the market condition. In theory, this sounds attractive as the manager can make decisions according to market conditions, but the funds I am aware of don't appear to do very well.

Then there are the balanced funds, where the fund managers would sell off some equities as market rises causing them to exceed the % for equities stated in the objectives and buying some back as market falls, for the same reason. This would provide a level of capital preservation that would not be seen in aggressive equities funds, in theory.

As for under-performing the benchmarks, the answer probably lies in the fact there are good managers (individuals) and not so good ones, like most things While they are responsible for day-to-day management of the funds, investors would still need to review their funds from time to time and not simply leave everything to the "professionals".

You are comparing apples with durians and orangutans.

If I don't know how to cook, and I'm paying someone to cook, I have every right to expect that cook to cook better dishes than me. Otherwise, what's the point of paying the cook?

If you are paid to do something, you may not be expected to deliver 100%, but at least you are expected to deliver value for money.

This post has been edited by howszat: Jul 3 2010, 01:25 AM

I don't believe anyone has actually complained about the point you are making, ie that fund managers are expected to guarantee that you will not make a loss. I think almost everyone understands that the risk belongs to the investor.

The point is regarding funds that perform below the benchmark. The question is why are investors charged a management fee supposedly for the expertise of those managers, and yet they perform below the benchmark? Versus the alternative which is to simply buy the components of the benchmark, no expertise required, and get better returns with much lower management fees?

The reason, I believe, is like most things in life that some will do better, and some will not. Which funds to invest in, or not invest in, is ultimately the responsibility of the investor. And not just do whatever the agent says, unless that is exactly what you want to do

You can do it anytime when PMO is online and your bank is online. If the transaction doesn't go through, say, because your bank is not online, the transaction will show as status Pending, and you have to try again some other time.

It doesn't get processed till the next business day, obviously.

I have misread your question. I saw Islamic Bond Fund in the list, but that was actually PBIBF. You are right, PIBOND is not in the list.

IMO, not a good idea.

In general, if you follow/believe in the economic cycle, "resources" will tend to do well rather late in the boom cycle, that is after excessive demand causing a shortage of resources and that is just before the un-sustainable bubble is about to burst. Whatever part of the cycle we are in, I don't think the potential for resources is there yet. However, the insatiable appetite of China and to a lesser extent, India for resources cannot be discounted, even when this double-dip keeps getting mentioned.

---

Added on July 7, 2010, 9:47 pmMost of the equity funds will do better than FD almost certainly, and many will, quite likely, do better than ASN funds. In the long run.

The question is whether you got in at the right time (or wrong time), and have the stomach to withstand the about 70% drop of Ittikal in 2008/2009. If you got in at the peak, you will still be at a loss.


This post has been edited by howszat: Jul 7 2010, 09:47 PM

This one has good potential. But one that needs a strong stomach. And a decisive reaction to cut loss when required.

By default, it does not bring you to the English page. You need to click on the little "English" option at the top of the page.

I'm going to put a little bit in. This is definitely a high-risk, big loss high return type of fund. Compounded by the fact the Rupiah is also prone to big swings.

PS: someone already mentioned about the English click. That's what happens when you start a reply and the phone rings.

---

Added on September 14, 2010, 9:04 pmJust a comment that while agents would like to talk about cost-averaging, it does not mean it's a sure winner in the long term.

Some funds will do well in the long term, some funds wouldn't. The ones that are less likely to do well in the long term are sector-specific, like Properties related.

Instead, for the long term, you should consider less sector-specific funds. Like equity funds which are more across-the-board, or balanced funds.




This post has been edited by howszat: Sep 14 2010, 09:04 PM

In general, I agree with your sentiment about track record. However, the track record is not in the fund itself, but the market the fund is investing in. In a trending market, most funds will make money - whether good record, bad record or no record. Not that I'm saying the market is trending now - one have to judge that for oneself

You can switch to another fund rather than withdraw. A significant advantage of the PM/PB funds is you have numerous funds to choose from and you can switch easily via PM Online.

Leveraging amplifies your returns, and your losses - which ever applies.

Both the PM/PB Australian funds have experienced big swings up and down in the last few months, amplified by the AUD exchange rate which have been swinging in the same direction. The trend doesn't appear to be up or down, just big swings.

If you look at the 5-year graph, the blue is above the red. If you look at the 10-year graph, the blue is way above the red. So that makes it over-perform.

In UT, you can't just look at the short term. Well, maybe you can - if you want to base your decisions on recent events.