They sold 0.7 out of 167 billion in RM. And then they bought some, but didn't say how much in RM value.

In other words, they sold less than 0.4%. From that article alone, nothing of significance.

And why do you think the new fund is worth putting your money into?

Since it is new, it cannot be due to any of the Technical Analysis reasons.

It must be due to Fundamentals. Either that or you are an agent trying to make some quick sales?

Ok

---

Added on March 20, 2012, 12:12 amWhat I would suggest though is don't park and forget. Do review every now and then.


This post has been edited by howszat: Mar 20 2012, 12:12 AM

One of the first rules of Unit Trusts is you don't worry about distributions.

Why? Because you have the same amount of money before distribution, and after distribution.

In other words, it practically makes no difference to the amount of money you have. Because it makes no difference, you don't worry about it.

Yes, you are correct. If you keep track of your investments, you need to adjust for the additional number of units you will get after distribution.

Fortunately, PM Online does all that for you, whereas with many other Fund Houses, you can't tell whether there has been a distribution, or the funds has made a big loss - not till they send you a slip/printout many weeks/months later.

In other words, distributions are a nuisance to investors.

There is nothing to consult - what I said was correct.

If you think it's not, let me know where/how?

No news from felixwang? Answers like "consult your UTC" are about as useless as they can get.

My UTC can only tell me about new funds. Any other questions outside that, she gives a blank look, and then proceeds to tell me more about the extra 0.5% discount charges or whatever I will get from the new fund.

No, there aren't any, of significance, as far as investors are concerned.

If there are any, let's hear them. Don't be shy.

In fact, distributions are bad for investors.

You have to pay tax!

Sorry, that's just not true. Distributions are one of the basic features of unit trusts. It is something so basic that investors need to understand before they invest their hard-earned money. Listen to the UTC sure, but an investor needs to have enough knowledge to question the UTC as well, rather than just blindly follow what the UTC said. You don't have to be a UTC before you can even discuss this, right?

As I said, distributions makes no difference to the total investment, before and after distribution. Therefore, it's a waste of time to know how much the distribution is. It may be 5, 10 or even 2000 sen - it doesn't matter - you will still have the same amount of money before and after. And that is a fact.

It makes me wonder with your irrelevant example of "our oldest fund, Public Savings Fund" that you even understand this fact. Yes, you need to know how many additional units you have, to compensate for the lower NAV value. But, how does it alter the fact that your total investment doesn't change? What sort of damage would I do by stating this fact? Apart from affecting your sales?

These are basic technical discussions applicable to all UTs from all Fund Houses, so I'm pretty sure it's not advertising. Please feel free to give a direct and factual response.

I haven't come across a competent one yet, not personally or online in forums such as this - which means I'm stuck with the service charge, whether I like it or not. Which reminds me, PM/PB has one of the highest service charges around. There are other alternatives, especially online ones, which have more competitive rates, and I hear there is a trend to towards these alternatives.

You forgot quite a few things. First, investors are not just paying the UTC - investors are also paying for the following services (and I'm doing your sales job for you):

1. A high level of diversification that would be difficult to achieve for individual investors
2. Being able to access a wide range of markets in different countries - something that is impractical for individual investors
3. Far wider and quicker access to news and information that the individual would not even have access to, and never will
4. In-depth research and analysis, something that individuals may not have the time or knowledge do much of
5. Liquidity - because it is a large pool, buy/sell/switch are normally not an issue compared to some stocks/ETF which have few buyers/sellers
6. Access to bond markets - most investors don't have enough to access the bond market directly, or are not willing to put that much into a single investment

It is the fund managers who manage the above, so it is disingenious to make it sound like investors are paying UTCs for the service.

Basically, UTCs are just salesmen. You are asking all the questions a salesman would. But in this case, you are either asking the wrong questions or simply leaving important facts out.

Now that's a good idea, though the actual savings of 2+ % doesn't sound as attractive as whole 5.5%. But thanks for the reminder.

---

Added on April 7, 2012, 12:25 amYou better go and quote exactly what the rules said. What you have described here doesn't make sense.

Why should UTCs be prevented from "talking about it". Preventing them from advertising on the internet bordering on spamming, I can understand.

Why should FIMM prevent anyone discussing about it? Preventing them from misleading the public, I can understand.


This post has been edited by howszat: Apr 7 2012, 12:25 AM

mypetridish's postings appear to contain a lot of misinformation or misinterpretations.

For eg, the FIMM website has comprehensive guidelines on "ethics and professionalism" - which is fully understandable, but beyond that there is no mention about "discussing" it on the internet or your favourite kopitiam, both cyber and real.

---

Added on April 8, 2012, 2:02 amOh, we know that.

It's just that every now and then, some sort of agency manager would like to pretend that they are more than that, and insist other people are not qualified. While some UTCs do provide added-value, the majority are simply salesmen, agency managers included.




This post has been edited by howszat: Apr 8 2012, 02:02 AM

And which agent gets the commission when you choose NONE is unclear to me. Do you know?

Yeah, don't think KWSP is going to let people do what they like with their retirement funds. Defeats the purpose completely.

The problem starts when someone has only part of the information, and asks you to google the rest. Don't believe everything you read on the internet is always something to keep in mind.

No, I'm not arguing about the "trust me" or "don't call" bits.

You obviously don't have a lot of details to the extent no one knows you are were correct or not in the first place. Like you were making statements before:

When questioned, your response is to google? Do you actually know or are you speculating?

No, this is not about spoon-feeding. You appeared to have missed the point completely, so I will clarify what I said.

You made statements like "they throw U a web platform to buy/sell KLSE stocks". Does that mean the investors can buy any stocks they want? Even the speculative ones?

My question was whether KWSP really allows you to buy any stocks you want? Quote: "don't think KWSP is going to let people do what they like with their retirement funds. Defeats the purpose completely." This is because AFAIK, KWSP only allows you to invest in approved funds via approved fund managers.

From http://www.kwsp.gov.my/index.php?ch=p2life...e_invest&ac=126
Which contradicts any scheme from any fund manager which allows you to "buy/sell KLSE stocks". And I can't find anything from Phillips' website that says otherwise either.

Sure, things might have changed, and we can't be sure which ones have, and which ones haven't (until you get questioned) - we should just "get DETAILS from the horses mouth". There isn't much point to this thread then, is there?

Sorry, you are wrong. I never said that at all, and it's not even my point of argument. My main point, I repeat, is that "buy/sell KLSE stocks" is contradictory to KWSP rules - and that's it.

Let's keep the time-line in perspective. You started off by making statements as if they were statements of facts. Only AFTER you were questioned did you mention Google or ring the fund house.

The rest is simply just sillyness not worth responding to.

The fact is, I never ever said Googling is not OK. Amazing how people try to twist and turn the facts. Anyway, people can decide for themselves. That's all from me on this topic.

>> PM has service charge of 0.25% for bonds, 5.5% for equities, payable upon purchase. (No entry or exit fees.)

FSM has 2% for equities, compared to 5.5%

>> As stated, PM has many funds, that the time and get to know more about them... some equities concentrate on certain segment of the stock market ie. consumer, infrastructure, real estate, etc., some on stocks/companies that have growth potential, some on companies that provide annual dividends, etc. etc.

I used to think this is an advantage of PM funds where you have many funds to choose from, and have the flexibility of switching between different funds, keeping your funds loaded, and not having to pay the service charge when switching back to equities.

But FSM has now got the credit system (equivalent of loaded funds), plus the much much lower 2% cost, plus the online flexibility, plus the constant reminder from PM agents that I have to pay 5.5% for no added value -- I am "switching" from PM to FSM every time I get the chance.

If any one of those ratios can give you a sure winner, everyone would be rich.

But that's not the case. So there isn't any particular one ratio, or one formula, that one should look at.

Ratios can be useful, alongside many other things to look at.