The total value before distribution, and after distribution is the same.

So why is it a question whether the distribution is more or less than previous distribution, when it absolutely makes no difference?

This post has been edited by howszat: Aug 28 2011, 12:45 AM

For a minute, I thought you bought that marketing trick, haha...

That is actually the concept of a clever marketing gimmick. It makes the units look "cheap", and make people think they are getting a "big payout".

It even fools people who are "opting for payout, that's something to think about" to think about things that are irrelevant. If you want a payout, just re-invest and withdraw the number of units you want, whenever you want. You have full control, no need to waste time thinking about things which are a waste of time.

Now, that is wrong.

There is some rise before the dividends because speculators bid up the price, and some drop after because they decided to "goreng" something else, but is NOT the same as Fund distributions where it is guaranteed to make no difference to the total value of your funds.

There are some minor effects due to tax, and due to losing your MGQP if you withdraw units rather than distribution, but frankly if you don't have enough money to qualify for MGQP, don't waste time thinking that you do.

For returns, the only thing you should read is the performance graph which adjusts for distributions, and gives you the units x NAV, ie total returns:

http://www.publicmutual.com.my/application...formancenw.aspx

This gives you the real return on your total RM investment.

SMALLCAP may have been overrated.

It is (minus)1.61% at the moment for 1-year. Vs say Public Focus Select Fund which (plus)13.63 for 1-year.

Your choice.

You may want to consider putting *some* (and I'm not an agent) into PBCAEF. It has dropped drastically, and that is usually a good time to go in *if* you think China/Asean has potential in the long term.

---

Added on September 1, 2011, 11:14 pmThe PM chart is what I quoted, but it's near enough. (minus) we agree.


This post has been edited by howszat: Sep 1 2011, 11:14 PM

And that is the problem with NAV and those *dang* distributions. You cannot just go by NAV alone. See my previous post about looking at the charts instead.

If something whose real value goes from 0.25 to 0.16, my language to describe it would get me banned from this forum.

---

Added on September 1, 2011, 11:27 pmWhat do you mean? What has overseas got to do with whether equities is more or less volatile? You mean local equities are less volatile? Have you seen SMALLCAP's performance?

This post has been edited by howszat: Sep 1 2011, 11:27 PM

That's the problem - distributions are NOT profits either.

Distributions are happily given out even when the fund is making a loss. SMALLCAP for eg, is making a loss, but it is giving out a ~15% distribution.

Depends on whether you think it's going to keep going down, down, down or not?

It is a common believe among newer fund investors that fund managers will do everything to preserve their capital, but unfortunately that is not the case.

Funds that make heavy use of AGENTS who (vast majority) are only interested in you topping up (and hence topping up their commissions) doesn't help the situation.

One thing is clear - an investor still has to manage the funds they hold in addition to what the Fund Managers are doing. Exactly how is where this thread contains a variety of viewpoints.

Investors sell because the market is dropping. Why didn't the Fund managers sell earlier so the loss is not so big? What are they actually paid for?

Sure, investors pay commission, so why can't they expect performance? Why do they need Fund manager to lose money? I can lose money without paying anyone to do it.

Fund managers, through agents say all sorts of things to get people to invest. Investors have a right to question them.

---

Added on September 23, 2011, 11:48 pmReally?

So what's the point of investors buying from Fund managers rather than just investing directly themselves? What's the point of paying the service charge, management fees etc and all that?


This post has been edited by howszat: Sep 23 2011, 11:48 PM

Actually, it can be very cost effective. The switching amount has nothing to do with it, as it depends on the total amount invested in equities-related funds.

That sounds like the sort of things I might do. So I pay the FM service charges and management fees and all that and it turns out he is doing the same stupid things I might do. I can tell you that FM did nothing when the market dropped like nobody;'s business in 2008. Sorry, that's not the idea of capital preservation - if you know what that means. But apparently, I cannot blame it on him. So I repeat - why should I pay the FM to do those things I can do myself without paying additional charges?

You have got a point. Lots of things I cannot blame the FM on.

No point in paying the FM service charges, management fees then?

Yes, they are not fortune tellers, and neither are investors.

The question remains - what are investors paying them for? Especially when they can invest in stock and experience it themselves without paying FMs a single sen?

How much the FM is holding is irrelevant. How easy it is is irrelevant. This is not a thread on compassion and pity.

This is a thread on Finance, Business and Investment. Fund Management is a business. So please don't use irrelevant arguments.

Learn to read and understand - I never said I can manage it myself. I questioned why I should pay the FM when he is losing money. I can lose money myself without paying anyone any fees.

Ahhh, now you are making sense...

The FM can analyze stocks for those who neither have the time or the knowledge. The FM can see and take advantage of opportunities that the average investor can never get a whiff of. The FM can also avoid stocks that seem attractive to the average investor but is actually quite risky. The FM can also achieve a level of diversification that the individual cannot achieve. The FM can also reach markets and sectors that the average investor doesn't know about. And the better liquidity.

Next time I see the manager at the PM office, I will bring an agent's un-professional posting to his attention.

You don't actually need a whole bunch of ratios to know the China funds are under-performing.

In the medium to longer term, the performance of an "index" is dependent on fundamentals. China can no longer depend on export-led growth. They need to generate internal-consumption growth.

Ratios, or any form of technical analysis, may be useful for the shorter term, but by the time they tell you something in the long term, it's already too late.

And Fund managers may not make the most appropriate decisions given the market conditions, so that complicate things further.

And Fund managers come and go, a good manager may be replaced by a bad one tomorrow. Or vice-versa.

Ratios may be useful for some. The rest is up to you.

PS: And after looking at ratios which look bad, you may decide to sell at the bottom of the market. While the market goes up and up after you have sold.

This post has been edited by howszat: Jan 9 2012, 12:11 AM

Yes, but if and only if you believe the fund (ie. it's investment objectives) has a future.

If you don't know or have no idea or is not sure or have never thought about it or anything else apart from believing the fund has a future, DDI is a lousy idea.

It is even worse if you did it because your agent convinced you to do it.

Sure you can withdraw after 3 months minus the 5.5% fees. In other words, you will lose 5.5%.

Some agents deliberately mislead by not mentioning the relevant details, but there are some that are just blur-blur - I've met one recently.

I'm not sure which is worse.