If you read the name of this thread, it reads private retirement fund and all the discussion relates to PRS

This is getting a bit stale. But let me do the necessary anyway. Let's summarize what we know already

Sales charge
PM charges 3% sales charge
Other fund houses that's distributed through FSM - no sales charge including manulife

Management fee
FSM link provides a list of all management fee charged
http://www.fundsupermart.com.my/main/prs/g...tePRSTable.svdo

But earlier discussion shows that it's a bit more complicated than that for feeder fund. But for the purpose of this simple discussion, the management fee in the link is good enough to indicate. Well, would the fee charging PM UTC please show how much management fee PM PRS are charging? Since I'm not fee charging I won't check it myself. Have to eat my words since its readily available on Morningstar
http://gllt.morningstar.com/e6qvxuu98r/fun...B&tab=ShortTerm
The management fee for PM fund ranges from 1% for conservative funds to 1.6% for growth funds. Pretty comparable to other asset management companies it seems

Now, I believe I've just demonstrated above that there's 2 main types of fees/charges. Sales charge paid to distributors, one off for selling the fund; management fee to the asset management companies annually for managing the investments. Let's not get confused anymore. Pretty simple stuffs really

And, in summary FSM is cheaper than PM. By miles really. Actually no PM UTC bothers to dispute that fact here all these while. Until now I guess

This post has been edited by dasecret: May 1 2016, 07:52 AM

Ok, although I'm a cheapskate DIY investor, the fund performance is also very important. So if PM PRS fund performance is significantly ahead of the rest, then it would still make sense to buy it over cheaper funds

http://gllt.morningstar.com/e6qvxuu98r/fun...B&tab=ShortTerm

This link however confirms its not the case. For calendar year 2015 only 1 PM PRS fund made it to top 20, n ranked no7 (I disregarded diff fund class of the same fund)

http://gllt.morningstar.com/e6qvxuu98r/fun...B&tab=ShortTerm

1 year performance no6 n no12
YTD performance no5 n no10
So, at least it's not very bad. But then, is not very good also wor. So why invest in PM PRS when there are cheaper options?

Prospects who don't do research won't comment here la. Wrong crowd.

This is such a 'what not to do as an UTC' lesson
lukenn you can use this demo when you recruit newbies. Don't let ur disciple make mistakes like this.

After everything that you've said, I still haven't found an answer to the question I posed this morning - why invest in PM PRS funds if have to pay sales charge, get charged management fee and returns not the best?

No one is flaming you, there's no need to terasa-rasa geh. We just want facts and supported opinion. Yes, no product is perfect, so we choose what suits us. So, I've stated my point on why FSM suits me. Now it's your turn

So I can do all the background work for you?
I cannot sell one la, always bark at the wrong tree; or play piano to the cows

Hmm, I'm a big iPhone fan. Despite the fact that public mutual is charging a premium like iPhone, it doesn't seem to be so innovative and life changing. Besides, android is conquering the world with 80% market share

So if I must use phone to describe public mutual, it reminded me of blackberry. It's the first phone widely used for its email function (akin to wide distribution network via agents for PM), but getting outdated due to lack of innovation and does not move along with time quickly enough (lackluster performance in the recent years)

Anyway, this is not much of a value added discussion. But if someone from public mutual reads this, I hope they would realise they need to step up to make sure they do not become redundant in the market. I'm all for competition, it makes all market players better and the consumers would benefit. Look at the telco price war. Msia unit trust industry is small, there's lots of growth potential if things are done right

Btw, if you want to be the apple in this forum. Justify the premium price charged la, what kind of return and what kind of volatility is the portfolio that you constructed for your client in the past? If it's better than what we DIY investors can get net of fees, then why not right?

This post has been edited by dasecret: May 2 2016, 07:17 PM

You know, I was just thinking, maybe we have an unreal expectations on UTCs who try to cari makan on LYN. Just because the last guy who came to layan us was pretty damn good doesn't mean he's the new standard. I wish he's the norm, but looks like he'll be the exception for now

When it comes to $$, we tend to defend where we put our money in. Most of us are here because we invest in FSM and the FSM thread here is pretty active. So for every UTC who try to tell us we are wrong, they better prove to use why we are wrong lor... True, not everyone make money doing it by DIY; some people are better off with UTCs, but it has to be a GOOD UTC else it won't be different from DIY

Oh yeah, on will planning, I'm not sure what it really means. But FSM offers beneficiary account where law governing survivorship would apply.
https://www.fundsupermart.com.my/main/acl/r...terAccount1.tpl?

Ahem.... (1) to (3) are the facts that I gather from Morningstar which xuzen also later on validated

I'm not 100% certain. But I think if you buy from CWA it'll be class A with sales charge but lower MER
I can only confirm that if you walk in to CIMB branch to buy or buy from FSM there would be no sales charge imposed. Can't remember which class it falls into though

U mean too kacang for you

Maybe not to those who cannot find HNWI as clients ma; especially towards the end of the year, just go get cheques and signatures
There was this PRS agent siap hantar planners and all to my colleague

I OCD has to correct this

Itu Birkin nama celebriti, jenama beg tangan sebenarnya Hermes, dari Perancis

This is going to follow what EPF does, if EPF change to 60, PRS would too. And it's just a matter of time that EPF would change to 60. So I'd rather grab the tax refund now and let me money grow in PRS la

Abang,What is your basis to say PRS is safer than conventional unit trust? Even if you say the typical fund componsition are make up of both equity and bonds, it's of the same risk levels as balanced funds. Besides, as other forummer rightly pointed out, there are 100% EQ funds fed into another high risk equity fund as well

While your explanation of benefit of unit trust is that you can buy into a large pool of diversified asset is correct, a more balanced view would b, it does come with the price of management fee, and lack of control from the investor's perspective. So it's good for those who wants a hands off, no eye see approach, not so good for those who want complete control and most cost effective method

Again, I have to disagree on the same level 4 risk in PRS not as risky as unit trust level 4. I'm guessing you are talking about public mutual risk ratings, which I'm not familiar with. But I would be really skeptical if Public Mutual put in risk ratings that are not comparable across similar products. If they do that, then what's the point of having risk ratings in the first place.
But disclaimer is, I've not read their methodology of assigning risk ratings. If you want to talk about FSM risk ratings, I'd be more than happy to do so.

Let's talk about something more interesting

Singapore has their version of PRS before us. Today I decided to take a look at how it works
http://www.mof.gov.sg/Portals/0/MOF%20For/..._summarised.pdf

I like wor, the tax savings is a lot more substantial than the RM3,000 per year for 10 years. The cap is SGD12,750 per year although 50% of it would be taxable after you are retired, but assuming using the existing Msian tax regime, the effective tax rate would have been much lower and therefore still save compared to paying the taxes today

Besides, the flexibility in type of assets that you can invest in is also much better. Within the unit trust sphere it's also not as limited as PRS's

I think if the gov's main objective for PRS is to boost and supplement Msian workforce's retirement savings. SRS is a lot more superior. Why copy also cannot copy properly one

I sure don't expect Msia can create their own PRS from scratch and works like SRS. But copy only wor... EPF and CPF also similar ma

Especially when most of the working class need retirement savings so badly and that without this, the government n the rest of tax payers would be paying for the social safety net instead. Think public healthcare system; think BR1M. Just expressing my dissapointment over a wasted opportunity to ease the government of the financial burden