Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Public Mutual v4, Public/PB series funds

views
     
howszat
post Aug 13 2012, 11:02 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(Kaka23 @ Aug 13 2012, 09:12 PM)
...get UTC to manage for you (if you manage to get a good and commited one la).
*
Some things to note:
(1) Good agents are rare
(2) Good and Committed agents are even rarer (if they exist, we would not need the rest of those salesmen/women)
(3) If you make a loss, that's your problem
(4) Sales charge are higher than EVERYONE else
(5) PM performance lost out to other fund managers in ALL categories. It's the biggest, but cannot manage to win anything in any category. It's just like going to the Olympics and claiming you have the largest number of Bronze, but no Silver, and no Gold. And yet charge the highest fees.

Question: why should anyone invest with PM?

I'm open to ideas why I should not move to other channels which offer better performing funds at lower costs? (1% compared to 5.5%)?






howszat
post Aug 14 2012, 09:29 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(xuzen @ Aug 14 2012, 04:04 PM)
Very low cost Mega-index funds like Vanguard S&P 500. How does 0.1% annual management fee sound to you? Still want to pay 1.5% AMF?
*

Yes, I would happily pay 1.5% AMF (and more) if the Fund Manager can return profits more than anyone else. Clue: Think of Hedge Fund managers.

Focusing on just the AMF is the wrong thing to do.

I don't know what's required for CUTA, but that was the wrong question to ask.

howszat
post Aug 14 2012, 10:02 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(xuzen @ Aug 14 2012, 09:49 PM)
The operative word is the "IF". If the Fund manager return an alpha greater than benchmark fine and dandy to me as well.

However, the operative word is can the Fund manager consistently return an alpha greater than its benchmark? If yes, can its risk be lower than that of the benchmark consistently?

It was this question that prompted John Bogle the fund manager to set up this ultra low cost fund that utilizes passive investing.

Also, if you have read A random walk down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel, the author also come to the same conclusion.

I also have another book All About Index Fund by Richard Ferri in my personal library which also advocate low cost index fund for investor.

On a parting note, I agree that low AER is not the only parameter for choosing a fund, but it does play a part. For me, it plays a big part in choosing a fund. Why the heck you think I become an agent if not to reduce the cost of investment.

Also, by being CUTA, I have access to off-shore funds where the AER is much lower and zero sales charge.

I am first and foremost an investor, hence I think like an investor, not as an agent.

Xuzen.
*
(1) There are no "IF"s as far as I can see in your question: "How does 0.1% annual management fee sound to you? Still want to pay 1.5% AMF? ".

(2) Random walks by who? Alpha what? I don't care about random walks by whoever. I don't care about costs either. I care about PROFITS to me. If you really need to know, I can dig up all sorts of funds with very low costs and LOSSES.

If you care too much about random walks, and about managements fees, and about all sorts of ratios without even understand what a simple figure, ie PROFIT mean, you are just barking up the wrong tree.

This post has been edited by howszat: Aug 14 2012, 10:05 PM
howszat
post Aug 15 2012, 08:21 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(xuzen @ Aug 15 2012, 01:14 PM)
Profit is a function of sale minus cost, and if you do not care about cost, you are missing a parameter in the equation. Since cost is positively co-related variable in the profit equation, you lower the cost, the better your profit.
Best to demonstrate with an example. Consider the following:

(1) Sale=100. Cost=10. Profit=100-10=90
(2) Sale=11. Cost=1. Profit=11-1=10

(2) has lower cost. (1) has higher profit.

You prefer (2) with lower cost?

Me - I prefer (1) with higher profit. I just look at profit of 90. I don't care about the cost of 1. Assuming, of course, other factors being equivalent.



howszat
post Aug 16 2012, 08:51 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(xuzen @ Aug 16 2012, 11:17 AM)
Yay, at last we have some numbers to play around:

i) I prefer option 2 because Profit/sale x 100 = Profit margin. Hence 10/11 x 100 = 90.90% profit margin versus you little puny tiny 90.00% margin. LOL at you.

Not very financial literate are we?

Young padawan, too one dimensional one is, more knowledge one acquire should.

*
Ah, good catch. smile.gif

Try this then:

(1) Sale=100. Cost=10. Profit=100-10=90
(2) Sale=9. Cost=1. Profit=9-1=8

Does your financial literacy based on low cost still apply?
howszat
post Aug 16 2012, 09:50 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(j.passing.by @ Aug 16 2012, 09:42 PM)
This fund had seriously under-performed its benchmark, and with each withdrawal that will force the fund manager to liquidate at the wrong moment, it is hard to imagine the fund will perform any better in the near future.
*

Anything that shows a pattern of underperforming the benchmark is a serious candidate for cutting loss. Even just tracking the benchmark is not good enough.

howszat
post Aug 17 2012, 08:57 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(xuzen @ Aug 17 2012, 12:04 PM)
So we can conclude that if you do not care about AER and only profit, you will have champange, song and women during the boom time. But when it is bearish environment, you will have none of these.

But if you keep and eye on AER, your capital is greater protected.

Xuzen
*

You are bringing in a whole bunch of different factors that investors should consider before investing, and I'm not disputing any of that.

My initial response was to this question "How does 0.1% annual management fee sound to you? Still want to pay 1.5% AMF?"

My response was: "Yes, I would happily pay 1.5% AMF (and more) if the Fund Manager can return profits more than anyone else".

Note my conditional "IF the Fund Manager can return profits more than anyone else"?

In other words, I don't just look at the AMF alone by itself, I also consider the potential returns (profits), and what I believe the fund manager to be capable of. IF I don't believe the fund manager can return those profits in accordance with my risk profile, I wouldn't even be investing with them in the first place.


howszat
post Jan 15 2013, 10:16 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(wongmunkeong @ Jan 15 2013, 06:47 PM)

NOTE:
another donkey technicality to consider - minimum units to SWITCH is 1,000 units if i'm not mistaken.
IMHO, pretty not-smart lor, shd be based on VALUE mar, not UNITS.  doh.gif
eh.. i didnt come up with this "note" technicality yar, PMut did  notworthy.gif
*
If the switch request is based on VALUE, by the time they get to processing your request, the NAV may have dropped so much that there is not enough VALUE to switch.

If the switch is by UNITS, you will never have that problem.

howszat
post Jan 15 2013, 11:04 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(wongmunkeong @ Jan 15 2013, 10:52 PM)
True but does the majority of investors think in terms of units or value?
In addition, what is the chance that "the NAV dropping so much that there is not enough VALUE to switch"?

Anyhow, when i mean "switch by value", i meant switching units but NOT at a minimum of 1,000 units, not verbatim switch by value $ per se. My bad - my previous posting can be construed such.
*

When it comes to investment (aka MONEY), what investors think, or what the chances are do not come into it. The terms and conditions should be precise and not leave anything to "chances".

But from a user convenience point of view, I agree. I prefer to use value, rather than convert value to units.



howszat
post Jan 29 2013, 11:56 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(debbieyss @ Jan 29 2013, 11:44 PM)
Small Cap is not a Malaysia focus fund.
*
That does not seem to be what the Prospectus says:

QUOTE
This fund focuses on a diversified portfolio of companies with small market capitalisation with good growth prospects listed on Bursa Securities.

For that matter, PSF and PGF are Malaysian focus too. Of course, it's possible I could be in the wrong thread altogether smile.gif

This post has been edited by howszat: Jan 30 2013, 12:00 AM
howszat
post Jan 30 2013, 12:58 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(debbieyss @ Jan 30 2013, 12:31 AM)
My interpretation of Malaysian focus fund is 100% Malaysia shares based.
*

Your interpretation is too restrictive. "Focus" in general just means the majority of their investments are in a particular area.

The word focus just means "The center of interest or activity" (from Google). It does not have to mean 100%.

Technically speaking, no funds are ever 100% shares anyway. They need to hold a certain percentage in liquid assets in various forms, including possibly from foreign sources.
howszat
post Apr 17 2013, 10:47 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
Neither PIF nor PBF seem to register as performers.

For eg, PBF registered a grand total gain of 2.62% in the past year. Your money would have been better off in FD in the bank. Much much better considering you don't have to pay 5.5% to begin with.

One possible reason for them re-opening the funds is enough people have seen the light and dumped their holdings, thereby allow their CONsultants to drag in more unsuspecting bystanders.
howszat
post Apr 22 2013, 10:09 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
Well, I don't know if it's of any use to investors, but it looks like it's of no use to many of their own fund managers who consistently under-perform the market, and even worse under-perform their own designed benchmarks.

If there's an award for the "Biggest Winner" for under-performing funds, it is quite likely PM will win that too, to go along with their "Biggest Winner for the 10th consecutive year" claim.
howszat
post Jul 24 2013, 09:37 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(xuzen @ Jul 21 2013, 07:45 PM)
No issues buddy, was just pulling your leg. Without the help of super duper specific purpose software, don't bother to do the risk calculation. The time are better spend doing more exciting things... like "chasing skirts" etc.

Xuzen
*

Here's a question.

With super-duper software that can produce all sorts of figures, are there any additional software that can co-relate the calculations to actual future performance?

In other words, looking back in time, how profitable were those calculations if you had actually followed them?



howszat
post Jul 25 2013, 11:53 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(xuzen @ Jul 25 2013, 11:17 PM)
Answer to question 1:

Correlation is impossible to future performance because the event has not happen yet, there is no correlation. Due unknown parameter I  cannot compute.

Answer to question 2:

My three years annualised return of my tracked portfolio is around 12% p.a.. My sharpe ratio is maintained above 1.5. I keep my porfolio simple i.e., I buy into two asset class only (bonds and equity) since I do not have super-duper specific software, I calculate them manually. I cannot handle more than that due to lack of sophisticated tool.

Xuzen
*

Actually, there's only 1 question.

My use of the word "future" was in the wrong context, my apologies, so let me try again. Ok, so you do calculation of Sharpe ratios and what have you, etc. Let's say you did those calculations 5 years ago. Looking at it today, did the "good" ratios turn out to be consistently profitable, and "bad" ratios turn out to be consistently not-profitable? To what extent did those ratios/calculations contribute to the profitability (or otherwise) of those investments?
howszat
post Dec 23 2013, 12:20 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(XtraLeoGecko @ Dec 21 2013, 11:51 AM)
Hi all sifu, I would like to diversify outside MY to hedge against devaluation of ringgit. Also, since v pay money to fund manager,  would like a fund which fund mgr could move around the funds to different sectors / regional / bonds / as appropriate.

Am thinking of Tactical Allocation Fund, kindly let me hv ur comments or other recommendations. ... thx in advance.
*
The concept of "move around the funds to different sectors / regional / bonds / as appropriate." is ideal. If a fund manager can switch into the right category at the appropriate time, the fund would a run-away success.

However, no such run-away fund exists AFAIK, locally or overseas. Locally there is Tactical Allocation from PM @ ~11%, or HL Strategic Fund @~15% for the past year. Not spectacular. Quite "average", or below even.

This post has been edited by howszat: Dec 23 2013, 12:23 AM
howszat
post Feb 25 2014, 10:32 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
It appears repurchases are still paid via HSE CHEQ deposited into accounts.

CHEQ? Perhaps Internet Banking might be another option?
howszat
post Mar 3 2014, 11:18 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(j.passing.by @ Feb 28 2014, 05:17 PM)
4) A retirement UT fund, almost untouched, can be left to heirs. While an annuity leaves nothing.
*

Just comparing the pros and cons here.

There is a risk component that annuity funds transfer from you to them. For that, they take their cut as their profit.

With UT, that risk component stays with you, you take the risks along with the profits.

In most cases, UT funds will win, but it's not a guarantee.

Whereas, annuity is more or less a guarantee, until your guarantor goes bust.

-----

PS: Sorry, I was talking in general terms about UT, and did not notice I was in this particular thread. In this particular thread, please strike out the following In most cases, UT funds will win. It doesn't apply unfortunately.

This post has been edited by howszat: Mar 3 2014, 11:31 PM
howszat
post Apr 15 2014, 09:58 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(Eeynaw @ Apr 15 2014, 08:52 PM)
What if I'm mutual gold and can save the switching fees..becoz I holding mutual fund since 2005..fr china select to south east Asia to public saving and public Islamic opportunities...growing very slow...Hutu
*

You gain absolutely no extra money from switching to a fund just because it's giving distributions. Read the #1 posts in relevant threads for more information on distributions.

Your objective is to switch to a better performing fund based on actual rate of Return on Investment (how many % per annum). To help you decide, you can look at the actual % returns at http://www.publicmutual.com.my/application...formancenw.aspx

If by "What if I'm mutual gold", you don't currently have Mutual Gold status, but planning on getting it - don't.

PM is a below average performer, and has the most expensive sales charges, amongst the Fund Houses. Don't put any more money into it. It's not worth it.

Try Fundsupermart.com. You have to decide for yourself what to invest in, but that's better than being charged 5.5% for a bunch of clue-less "UT consultants" advising you to buy funds which are under-performing other fund houses, if you are lucky. If you are less lucky, well, as you know, you get stuck with those China funds.



howszat
post Sep 10 2014, 11:37 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,932 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
QUOTE(wil-i-am @ Sep 10 2014, 11:14 PM)
Previously unit holder can specify beneficiary bank a/c for crediting purpose in d redemption form; now no more  sweat.gif
*

The recent change is you are now only allowed only 1 registered bank account for redemption purposes. Previously, you can have multiple accounts (if you are Mutual Gold member).


2 Pages  1 2 >Top
Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0565sec    0.52    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 9th December 2025 - 04:20 PM