no,..could not find them...
maybe if look at each fund individually can,
have to manually compile each individually from "since inception date"

but then,.....some would says,..."past performance may not be an indication of continue or would be future performance too"   

problem is those with high net worth treating epf as investment vehicle instead of retirement funds. so yeah.

i think it is BETTER than a bond.
EPF is Govt guaranteed and payout guaranteed at 2.5% min (unless Syariah one, no guaranteed 2.5%)

it is a retirement fund only if it can be used to accumulates enough for desired retirement uses..

So can treat it as bond in a balanced portfolio.

Looking at the trend gonna go down...hopefully can maintain at 5%...

Less writedowns and even if earnings is up EPF might decide to pay the earning stocks in later forward date might be 3 years from now 

It will be bad because 1st half was not lockdown while Q3 is lockdown stage so it depends on Q4 to breakeven because as you can see forecast for Malaysia has been bad has been downgrade twice this year itself 

So we know only 15% goes abroad with another 30% still stuck in Bursa 

The EPF should remove the RM60K annual limit for self-contribution, or at least incease it at at least RM100K.

Why you complain? It's just an investment vehicle for your retirement. The poor has no money to invest anyway. It doesn't hurt them.

Yes...retirement fund. Korek. Does it hurt poor people if the people who has more money put it into EPF? They are not going to lose more money if EPF do bad, and not going to make more either if EPF does well. Poor and Rich will get the same x% return by EPF. Fair and Square.

So...why is it a problem? People who work hard their whole lives, saves more, build a bigger retirement fund. Anything wrong?

This is only an assumption. What if it gets better? If all the big accounts leave EPF, what is there to invest if there is no fund? Also will affect the poor. EPF should not discriminate, it is not a Social Security Avenue. Malaysia already have enough racial discrimination, don't need another one.

It's your opinion. Let's just agree to disagree. It's still discrimination to me.

Not necessary because if it’s bigger and difficult to achieve higher returns it shows that the fund manager and management is not capable at all     

Basically your theory is rubbish as there is bigger funds still achieving higher returns because the fund management itself

The outcome is clear, though: When the fund manager is unable to maintain the fund's investment strategy and therefore cannot produce returns comparable to its historical record, the fund has become too large.

1stly you can’t compare a pension fund with mutual fund solely because both are different in terms of investment decisions and executions

8% is easy to achieve in EPF but because they are actually they keeping the gains only to be paid out 5 years later

2nd the board is riddle with political decision investment hence its hampering growth instead

You wanna compared pension funds go compared with the best world instead like the linked of Danish,Norge and Swedes pension fund instead 

6.6% past 20 years but you didn’t factor appreciation of the currency and buying power and answers is No 

Go compared RM devaluation itself for the past 35years and your money EPF instead getting devalued day by day 

These articles are on (mid size) mutual funds run by single fund managers. I doubt provident funds are being run using stock-picker mentality at least from my interactions with EPF from that side of the table

As more and more investors are attracted to a specific mutual fund, the manager is presented with a significantly large amount of cash. The risk that arises in this situation is that to put the cash to work as soon as possible, some managers may purchase additional instruments that are not optimal for the fund's investors.
To determine when size begins to hinder performance, we need to ask at what point the positive relationship between fund size and management efficiency becomes negative — that is, the point at which the negative effects of the size of a fund cancels out the positive effects of a fund's total return performance.  It is difficult to determine exactly at what point this occurs, but in general, when the fund manager is unable to maintain the fund's investment strategy and produce returns comparable to fund's historical record, the fund has become too large

It’s not another article, the same as the investpedia page. Check the source. Same reasoning as I mentioned before, a small mutual fund run by a single manager. EPF is a provident fund and passed this stage at inception.

Open-ended mutual funds have a great track record of expanding to mammoth sizes quickly as investors flock to these growing funds. But it is possible for funds to get too large and cause problems for fund managers and investors. In this article we'll show you how to handle the rapid growth of these funds and how to determine whether these funds are a good fit for your investing strategy.

Venturing overseas is also because foreign investors pushed Malaysia since some time back to relax on govt ownership in Bursa. There is limited liquidity for them to be interested in the market.

Thanks. Money market, fixed income and real estate - I think >6% is wishful thinking unless they increase on junk bonds and commercial properties outside of prime locations (like Katowice..). Most of the members are happy with this strategy and returns. Bear in mind the interest rate environment in Malaysia.

The focus on increasing people’s EPF balance should always come from talking about wages in the country. I have a hard time understanding how EPF can commend the govt for extending 9% contribution rates when it obviously is not in their interest.