Is this the big one? FDI will hear about the Selangor issue now, is that catalyst enough to trigger a correction?

What do you mean sometimes, feeder funds are like MLM.. they buy the funds from the target fund company, the target fund company wants to make money, the feeder fund company also wants to make money, in the end same performance but one has more expenses


This post has been edited by wodenus: Aug 30 2014, 12:01 AM

I think both will be USD right, otherwise what will the other fund be denominated in.

This post has been edited by wodenus: Aug 30 2014, 12:41 PM

Crystal ball is dependent on whether site is up? Hmm, I have a new crystal ball.. testing now, it seems to say we are in for a bit of downtime, but not sure as to the accuracy yet.

Quite boring.. preparing for tomorrow..

Yea lucky people

Only applies if you are trading stocks directly.. funds are all over the place. If a fund manager is good, the value of the fund goes up. So what you are saying is, with VCA the better he gets, the less you are going to invest?

Okay now assume two fund managers, one which is good, and one which is not so good. Fund manager A loses money in a bull run, fund manager B makes money. So it would follow that fund A's value drops in a bull run, and fund B's value goes up.

So now following VCA, you will be throwing more money at fund A and less money at fund B. If everyone does that, the funds which perform the worst, will have the most funding. Does that make sense to you?

Now assume that there's a market downturn, and fund A loses even more money, while fund B, because of superior stock-picking skills, manage to make even more money. The result of this is.. fund B is again punished for being really good, while loser fund B gets even more money. Again, this makes no sense.

The reason va works for individual stocks is that stocks can be overvalued. There's only one counter, and if it becomes overvalued, it becomes overvalued. It is not a fund. A fund has a cash component. Unless it is a passive index fund, it needs more money to chase more prospects.

Suppose I told you this, that I want to make 10k profit only this month. So if you are my sales person, the more money you make for me, the less I am going to pay you. The day you make 10k, I am going to totally stop paying you. And somehow you think this is a good idea.

This post has been edited by wodenus: Sep 3 2014, 08:32 AM

All funds (unless they are passive) hinge on the performance of the fund manager, which is why good fund managers rock (and are the exception btw.)



The problem with this is that with companies (ones with huge moats) you can VCA it because at one point, it becomes too expensive. Funds never become "too expensive". You can't calculate the EBITDA or PER or whatever of a fund and say, this is too high so this means that the price of a fund is nothing but an indicator of how much it is worth now, a numerical representation of the performance of the fund manager.

If the fund manager is perfect, the price pretty much always goes up regardless of the index. Unfortunately no one is perfect, that's why it doesn't if we were to consider this possibility though, wouldn't it happen that if everyone is doing VCA, a perfect fund manager will eventually run out of fresh funds? the reward for being perfect is no fresh funds, but the reward for being really crappy is more money lol.



Not against DCA, I just think VCA is not applicable to actively-managed funds.

Thinking of that, but have to consider opportunity cost. The thing about equities is brokerage cost. The minimum cost applied by most brokerages means that commissions can be really high for low amounts. Commission on the standard 1K in mutual funds is 2%, so Rm20. After that it is still 2%, so a Rm100 top up is just Rm2.

Now suppose the same scenario in stocks. First 1K is 0.1%, which is RM1, but then minimum charge Rm8, so Rm8.

After that, Rm100 top-up is also Rm8.

If you DCA long enough, you will realize that brokerage on equities > commission on mutual funds for low amounts



This post has been edited by wodenus: Sep 3 2014, 02:33 PM

Yea, it's only logical that we should reward good fund managers, it benefits us all

Which BRIC fund?

This post has been edited by wodenus: Sep 4 2014, 01:21 PM

Quite impressive.. but not a lot of history behind it.

Seems strange to have an upside target but then that's just me

Doesn't every actively-managed fund aim to make money every year regardless of index performance? 8% average is a kind of low target

This post has been edited by wodenus: Sep 4 2014, 01:56 PM

But with this fund:

2014 benchmark +30% fund +8%



Right?

That's why I think having an upside target is strange

Works for me

Not globally speaking

So do a lot of funds that don't charge 5.5%

KLCI confirmed long-term downtrend