QUOTE(MilesAndMore @ Aug 1 2009, 05:41 PM)
Thought it is a capital protected fund with price of each unit fixed at RM1.00 ? No ?
The terminology is different following Securities Commission Guidelines.
Below is the full guideline:
http://www.sc.com.my/eng/html/resources/gu...8_cis_utGLa.pdfAnd relevant extract
QUOTE
GUARANTEED FUND
General
(1) A guaranteed fund is one which guarantees investors will get back the
capital invested, with some returns (if any), or guarantees investors a
certain investment return payable at a pre-determined date in the
future.
(2) The word “guarantee” must appear in the fund’s name. Where a fund
does not comply with the requirements in this appendix, it must not
use the word “guarantee”, or any other name which may imply some
form of guarantee, in its name or in its promotional materials. Such a
fund is prohibited from holding itself out as a guaranteed fund.
Funds like ASB, ASD are not allowed to be called Guaranteed Fund since do no not meet the criteria eg guarantee at a future predetermined date. ASB, ASD are always at RM1. Capital Guarantee means the price can fluctuate, is less or more than 1 at a particular time, but guaranteed at RM1 at maturity only.
In fact, its my view that ASB and ASD are much better in the way that they are always RM1.
So its rather confusing, layman would think RM1 all the time mean capital guarantee, which at a layman word is correct, but not at SC terminology.
Added on August 1, 2009, 10:48 pmQUOTE(the snowball @ Aug 1 2009, 10:28 PM)
5. However, this leads to another question, does KLIBOR and MGS is the RIGHT benchmark to be used? For example, ASM invested around 60-80% of its NAV in local equities, shouldn't the performance be benchmarked against the Composite Index rather than KLIBOR and MGS? If our composite index is more apt, then why would they use the MGS and KLIBOR as benchmark? It is due to that it is rather easy to beat that benchmark? For example, to match KLIBOR, you just need to put your money in FD.
I really think on this as well, which is completely true by looking at the asset class it invest. But it seems that the benchmark of ASM (and ASB as well) was KLIBOR more based on its characteristic that it can be withdrawn at any time at fixed price, ie very liquid almost like FD. So its more of the asset class of ASM and ASB on its own, rather than what asset class ASM and ASD invest in. However, I still wonder why they use MGS for AS1M.... Maybe since EPF invest most of its money in MGS?
Added on August 1, 2009, 10:49 pmQUOTE(the snowball @ Aug 1 2009, 10:28 PM)
4. This is a clarification, the 1 Malaysia fund is bench marked against Malaysian Govt Securities(MGS)[It is like US T-Bills or can say it is our govt Bond ]. The MGS is yielding around 3.7% to 4% now. It is a benchmark. It means that it is a relative measure of performance for the fund manager. If they beat this benchmark, it means that they are successful in their investment. This does not means that the 1 Malaysia Fund will only yield 3.7-4%. As a matter of fact, the ASM that most people invest in, the benchmark is our KLIBOR which is about 2% but the ASM is still yielding 6-8%.
Yup, ASB benchmark is KLIBOR as well.
This post has been edited by vergas: Aug 1 2009, 10:49 PM