Private banking usually provides this service, but
1. recommendations may be biased,
2. choices of funds are limited.

You can avoid these issues by using an independent planner, but it may cost more.

Clients can be charged either sales charges, wrap/advisory or combination of the 2.

Sales charges are paid up front, and can be as high as 5.5%, depending on the fund and advisor. Switching and rebalancing will incur additional charges.

This is good for clients whos strategy is buy and hold.

Wrap/advisory fees are charged based on the AUM. This is usually 1.5% annually. Fees are calculate and charged monthly. Switching and rebalancing, even between different fund houses, are free.

This is good for clients who switch often or run complicated strategies. Also, this puts the advisor and client interest aligned, and the advisor is incentivised to continue servicing the client.

Portfolio creation is charged separately, up RM1500, depending on complexity and requirements. Clients paying this fee have the right to do their transactions elsewhere as the advice should be unbiased.

Hope this clarifies the situation.

This post has been edited by lukenn: Mar 21 2016, 11:26 AM

If you didn't pay, the fella probably won't do it for you.

However, if the amount is significant, the fees can be waived/absorbed, if you buy from them.

Then it depends to your negotiation skill lor ...

This post has been edited by lukenn: Mar 21 2016, 11:14 AM

Good job !

This thread has been a little quiet lately ...

This happens because of the timing of deposits and withdrawals.

I'm not sure if this is the correct explanation :

01/01/14 - unit price = RM1.00
Purchase 10 units
Cost RM10

31/12/14 - unit price = RM2.00
Purchase 10000 units
Total Units 10010 units
Cost RM20,000
Total Cost RM20,010

01/01/14 - unit price = RM1.90
Redeem 10010 units
Redemption Value 19,019

Where fund NAV has gone up, but investment value has gone down.

This post has been edited by lukenn: Mar 25 2016, 02:51 AM

It means that you can invest in the fund using different currencies (USD class, SGD class, GBP class etc), however the underlying investment strategy would be the same.

To unit holder there will be little or no impact as opening up another class it not very different from starting a new fund. Depending on the exact structure, there might be some small advantages here and there since the fund will be bigger and also holding multi currency.

There are some fund houses that hedge FX, but I don't think CIMB does. So in that event non RM classes will behave differently ie. have FX gains/losses.

I LOL-ed at your LOL. But its true.

Actually, that's not quite accurate. Its just a misconception that noob UTCs perpetuate to get their clients to buy new funds, switch etc.

Apart from market forces, the unit price drops (significantly) when
1. the manager decides to split the units, eg : 100 units @ NAV1.00 => 200 units @ NAV0.50
2. the manager declares distibutions eg : 100 units @ NAV1.00 declares 0.01 distribution/unit => 100 units @ NAV0.99 + RM1.00 distribution

With that being said, NAV is purely a reflection of how much it cost to buy a unit in the fund right yesterday. I would strongly suggest tracking performance using MYR values instead.

I have no point of reference to what you're asking. Screencap or link, maybe ?

I think the term you're looking for is CAGR, compounded annual growth rate. It's the RoR, annualised, between the start and end dates. ie: RM100 growing to RM121 over 2 years is 10%, not 10.5%.

You can use the future value calculation

Vf = Vp(1+X)^n

Where
Vf = future value
Vp = present value
X = growth rate in decimal, and
n = number of years.

From eg: 121 = 100(1+0.1)^2

Hope this helps


Edit : forgot to mention this only takes into account dollar value, not number of units. Also it does not take into account any deposits and withdrawals, and in the case of UT, redemption, top ups and distributions.

This post has been edited by lukenn: May 3 2016, 12:43 AM

Are you asking me, or are you telling me ?

IMHO, it really depends on
1. what hes trying to achieve/compare/benchmark
2. what data he has available.

XIRR is useful if hes calculating cash flows, in the case of UT, the timing of his purchases, redemptions, distributions ie : performance of the "investor".

However, if he only has a statement, and has made multiple purchases, but really wants to compare the performance of the "manager", irrespective of his purchases and redemptions, the TWRR calculation would be a better choice.

MYR 0.02

As far as I know, there is no noticeable advantage of buying immediately after a distribution.

Existing investors would have more units at a lower NAV. Buying in at that point in time will just get you more diluted units. NAV/unit does not automatically spring back post distribution.

Taking into account investors who did not opt to auto reinvest, the fund would also have less liquidity.

For funds with discretionary distributions, managers generally make distributions when there are no good buys on the horizon. So, this may actually work against you.

Its a very good basis to start for younger people as they learn about investments, what works for them and what doesn't. It's a simple math formula that simply means this :

1. have a cash buffer for emergencies,
2. have a balanced portfolio of investments.

40% cash buffer
30% fixed income
20% local equities
10% foreign equities.

40% cash buffer + 30% fixed income + 30% equities, or
40% cash buffer + 60% balanced portfolio.

This formula will change tho' as our life stages, risk appetite, access to other forms of investments and personal wealth grow.

You're off to a good start ! Good luck !

Its a matter of perspective la... If you can handle the risk then by all means. Just make sure you know what you're in for.


This is called takut kena marah. Self preservation above all else ! HAHAHAH

Is there any particular reason why you're not buying Vanguard outright, instead of trying to mimic the exposure/performance?

This is the best post I read all week. Thanks for sharing.

Agreed, but should you actually put real properties into the mix? Reits and developer stocks I would definitely say yes, but to put an illiquid asset into the same category as assets with MTM value?

On a more serious note, the current market volatility and more importantly the duration that its happening is very out of the norm. Also, there is no real end in sight.

Moving to a more balanced/conservative allocation should be an option to keep in consideration.

This post has been edited by lukenn: Jun 14 2016, 10:46 PM

What are you using to track global equities?