QUOTE(AIYH @ Oct 14 2016, 12:27 AM)
Good as RSP date is coming soon 
Good time to top up 
Fundsupermart.com v15, 基金超市第十五章 - Rise the Dragon
|
|
 Oct 14 2016, 10:03 AM
|
 
All Stars
48,447 posts Joined: Sep 2014 From: REality 
|
|
Quote|
|
|
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 10:10 AM
|
Senior Member
1,166 posts Joined: Jul 2016
|
QUOTE(Avangelice @ Oct 14 2016, 10:02 AM) everyone thinks the thais really love their king but in truth the king has been hated by the poor thais as he is anti democratic and an elitist. Oo, so media coverage from both thai and international had a bit conflict of interest, even some international media gave good reputation commentary to thai king starting today everyone in Thailand must wear black. failure to doing so will get you beaten up and sent to jail. my friend's family is anti monarchy and rightly so. the palace and junta have to out the crown prince on the throne as he is next in line eventho everyone hates him due to his wild parties and etc. NOT putting him on the throne will anger the royatlist. putting the Princess on the throne will make the poor happy but the junta is against it.  So in a way, either prince or the princess ascend the throne, it will still cause a lot of instability in terms of political and social environment?  That is a really unpredictable time and market for thailand  |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 10:15 AM
|
Senior Member
1,498 posts Joined: Nov 2012
|
QUOTE(puchongite @ Oct 14 2016, 10:01 AM) But that's what I was told by some sifus here wor. Do I have to requote what he said ? That's just a general idea since all 3 funds invests in the asiapac ex jap market; 1 in equity, 1 in FI and 1 balanced But if you apply that formula xyz for 1 day, it won't work because they are not investing in the exact same stocks/bonds in the exact same proportion However, on a 3 year returns basis you may find that it's quite close due to all the averaging effect. But that also depends on power of the respective fund manager. Investing is not so black and white and mathematical la QUOTE(Ramjade @ Oct 14 2016, 10:02 AM) Sales charge 0% or 1% (I still have the new customer benefit)? for the unit split? 0% la, takkan gotta pay sales charge for distribution pulak NAV = 10/10/2016 NAV? Same thing during dividends right?  The NAV u can just put whatever number, if you look at the calculation it has zero effect as unit split/distribution only increase units held and not investment cost |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 10:23 AM
|
Senior Member
5,272 posts Joined: Jun 2008 
|
QUOTE(AIYH @ Oct 14 2016, 10:10 AM) Oo, so media coverage from both thai and international had a bit conflict of interest, even some international media gave good reputation commentary to thai king people are afraid now that the leash has broken. the junta and the poor will begin another clash. remember there's almost a thousand red shirts unaccounted for and nobody knows where they have gone. So in a way, either prince or the princess ascend the throne, it will still cause a lot of instability in terms of political and social environment? That is a really unpredictable time and market for thailand Anyways not to derail the topic, investors are looking at both news from ground level and it is not a pretty sight. if the palace doesn't short this out and a civil war erupts, fsm will be sure to give it a bad rating. oh well that's life. let us focus on unit trusts. I derailed the topic enough. |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 10:24 AM
|
All Stars
33,623 posts Joined: May 2008
|
QUOTE(dasecret @ Oct 14 2016, 10:15 AM) That's just a general idea since all 3 funds invests in the asiapac ex jap market; 1 in equity, 1 in FI and 1 balanced No, the point I want to say hoping to use RHB AIF as a replacement for Ponzi 2.0 + RHB ATR is a futile effort, it is not anyway near. There is no way for it. It like comparing apple+orange = durian. But if you apply that formula xyz for 1 day, it won't work because they are not investing in the exact same stocks/bonds in the exact same proportion However, on a 3 year returns basis you may find that it's quite close due to all the averaging effect. But that also depends on power of the respective fund manager. Investing is not so black and white and mathematical la On a >3 year return basis, actually RHB AIF = RHB ATR, we can just forget about the equity portion of RHB AIF. |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 10:30 AM
|
|
Senior Member
1,498 posts Joined: Nov 2012
|
QUOTE(puchongite @ Oct 14 2016, 10:24 AM) No, the point I want to say hoping to use RHB AIF as a replacement for Ponzi 2.0 + RHB ATR is a futile effort, it is not anyway near. There is no way for it. It like comparing apple+orange = durian. Sounds like I didn't quite get your point hereOn a >3 year return basis, actually RHB AIF = RHB ATR, we can just forget about the equity portion of RHB AIF. So what's the conclusion after you discover all these? What is your choice of fund and why? |
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 10:39 AM
|
|
Senior Member
5,272 posts Joined: Jun 2008
|
QUOTE(puchongite @ Oct 14 2016, 10:24 AM) No, the point I want to say hoping to use RHB AIF as a replacement for Ponzi 2.0 + RHB ATR is a futile effort, it is not anyway near. There is no way for it. It like comparing apple+orange = durian. On a >3 year return basis, actually RHB AIF = RHB ATR, we can just forget about the equity portion of RHB AIF. QUOTE(dasecret @ Oct 14 2016, 10:30 AM) Sounds like I didn't quite get your point here I had both rhb atr and aif, I can see there is a correlation when one goes up the other follows. I abandoned atr as it has high volatility for a fixed income fund. I rather invest in aif and balance my portfolio with Anita. why take both?So what's the conclusion after you discover all these? What is your choice of fund and why? |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 10:41 AM
|
|
All Stars
33,623 posts Joined: May 2008
|
QUOTE(dasecret @ Oct 14 2016, 10:30 AM) Sounds like I didn't quite get your point here My point was already mentioned in the previous post.So what's the conclusion after you discover all these? What is your choice of fund and why? The three funds are separate entities, there is no way to emulate Ponzi 2.0 + RHB ATR with RHB AIF. If one wants to invest only RHB AIF for longer term, he might as well instead invest in RHB ATR due to no service charge. If one wants to invest in Ponzi 2.0, that's a separate risk accessment, an independent exposure, comes with it's risks and gains. This post has been edited by puchongite: Oct 14 2016, 10:43 AM |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 10:53 AM
|
|
Senior Member
1,166 posts Joined: Jul 2016
|
QUOTE(puchongite @ Oct 14 2016, 10:41 AM) My point was already mentioned in the previous post. According to the latest semi annual report for Schroder Asian Income (RHB AIF Target Fund), the EQ:FI portion is roughly 6:4The three funds are separate entities, there is no way to emulate Ponzi 2.0 + RHB ATR with RHB AIF. If one wants to invest only RHB AIF for longer term, he might as well instead invest in RHB ATR due to no service charge. If one wants to invest in Ponzi 2.0, that's a separate risk accessment, an independent exposure, comes with it's risks and gains. Schroder Asian Income Semi Annual Report 20160630 Use that as a benchmark, we similarly create Ponzi 2.0 60% and RHB ATR 40%, and no rebalancing. Portfolio 1 is combo Ponzi 2.0 and ATR Portfolio 2 is AIF. Here is the 3 year result. (as AIF is only 4 years old )p/s: just a illustration  My comment: the combo's incremental volatility is higher than the combo's incremental return in percentage of incremental Therefore the combo is not better in risk adjusted return Is this how you evaluate? xuzen, learning process  This post has been edited by AIYH: Oct 14 2016, 10:56 AM Attached thumbnail(s) 
|
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 11:00 AM
|
|
Senior Member
1,166 posts Joined: Jul 2016
|
QUOTE(Avangelice @ Oct 14 2016, 10:23 AM) people are afraid now that the leash has broken. the junta and the poor will begin another clash. remember there's almost a thousand red shirts unaccounted for and nobody knows where they have gone. But at least some one among us can share their perspective in understanding the market to aid learning.Anyways not to derail the topic, investors are looking at both news from ground level and it is not a pretty sight. if the palace doesn't short this out and a civil war erupts, fsm will be sure to give it a bad rating. oh well that's life. let us focus on unit trusts. I derailed the topic enough. After all, that is how we learn to analyze the market to determine whether it is just a noise or is it a momentum effect to a certain bull or bear market for that affect sector/region (even though UT is designed to let the fund manager do this, but from here we can understand how everyone perceive the market) I am sure the reaction here will be faster than FSM articles? no? |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 11:06 AM
|
|
All Stars
33,623 posts Joined: May 2008
|
QUOTE(AIYH @ Oct 14 2016, 10:53 AM) According to the latest semi annual report for Schroder Asian Income (RHB AIF Target Fund), the EQ:FI portion is roughly 6:4 This comparison is helpful. But I guess because there is no rebalancing throughout, as such we have removed the most realistic portion of the evaluation. Schroder Asian Income Semi Annual Report 20160630 Use that as a benchmark, we similarly create Ponzi 2.0 60% and RHB ATR 40%, and no rebalancing. Portfolio 1 is combo Ponzi 2.0 and ATR Portfolio 2 is AIF. Here is the 3 year result. (as AIF is only 4 years old )p/s: just a illustration My comment: the combo's incremental volatility is higher than the combo's incremental return in percentage of incremental Therefore the combo is not better in risk adjusted return Is this how you evaluate? xuzen, learning process If we look at the history more than 3 years ( where human-dependent rebalancing were carried out ), in reality, the RHB AIF has become very closed to RHB ATR. |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 11:07 AM
|
|
Senior Member
1,498 posts Joined: Nov 2012
|
QUOTE(AIYH @ Oct 14 2016, 10:53 AM) According to the latest semi annual report for Schroder Asian Income (RHB AIF Target Fund), the EQ:FI portion is roughly 6:4 Schroder Asian Income Semi Annual Report 20160630 Use that as a benchmark, we similarly create Ponzi 2.0 60% and RHB ATR 40%, and no rebalancing. Portfolio 1 is combo Ponzi 2.0 and ATR Portfolio 2 is AIF. Here is the 3 year result. (as AIF is only 4 years old )p/s: just a illustration My comment: the combo's incremental volatility is higher than the combo's incremental return in percentage of incremental Therefore the combo is not better in risk adjusted return Is this how you evaluate? xuzen, learning process Great effort!Now, if you look closer, you would notice that when equity is not doing well early this year, the gap narrowed which means AIF tends to be more resilient and that's where lower volatility comes in. At the end of the day it depends on what you want, APDI made close to 20% in the last 6 months and that's something that AIF would never be able to do. But when all the EQ funds kaputed early this year, my AIF IRR maintained at around 7% |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 11:11 AM
|
|
Senior Member
1,166 posts Joined: Jul 2016
|
QUOTE(puchongite @ Oct 14 2016, 11:06 AM) This comparison is helpful. But I guess because there is no rebalancing throughout, as such we have removed the most realistic portion of the evaluation. Erm you are comparing a combo and a single fund, how rebalancing will be helpful in comparing the 2? If we look at the history more than 3 years ( where human-dependent rebalancing were carried out ), in reality, the RHB AIF has become very closed to RHB ATR. Plus this tool only consider initial investment without considering DCA/RSP/Irregular top up (only rebalance date based on when you play the simulation)  Not really, they are not close, yet they are not distinct... could it be that both of their target fund come from the same fund manager (both from schroder)?  |
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 11:22 AM
|
Senior Member
4,436 posts Joined: Oct 2008
|
QUOTE(AIYH @ Oct 14 2016, 10:53 AM) Bla bla bla yadda yadda yadda Is this how you evaluate? xuzen, learning process » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « I am a student / follower of Markowitz's Modern Portfolio Theory. What you mention above = siapa punya teori ar? Xuzen This post has been edited by xuzen: Oct 14 2016, 11:25 AM |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 11:26 AM
|
|
All Stars
33,623 posts Joined: May 2008
|
QUOTE(AIYH @ Oct 14 2016, 11:11 AM) Erm you are comparing a combo and a single fund, how rebalancing will be helpful in comparing the 2? I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. All I was saying that your comparison of portfolio 1 vs portfolio 2 is not realistic in the sense it is not conveying the true picture, because you have fixed the ratio of ponzi 2.0% and RHB ATR % vs the dynamic (internal) rebalancing within the RHB AIF itself. Plus this tool only consider initial investment without considering DCA/RSP/Irregular top up (only rebalance date based on when you play the simulation) Not really, they are not close, yet they are not distinct... could it be that both of their target fund come from the same fund manager (both from schroder)? So when you use these charts to drawing a conclusion, your conclusion might be skewed. |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 11:35 AM
|
|
Senior Member
1,055 posts Joined: Nov 2015
|
Thai share market actually up 3+% as of 11.30am malaysia time. Index shoot up on opening
|
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 11:36 AM
|
|
Senior Member
1,166 posts Joined: Jul 2016
|
QUOTE(xuzen @ Oct 14 2016, 11:22 AM) » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « I am a student / follower of Markowitz's Modern Portfolio Theory. What you mention above = siapa punya teori ar? Xuzen I do know sharpe ratio to measure them, but dont really understand how to evaluate them based on them in real life, because sharpe ratio alone is not enough When we talk about better risk adjusted return, what metric(s) do we based on? QUOTE(puchongite @ Oct 14 2016, 11:26 AM) I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. All I was saying that your comparison of portfolio 1 vs portfolio 2 is not realistic in the sense it is not conveying the true picture, because you have fixed the ratio of ponzi 2.0% and RHB ATR % vs the dynamic (internal) rebalancing within the RHB AIF itself. that would be very complex So when you use these charts to drawing a conclusion, your conclusion might be skewed. and it is kinda impossible unless you feed all the funds annual report or fact sheet and all of them mention their equity fi portion and simulate them whatever proportion you wish to compare which is kinda complicated you can try to do the simulation by keying the transaction in FSM mobile app, but too much to enter in phone |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 11:49 AM
|
|
Senior Member
4,436 posts Joined: Oct 2008
|
QUOTE(AIYH @ Oct 14 2016, 11:36 AM) Newbie baby step theory Below is copy & pasted post I wrote in Feb 2015. Read see if you can understand better what are risk - adjusted return performance measurement tools are. I do know sharpe ratio to measure them, but dont really understand how to evaluate them based on them in real life, because sharpe ratio alone is not enough When we talk about better risk adjusted return, what metric(s) do we based on? » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 12:22 PM
|
|
Senior Member
1,166 posts Joined: Jul 2016
|
QUOTE(xuzen @ Oct 14 2016, 11:49 AM) Below is copy & pasted post I wrote in Feb 2015. Read see if you can understand better what are risk - adjusted return performance measurement tools are. Roughly learnt during studies » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « Do they have tool to calculate those? I only come across Sharpe ratio readily available Also our UT risk free rate is based on which instrument? Annualized EPF? |
|
|
Oct 14 2016, 12:50 PM
|
|
Senior Member
5,272 posts Joined: Jun 2008
|
QUOTE(AIYH @ Oct 14 2016, 12:22 PM) Roughly learnt during studies https://www.fundsupermart.com.my/main/resea...tormaincode=AllDo they have tool to calculate those? I only come across Sharpe ratio readily available Also our UT risk free rate is based on which instrument? Annualized EPF? Please read the risk methodology from fund supersmart. I hope I got your question right |
|
Topic ClosedOptions
|
| Change to: |  0.0317sec
 0.47
 6 queries
 GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 8th December 2025 - 05:25 AM |
All Rights Reserved © 2002- 2025 Vijandren Ramadass (~unite against racism~)
Powered by Invision Power Board © 2025 IPS, Inc.