The existence of institutional funds like EPF, KWAP, LTAT, ASx and so on is actually not healthy for the market, especially so for a small market like ours.

They collectively form a large % of the market.

In a way they can and could inflate prices in the market and keep the market from falling, in a sense preventing market efficiency. Keep index stocks up, make the composite index up, make the economy look stable, make the government look good.

Some would argue, everyone is participating, so I'd lose out if I don't participate. I'm just one individual, what change can I make?

This is exactly the mentality that kept our rotten government in power.

A fair market begins with u, a fair world begins with one small step.

This post has been edited by Pink Spider: Sep 26 2016, 11:46 AM

How can I not join in ASx related discussion
Well, I'm just re-iterating what I said in the past

This is very much a 'national interest' product; from many angles, so yes, chances are it will remain status quo for a while.
If you look at the total NAV of the FP funds, it's >10% of KLSE market cap... hence the national interest
As for the rakyat, better some savings at a higher return than nothing right....? world bank issued a report on how many Malaysians have no savings, but BNM rebutted that it has not taken ASB into consideration. That's how important ASB is to the nation

But yes, all in all, this is a crutches for both the rakyat and the market. It's probably appropriate 20-30 years back since it brings up savings and hold the market stable. But because of the crutches until today the rakyat cannot walk unassisted (aka invest their money and understand non-capital guaranteed products), the market cannot withstand the volatility

It is however a very personal choice, I don't think we can force people to change their mindset and take out their 6 digits savings from the FP funds that they have not touched over the last 20 years. All we can do is ride on the stability the institution investors provided and gain from it

This thread is moving fast recently, I'm playing catch-up. Trade requires good timing, got it wrong, result would be worse than buy and hold or DCA.

I read a finance book recently. It talks about 3 different pockets for financial security.

1st Pocket : Saving pocket.
2nd Pocket : Investment pocket.
3rd Pocket : Trading pocket.

1st pocket would be fire proof and earthquake proof. I assume this means FD or its equivalent. Once this is filled, then we have the 2nd pocket. This is meant for long term investment like unit trusts in FSM.

Then we have the 3rd pocket. This would be the gambling portfolio or where you allocate a certain amount of money for your "best bet". I assume this is the sector fund, gold fund, etc. I assume this would involve short term investment and active trading.

thanks for the post...
i think i some how mixed them out sometimes during the journey...

What is USD hatched fund means ? Does it provide better protection against our ringgit money ?

How Currency-Hedged Funds Can Minimise Currency Risks November 1, 2013
We always encourage investors to diversify their portfolio globally but this means that investors will often be subject to currency risks. In this article, we introduce currency-hedged fund classes and how they can help investors minimise currency risks and sometimes even provide a yield premium.

http://fsm.hk/hk/main/research/viewHTML.tp...articleNo=7335#

Currency Risks And Hedging October 12, 2012
With regards to investment risk, investors are often focused on the price of an asset, but sometimes overlook currency risk, which can make a world of difference to one’s investment returns, especially in the context of today’s volatile currency markets.
https://secure.fundsupermart.com/main/resea...?articleNo=7445

Will there be also a risk of possible losing more if the currency movements goes the other way?

similar with:
1. Emergency buffer $
2. Logical / programmatic investing (no fear/greed) $
3. Crazy / punting $
?

Definitely. But what is objective of investing in foreign countries ? Is it because to diversify our risk ? If we are all that optimistic about ringgit, we can then only invest in Malaysian funds.

yes, thus the prospectus always highlight Currency risks for those foreign exposed funds.
the objectives of some to invest in foreign countries is to have a move diversified asset allocation in the portfolio....
not mainly for ringgit protection only...

sometimes back (abt 2.5 yrs back), there was discussion about the merit of only focus on M'sia funds lie KGF and EISC....during that time...the historical performance is just so stable and above many foreign exposed funds...

This post has been edited by T231H: Sep 26 2016, 01:04 PM

I totally agree on that.

The point I was trying to emphasise all this while is that FP UTs are NOT FAIR. U sacrifice transparency (u dunno the "true" returns) and equity (u get no share in the undistributed reserves) for the sake of (dividend income) stability. Full stop.

Now any lembu that come after me to argue (again) about stability...u need English tuition.

This post has been edited by Pink Spider: Sep 26 2016, 01:42 PM

Looks the same. Maybe different packaging or different label...

I'm on the same page as you - any investment is related to personal money management... no money, no savings, no need to think so much of having this or that.

I think, it is being rather impractical to just talk (and nothing more than just empty talk) about the merits and cons of any particular investment vehicle as if when it is not suitable for one ownself, then it is not suitable for others.

It is more practical to employ all tools - different tools for different pockets. Being conservative when necessary, and take on more risk when it is appropriate to do so.

The 1st pocket would includes fixed-price UT funds, and bond funds too... and bear in mind that fixed-price UT funds have caps or max limit... and would be filled up without room and space for any more excess savings.

If the money is just enough to fill this 1st pocket, and can't afford to take on more risk, I think the investor should consider very, very carefully before he touches any equity funds and other investment tools in the 2nd pocket.

Anyhow, for youngsters, I would still (as I always do) advocate them to consider taking more risk than they think they should be taking - don't be too conservative, if you don't take any risk when you're young, you'll never will.

Just don't be too greedy, and pour in everything you have. Do it for the long term, to supplement your retirement nest egg... DCA method bit by bit over many years... and let the compounding effect do its job for you. A measly couple of percentage points difference in the fund's returns will make a huge difference over 20-30 years.

Aim for funds that could give above 10%... no risk, no gains.

i didnt know why it went berserk like that, any way thanks.

the answer is pretty obvious,

remember what you have said?

(1) ASX - late comers "get paid" by people who invested earlier.(not that i agree on this)

(2) Geneva scheme - late comers are used to pay those who invested early.

which one is shithole and which is gold mine you tell me.
(Typical scams, those who join early -smile, those join late will cry, not the reverse.)



yeah, otherwise so easy meh to get 6.5% returns?



fully agree with you, let them be, leave them alone, no need to argue not fair or what.
We in FSM UTs may wanna think we are "more clever and in control" , but end of the day if we make less than them it is a slap on our own face also.


That was becos yklooi was wondering doing more switches can have better IRR compared to sitting on it not moving.

indeed this explains why there are so many differences and arguments here, people from different pockets arguing all at the same time.

You suggest how many % should be in 1st, 2nd 3rd pockets?
Seeing many in here are also anti FDs (and the like for its "poor returns"), i guess may be 10%,80%,10%?
interesting.............

Did you gain some when you exit? I'm still holding on to it.

Anyone still holding the not so performing RHB Equity Trust?

This fund almost no one talk about it.

If you look at historical distribution for past 5 years, not so bad >10% every year but NAV deep diving. Looks like I'm the only one here keep for long-term investment... hope won't trigger exit plan.

This post has been edited by vseries: Sep 26 2016, 04:43 PM

No, I made a lost of around 8% in 9 mths of holding this fund (CIMB-GTF). I participated starting in Sep 2015 and completely exited the position by Jun 2016.

RHB equity trust is the lousiest risk-adjusted performing UTF in the RHB offering.

Xuzen

But but but must talk about it wan, or else, guy3288 will butthurt complain we only talk about winners and not the losers. We must average it lar, this lar, that lar...

Xuzen