If the intention is going from Fund A to Fund B, there is no need for CMF. You just do a switch.

Fund A to Fund B is inter-fund switch if A and B are from different Fund Houses (fees will be like buying new funds)

Fund A to Fund B is intra-fund switch for same Fund House (switching fees may apply depending on Fund House)

There is no CMF2 involved.

The steps are wrong.

You can go direct from Fund A to Fund B.

No, wrong.

If you are trading, you don't need it. See my previous comments.

It is for "parking" while you are deciding which Fund B to buy.

Within the same fund management group (or Fund House), it is known as "intra".

With different fund management groups (or Fund House), it is known as "inter".

Either way, no CMF2 is required.

PS: The only difference between "inter" and "intra" is the costs (fees and credits) involved. The FSM websites explains this well.

This post has been edited by howszat: Sep 7 2016, 10:14 PM

Just a note that if you have funds from other non-FSM fund houses, you can also "switch" to FSM for zero costs.

Just sell your say, Public Mutual fund, email your PM redemption slip to FSM, and you can buy the equivalent amount of FSM fund for Zero sales charge.

No, I don't work for FSM, thanks.

CIMB Global Titans?

If you look at the 10-year chart, it was under-water for the majority of the time. The average return for 10-year is 4.96%, if you hung on that long. And have the patience.

Given the risks (under-water for extended periods), it may not be a good fund to select. I am not going to suggest any "ratios", or any regular investment method because a bad fund is a bad fund.

If you look at the shorter term, like the 2015 performance, it has done really well. In 2016, it has been not well.

It could be a good fund if you review and re-balance regularly (exactly how often, it depends), but otherwise no.

guy3288
Try getting the quoting right, especially when you quoting numerous people.

I would like to recommend that one should never, ever rely on a single criteria.

What else one should look at, it depends. But definitely never "only rely" on one criteria.

I was afraid you might ask , but since you did, here are what I look at in no particular order:
- the FSM list of recommended funds
- look at the performance charts. FSM allows you to overlap up to seven funds on the same chart. Include the funds you are interested in and see what you see. Look for funds that under/over-perform in comparison.
- look at performance rankings for the different timeframes, and compare them
- look at the ratios
- google search "economic outlook" and do some reading. I'm not saying I know, or agree, what it all means, but if you don't, find another one that you do.
- give preference to funds where the manager has greater flexibility to adjust between equities/fixed-income ratios.

Sorry, there are a few more "ifs" involved, and I can't give you a spreadsheet where you can just do one click and out comes the answer.

What I can say is I don't believe in DCA-only approach because if you DCA into a shit-fund, the returns will be shit.

If you don't know what it means, don't worry about it. It was meant for the person who designed and programmed it, not you.

If you don't have basic spreadsheet/macro skills, asking questions like "How come the value didn't come out?" is unlikely to get you a reply that you can understand.

What the spreadsheet macro does is call a URL end-point of the fund code as a ? parameter. and parse the resultant HTML page and look for the current NAV, and update the spreadsheet cell.

Well, if you need more information, just ask the source you got the information from.

This post has been edited by howszat: Sep 28 2016, 11:31 PM

How or why not important then.

You got something that works for you, great.

"smart" isn't quite the right word.

Cautious, balanced, risk-adversed, stability-seeking, want-to-avoid-heart-attack... etc, yes.

Smart, dumb...etc, no

All to do with personal investment objectives, risk-tolerance, investment time-frames... etc.

If you are looking at maximizing returns over the long term, the correlated coefficient should not be in your list of things to worry about.

No, you aren't correcting anything when you don't even understand the point.

Aren't correlated means if one up, the other down, and vice versa.

Therefore, you are just averaging, not maximizing.

Yes, no problem. I was keeping it simple.

The main point is, you are not maximizing (or minimizing), because you are balancing because you are avoiding them all going in the same direction at the same time.

Wah, you invested RM22.8k in RHB Bond, ah..