Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed
153 Pages « < 125 126 127 128 129 > » Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 FundSuperMart v16 (FSM) MY : Online UT Platform, UT DIY : Babystep to Investing :D

views
     
xuzen
post Dec 13 2016, 10:04 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,436 posts

Joined: Oct 2008


QUOTE(wodenus @ Dec 12 2016, 08:22 PM)
That is correct.. it's almost impossible to be losing money in 10 years. Not making as much as FD is another matter. With FD rates dropping as they are though, maybe that will change as well smile.gif

As I have said earlier.. there is almost no "risk". In fact I would say there is no risk. Bonds have a tradition of not performing as well as equities, and now they are more volatile than ever before, and yet they are called "low risk". Go figure lol smile.gif
*
The concept of risk is very different from a lay-person point of view versus an academics'.

A lay-person p.o.v. risk can mean anything from losing capital, to not earning enough compared to FD to tens of other reasons. All this mean something to them , but if you ask them to quantify it, they will give you a blank stare.

From an academics' p.o.v. risk is mutually agreed to be a deviation from the expected return also known as variance. Hence standard - deviation is the measurement or quantification of the degree of risk.

NB: Std-dev is the standardization of deviation just like how we use to have inches and feet to measure length, but the metric system is the accepted global standard to measure length.

When you can quantify something, then we can start managing that something. Hence, with the ability of quantifying "risk", risk management comes into play.

Xuzen
xuzen
post Dec 13 2016, 10:07 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,436 posts

Joined: Oct 2008


On Europe exposed UTF,

Both TA & AM's European UTF suxs right now, with TA's suxs less than AM's.

Interestingly, TA adopt a fund-of-fund structure whereas AM uses a daughter-mother feeder structure.

Pros of fund - of - fund:

I) greater diversification than feeder structure
II) more active management, the local fund manager can pick and choose according to his expertise.

Cons of fund - of - fund

III) More expensive because you need to pay multiple parties management fees and this drives up Total fund expense.
IV) Actively managed = higher cost

Pros of feeder fund

V) Simpler arrangement, that is, by just piggy - back on an existing mutual fund
VI) No need to employ local fund manager. It is passive at the local side.
VII) Cost is lower

Cons of feeder fund

VIII) You better make darn sure the mother fund is performing, if it doesn't, the daughter fund will also "koyak" like the mother.

Xuzen

This post has been edited by xuzen: Dec 13 2016, 10:13 AM
wodenus
post Dec 13 2016, 10:16 AM

Tree Octopus
********
All Stars
14,990 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(xuzen @ Dec 13 2016, 10:04 AM)
The concept of risk is very different from a lay-person point of view versus an academics'.

A lay-person p.o.v. risk can mean anything from losing capital, to not earning enough compared to FD to tens of other reasons. All this mean something to them , but if you ask them to quantify it, they will give you a blank stare.

From an academics' p.o.v. risk is mutually agreed to be a deviation from the expected return also known as variance. Hence standard - deviation is the measurement or quantification of the degree of risk.

NB: Std-dev is the standardization of deviation just like how we use to have inches and feet to measure length, but the metric system is the accepted global standard to measure length.

When you can quantify something, then we can start managing that something. Hence, with the ability of quantifying "risk", risk management comes into play.

Xuzen
*
Yea I think I get it.. the economic definition of "risk" is different from the average layman's use of the term. People assume that they are both the same, hence the assumption that mutual funds are "risky" smile.gif

xuzen
post Dec 13 2016, 10:19 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,436 posts

Joined: Oct 2008


QUOTE(wodenus @ Dec 13 2016, 10:16 AM)
Yea I think I get it.. the economic definition of "risk" is different from the average layman's use of the term. People assume that they are both the same, hence the assumption that mutual funds are "risky" smile.gif
*
Your understanding brings a smile to my lips..... I am glad I have helped enlightened another ordinary investor.

This post has been edited by xuzen: Dec 13 2016, 10:23 AM
Ramjade
post Dec 13 2016, 10:51 AM

20k VIP Club
*********
All Stars
24,382 posts

Joined: Feb 2011


Well I noticed that Ponzi 1 reduce Malaysia allocation slightly. From 33%, now it's 31%

This post has been edited by Ramjade: Dec 13 2016, 10:52 AM
Vanguard 2015
post Dec 13 2016, 11:10 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
3,541 posts

Joined: Mar 2015
I did some minor tweak for 2 of my supplementary portfolios today. I switched out completely from Eastspring Bond Fund into the Affin Hwang Select Bond Fund. Less volatile with higher yield.

Where else can you get such a good deal?

After the last scare with the Malaysian bond funds, I realised I have invested too much in it and it is time to cut down my exposure to Malaysian bond funds.
Avangelice
post Dec 13 2016, 11:14 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
5,272 posts

Joined: Jun 2008


QUOTE(Vanguard 2015 @ Dec 13 2016, 11:10 AM)
I did some minor tweak for 2 of my supplementary portfolios today. I switched out completely from Eastspring Bond Fund into the Affin Hwang Select Bond Fund. Less volatile with higher yield.

Where else can you get such a good deal?

After the last scare with the Malaysian bond funds, I realised I have invested too much in it and it is time to cut down my exposure to Malaysian bond funds.
*
Yeap. planning to switch Anita to Esther bond as soon as I get my loses back after the bond blood bath. this incident reminded me how fickle our economy is.
puchongite
post Dec 13 2016, 11:15 AM

20k VIP Club
*********
All Stars
33,683 posts

Joined: May 2008
QUOTE(David3700 @ Dec 12 2016, 11:56 PM)
The main reason for Chinese shares tumble is basically as below to prevent over heated speculating.
"China crackdown on stock purchases by insurance firms sent shares in Shanghai and Shenzhen sharply lower"

This government has a lot of unexpected pattern like limiting cash withdrawal at Macao which sent casino's shares down last Friday.

Just to share some news here.....
*
Do you agree with this analysis ?

http://www.barrons.com/articles/BL-AFUNDSB-8003

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

dasecret
post Dec 13 2016, 11:26 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,498 posts

Joined: Nov 2012
QUOTE(Vanguard 2015 @ Dec 13 2016, 11:10 AM)
I did some minor tweak for 2 of my supplementary portfolios today. I switched out completely from Eastspring Bond Fund into the Affin Hwang Select Bond Fund. Less volatile with higher yield.

Where else can you get such a good deal?

After the last scare with the Malaysian bond funds, I realised I have invested too much in it and it is time to cut down my exposure to Malaysian bond funds.
*
If only FSM distributes a performing global bond to match exposure in global/developed markets equity *subtle hints to the silent reader tongue.gif *

The global bond funds available at the moment really sucks, even with strong USD, Maybank Global Bond Fund baru made 2.61% for 1 year
wil-i-am
post Dec 13 2016, 11:33 AM

10k Club
********
Senior Member
10,001 posts

Joined: May 2013
QUOTE(Ramjade @ Dec 13 2016, 10:51 AM)
Well I noticed that Ponzi 1 reduce Malaysia allocation slightly. From 33%, now it's 31%
*
2% reduction is too negligible
wodenus
post Dec 13 2016, 11:35 AM

Tree Octopus
********
All Stars
14,990 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Avangelice @ Dec 13 2016, 11:14 AM)
Yeap. planning to switch Anita to Esther bond as soon as I get my loses back after the bond blood bath. this incident reminded me how fickle our economy is.
*
Or rather how fickle our people are smile.gif
Ramjade
post Dec 13 2016, 11:37 AM

20k VIP Club
*********
All Stars
24,382 posts

Joined: Feb 2011


QUOTE(wil-i-am @ Dec 13 2016, 11:33 AM)
2% reduction is too negligible
*
Exactly. Should have reduce at least 10%
nexona88
post Dec 13 2016, 11:39 AM

The Royal Club Member
*********
All Stars
48,503 posts

Joined: Sep 2014
From: REality
QUOTE(Avangelice @ Dec 13 2016, 12:47 AM)
Only European fund open to us is TA Europe. you have that in your arsenal bro?
*
Yup, have some..
Plan to add more later blush.gif
dasecret
post Dec 13 2016, 11:44 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,498 posts

Joined: Nov 2012
QUOTE(Ramjade @ Dec 13 2016, 11:37 AM)
Exactly. Should have reduce at least 10%
*
Has it ever occur to you that if you think you can do a better job than the fund manager, you should not let the fund manager earn the 1.5% p.a. management fee from you?

There are many factors to be considered when the markets fell sharply and you are caught offguard, reducing exposure significantly would mean taking significant amount of realised loss as well

Honestly, I don't know how to do the fund manager's job so I'd just let them do theirs and compared the fund manager's performance to their peers every now and then to decide if this is still the fund manager I want to stick to
Ramjade
post Dec 13 2016, 11:50 AM

20k VIP Club
*********
All Stars
24,382 posts

Joined: Feb 2011


QUOTE(dasecret @ Dec 13 2016, 11:44 AM)
Has it ever occur to you that if you think you can do a better job than the fund manager, you should not let the fund manager earn the 1.5% p.a. management fee from you?

There are many factors to be considered when the markets fell sharply and you are caught offguard, reducing exposure significantly would mean taking significant amount of realised loss as well

Honestly, I don't know how to do the fund manager's job so I'd just let them do theirs and compared the fund manager's performance to their peers every now and then to decide if this is still the fund manager I want to stick to
*
Actually if Ponzi 2 can reduce exposure to Malaysia to only about 1%, I can't see why Ponzi 1 cannot. There are other Asia Pacific countries out there. Why overweight in Malaysia? hmm.gif


This post has been edited by Ramjade: Dec 13 2016, 11:51 AM
Avangelice
post Dec 13 2016, 11:56 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
5,272 posts

Joined: Jun 2008


QUOTE(Ramjade @ Dec 13 2016, 11:50 AM)
Actually if Ponzi 2 can reduce exposure to Malaysia to only about 1%, I can't see why Ponzi 1 cannot. There are other Asia Pacific countries out there. Why overweight in Malaysia? hmm.gif
*
correct me if I am wrong when you buy into a fund, there's a trust between the fund manager and the investors that the Fm shall try his or her best to stay within the allocation as per mandated within the fund fact sheet?

nexona88
post Dec 13 2016, 11:57 AM

The Royal Club Member
*********
All Stars
48,503 posts

Joined: Sep 2014
From: REality
QUOTE(Ramjade @ Dec 13 2016, 10:51 AM)
Well I noticed that Ponzi 1 reduce Malaysia allocation slightly. From 33%, now it's 31%
*
At least something..
Lucky didn't instead increased it..
But seriously, they needs to reduce future.. Maybe to 20% like that..
wil-i-am
post Dec 13 2016, 12:05 PM

10k Club
********
Senior Member
10,001 posts

Joined: May 2013
QUOTE(dasecret @ Dec 13 2016, 11:44 AM)
Has it ever occur to you that if you think you can do a better job than the fund manager, you should not let the fund manager earn the 1.5% p.a. management fee from you?

There are many factors to be considered when the markets fell sharply and you are caught offguard, reducing exposure significantly would mean taking significant amount of realised loss as well

Honestly, I don't know how to do the fund manager's job so I'd just let them do theirs and compared the fund manager's performance to their peers every now and then to decide if this is still the fund manager I want to stick to
*
The daily NAV was arrived after performed mark to market it's quoted n unquoted investments
Thus, realised loss is not relevant here
puchongite
post Dec 13 2016, 12:05 PM

20k VIP Club
*********
All Stars
33,683 posts

Joined: May 2008
QUOTE(nexona88 @ Dec 13 2016, 11:57 AM)
At least something..
Lucky didn't instead increased it..
But seriously, they needs to reduce future.. Maybe to 20% like that..
*
Wont happen based on my analysis. AH has many funds in asia pac, if you dont like ponzi 1 switching to other funds is faster than hoping the fund manager shifting composition which overlaps with one of its existing funds.

Other parts of asia pac is also very volatile now.

So I think it is not realistic to expect ponzi 1 to change composition drastically.

If one cannot take the volatility now, switch to ah select bond.
wil-i-am
post Dec 13 2016, 12:07 PM

10k Club
********
Senior Member
10,001 posts

Joined: May 2013
QUOTE(Avangelice @ Dec 13 2016, 11:56 AM)
correct me if I am wrong when you buy into a fund, there's a trust between the fund manager and the investors that the Fm shall try his or her best to stay within the allocation as per mandated within the fund fact sheet?
*
Wat they can do pursuant to deed/trust n wat they will do is 2 separate action

153 Pages « < 125 126 127 128 129 > » Top
Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0295sec    0.56    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 12th December 2025 - 08:29 PM