One way to assess is to compare the fund with its peer within the same league, for example affin hwang select bond fund is a fixed income fund invest in diverse sectors within asia ex japan region, compared some funds in the same league

Also, if you have some financial knowledge, you can also read their fund fact sheet or annual report to see what they invest into, and with some financial news, along with the performance peer comparison, you can understand why such such fund is performing or declining as a lot of factors comes into play to determine a fund's worthy
(0) fund house is the party that managed the fund (i.e. Affin hwang select bond fund is managed by Affin hwang)
(1) Annual management charge is the charges charged by the fund house for mannaging the fund
(2) Trustee fee is the charges that charged for trustee institution to protect the fund money
(3) Switching Fee is the charges charged by fund house if you decide to switch between funds
(4) Annual expense ratio is the ratio that shows how much is the expense cost as compared to the fund value (overall value, not part of the individual charges)

(1) & (2) are according to the fund and was reflected in the daily NAV value, so regardless of the platform or agents (citibank, maybank, fsm, eUT etc....), these are the implicit charges in the fund you invest

(3) only incurred when you switch to different funds.

Platform fee is the charges charged by FSM for fixed income funds. (this is different to sales charge)

The difference between citibank or bank agents or fund house agents and FSM is that the bank agents charged at normal sales charge (usually) due to human processing need

Whereas FSM, the platform is online, you can deal your investment there, so the sales charge are usually low or 0% (for fixed income fund)

p/s: the expense part is also one of the criteria you can assess when choosing a fund (i.e. if several funds perform similarly, lower expense cost signify efficient investment fund) (at least thats what i think )

er.. sorry ar.. just to point out, thus U are clearer. may sound pointed/bad but please take it as creating clarity for U + other newbies that have weird ideas about UTs (and trying to logic/ calculate / compare things which are not worthwhile or calculatable):

1. Nope, based on the Qs U've been asking, even the last above, U dont know how UT works

UTs':
2. Fund's NAV =
a. (Fund's total value
b. / total units)
c. LESS daily pro-rated costs (mgt fees, this/that) LESS distributions

The main focus is (2a.) above
It is made up of Stocks' prices + Bonds's prices + cash & other stuff +interest/dividends/payouts from these held

Knowing (2a.) then, one would NOT compare UTs to stocks directly
Value of UT = a mini portfolio by itself, can hold stocks, bonds, FDs, Options, etc, a composite if U may call it that
Value of Stock = stock price * units

see the big difference?

<end of old fart's mumbling>

if they did not charge you than it will be weird....
did Citibank send you any prospectus or fund factsheet?
those charges are stated in there.

If 1 & 2 is already included in the NAV value. So does that mean if the projected annual return of 10.75% is already inclusive of this Annual Management Charge of 1.5 % or would I have to deduct 1.5% which makes the net projected earning percentage to 9.25%

They do gave me a brochure which states the charges for it, but if I remember correctly it is just 2% sales charge and the other charges is 0%. As I already lost the brochure since it was some time ago. I'll try to inquire it from the bank this week and find out more about it.

public mutual fund really a scam?

If you mean by mutuak funds sold through bank agents or online platform, the published daily NAV values are net of those charges, meaning the performance are net off charges, what was displayed is the return you will get, no need of manual calculation.

However, i guess your question about projected annual return refer to insurance policy term as most of the time they use the projected term , that I am not so sure, you need to read their sales illustration fine print

public mutual fund really a scam?

I'm using the term projected because everything it is just an estimation based on previous annual results. But I don't think NAV values already lessen off the charges as I did make a check online before I purchase, which matches the current value of it.

But I'll find out more about it this week and see how it differs with FSM 

I'm using the term projected because everything it is just an estimation based on previous annual results. But I don't think NAV values already lessen off the charges as I did make a check online before I purchase, which matches the current value of it.

But I'll find out more about it this week and see how it differs with FSM 

public mutual fund really a scam?

Uh...those are all basic knowledge. I do know it.

Anyway my apologies for complicating matters and asking about stocks here. Won't repeat that error as everyone seems to have lost their minds.

Surprisingly, for citibank they doesn't charge an agent fee. It's only a one time fee of 2%. The same as my recent funds placement through Great Eastern.

I'm only looking at the technical indicator of the chart. Because it just look stagnant, which would suggest to a drop later on which I define it as bad.

The updates I get from my RM is a summarized version of a good or bad stock(straightforward). Either if it would be a good time to withdraw, placing more funds or perform a switching. Based on information they gotten from their bank and news they have read about. So far the indicators my former RM provided me is reliable.

That's weird because Citibank didn't charge me for that, referring to the annual management charge. Although I did ask them about this before placing in it 1 year back.

And for Great Eastern I'm still waiting for the policy, as I'm also told the same as well that only a one-time fee of 2% will be charged for lifetime.

But a downside is that the bank will charge another 2% for switching funds, while FSM doesn't have that if it is managed by the same fund company.

Will research more about it.

Waiting to see you guys update 2016 ROI numbers..

Urgh - my bad English, hard to "say what i mean" without data / tables + vocal tones

Anyhow, since U are a data cruncher - have a look at the below & feed data / play with the structure/Excel (ZIP file).
Don't take my opinion as gospel


Idea = A. buy blindly every year, same date (something like DCA)
VS
B. some sort of timing buy

1. Both using the same available funds.
for (B.) if unused for the year(s), accumulate for usage

2. Timing for (B.), used a simple - "Buy if the thing falls 80% or more based on historical falls":
a. Current Nav or Price LESS Highest in 6 months', 12 months' & 24 months'
b. Compare current 2a. to historical 2a. - if current <= historical's 20th percentile, then BUY with unused $ (timing ma)

3. For unused $, no interest was calculated/added

Tested the ETF for S&P500 + some local blue chip stocks.
I didn't test against UTs as the data for UTs are not as transparent - have to even out the historical NAV with distributions, splits, etc., else not comparable properly.

Data used was from Yahoo Finance & the price / nav used was the ADJ. CLOSE - which evens out the distributions, dividends, splits based on the last data point.

Opinion so far:
4. Don't bother timing if one invest $ which is not needed for 10 to 20 years AND one has a proper portfolio - ie. cash, FD, bonds + the UTs/ETFs/Stocks
Keep in mind - one may want to watch it 3-5 years when liquidation is needed.
COZ the total end value is more than "timing".

5. IF one is not working (ie no constant / reliable cash income from active work) OR has no proper portfolio planned / executed, the "timing" will make sense
COZ less capital at risk.

Jan till end Dec....

pssssh...did not show you the fall from Early Jan 

OK are you sure we're still talking about mutual funds? or some sort of endowment policy? you don't get policies with mutual funds.