That's just dividend. His capital gain + dividends - 14.69%
Respectable for malaysian market 

That's just dividend. His capital gain + dividends - 14.69%
Respectable for malaysian market 

contestchris definitely rubs people in the wrong way. its not entirely his fault as words when not spoken but typed might sound different to different people. however, AIYH made a good point, do consider people's feelings or tone it down if possible. If not, you make yourself stand out for all the wrong reasons.

I mean for me that is, I don't care if UT can't beat the benchmarks in returns. My assumption is that UT did their due diligence in diversification so for sure that may dampen the returns, but if the UT loses more than benchmark in bad times then it says something negative about the fund. UT should be less volatile than the benchmark, that is my expectation.

I prefer to compare UT with all my existing crappy investment like FD, endowment and such. If UT is consistently >3% better in returns than these instruments then i am all for it.

He's probably got the best performing portfolio though.

How old is he? in the very long term, a mutual fund will still outperform him.

He's probably got the best performing portfolio though.

Ponzi 1 has almost similar return to his dividend stocks. But if factor the sc he get better return.

Sure bo? Post by Dividend magic IFP.
http://dividendmagic.com.my/2017/01/13/inv...le-get-started/

I mean, those numbers are kinda iffy lah. Sure, the figures add up, but you must consider, how often can individual stockholders beat or match the market?

Read this article: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why...gain-2017-02-09

Sure, I mean really if you got all the know-how and resources (knowledge + capital + contacts + experience) go directly into stocks, but those guys in Kenanga and Eastspring and CIMB Principal and Affin Hwang have got a dedicated team that visits factories and offices of small cap companies, meet up with senior management once every three months, have got insider contacts in each sector/industry, have extensive financial modelling programs, have access to Bloomberg terminals...need I go on?

I think you are missing the point. The thing is if you are holding for long term (dividend stocks), it will beat growth stocks.



Got this off a SG financial blogger.
http://singaporeanstocksinvestor.blogspot.com/

Original website:
http://dividendmachines.com/

... "do you think your brain will still be as sharp 50 years from now?"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596698/

Dividend paying stocks are usually your large cap bluechips which are stable and tend to sustain themselves over a long period of time.

Growth stocks are fiery in the short term, and not long after the fire dies. So you can't invest in a growth stock in the long term - you need to know when to get out. Growth stocks are short to medium term investments.

Look at the KGF and Eastspring SC Fund...they're both mainly growth orientated, and are actively managed, such that they outperform the Malaysian market greatly over a large period of time.

Agree with u on this. If dividend stocks can be growth stocks then there is no point investing in growth stocks. It's risk vs stability right.

Not necessarily. Dividend is how much the company want to give out. So if the company give out it's profit by say 90% (like in REITS), they have not much left to grow. If they give out say 30-40%, they still have 70-60% left over. UP to you whether you want all the income or let the company decide what's good for itself.

I have seen DividendMagic post here but rarely. I hope he can come and show me or us his working and let us scrutinize it. I wish to see his logic behind the numbers. I hope the dividendmagic poster is the same person who owns that blog.

But Ramjade, while waiting for DividendMagic to come back to us, reread my post again. Stock trading comes with a price. Unless you are the type who buys and holds it for umpteen years.

===========================

On another hand however, your post highlight one thing that is quite common, that is, many of you noobs will read somewhere some articles written by some omputeh who talks about low index fund, low fees bla bla bla and then repeat it here in Malaysia context without first investigating that those articles are written for a certain country specific context, namely US market.

Yes, in the US you have ultra low cost ETFs and whatsnot. What is my bug bear is many noobs will quote these articles and treat it as gospel truth and not realizing that those articles are written for a different geographical and demographically different audience.

Xuzen

p/s Further more Dividend Magic makes an assumption that 7% ROI by a professional manager can be replicated by an ordinary run of the mill retail investor which I believe is over generalization.  On the other hand, he assert that fund manager consistently cannot beat the market. This assertion is another fallacy that he and many other repeats without first investigating the origin of this fallacy.

The oft repeated mantra "FM cannot beat the index" originates from Vanguard's John Bogle and John is correct..... for the US market. Unfortunately this mantra has been used too freely and applied as a blanket statement to all mutual funds, when if one investigated further and thoroughly it was originally intended for the US market.

However, if you look at Malaysia context, our beloved KGF / Kapchai beats the benchmark year in and year out for the past ten years and that is despite already factored in the MER.

If you look at his Freedom fund which he was kind enough to share, his return for 2015 was about 2.x % and 2016 was 3.x %

So investing in stock was not as easy in real life when you factor in all the variables. If you are a talented investor then for sure. But for an average Joe, who wants a simpler path, then maybe informed passive investment in mutual fund is a worthy consideration.

I mean for me that is, I don't care if UT can't beat the benchmarks in returns. My assumption is that UT did their due diligence in diversification so for sure that may dampen the returns, but if the UT loses more than benchmark in bad times then it says something negative about the fund. UT should be less volatile than the benchmark, that is my expectation.

I prefer to compare UT with all my existing crappy investment like FD, endowment and such. If UT is consistently >3% better in returns than these instruments then i am all for it.

That's just dividend. His capital gain + dividends - 14.69%
Respectable for malaysian market 

:-) Fortunately, the shrinking brain and cognitive decline which are highlighted by that article, can be combat with aerobic training.

https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/...es-Brain-Volume

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-...ordination.html

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/a...it-brain-at-50/

:-) Isn't this a good excuse to step back from this forum and entrust the RM to invest on your behalf, so that u can channel your limited free time to training for the marathon / triathlon ?

Hai guys! This thread got awakened suddenly I see..
Firstly, I am one and the same. The blog is mine. =D

The minimum fee for Hong Leong is RM8.48 per transaction now (https://www.hlb.com.my/main/e-broking). I'm pretty sure the other brokerages are charging similar competitive rates already

Now on to the interesting part.. In terms of cost efficiency if you're using RM200 as a base.. of course 2% beats RM8. That's math. Do note that when you reach the RM800 figure, it kinda evens out right. Assuming you take into account  both the purchasing and selling fees. Another way to look at this is, I save up and invest once every 6 months. That's RM1,200 at a RM16 (RM8 x 2) transaction fee. But that's RM24 in fees for you. And that's only the service charges.

I also understand UTs do charge you management fees, switching fees, trustee fees etc. Taking the long term view into account, I do sincerely think managing your own portfolio of shares is much better.

You're also right that the mantra "FM cannot beat the index" is mainly for the US market. But do you really think our Malaysian fund managers are better than their US counterparts? It is unfair to just pick one fund that's performing to represent all funds. If I recall, the statement was something like 99% of all funds can't beat the index in the long term. Anyway, this argument/debate has been going on for decades with no real conclusion. Think it's pointless for us to continue here 

Hope I covered everything! Really interesting to read everyone's opinions here. Looking forward to more constructive discussions!

I mean, those numbers are kinda iffy lah. Sure, the figures add up, but you must consider, how often can individual stockholders beat or match the market?

Read this article: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why...gain-2017-02-09

Sure, I mean really if you got all the know-how and resources (knowledge + capital + contacts + experience) go directly into stocks, but those guys in Kenanga and Eastspring and CIMB Principal and Affin Hwang have got a dedicated team that visits factories and offices of small cap companies, meet up with senior management once every three months, have got insider contacts in each sector/industry, have extensive financial modelling programs, have access to Bloomberg terminals...need I go on?

I think that's the main difference between Malaysia's market and the more transparent US one.

I think that's the main difference between Malaysia's market and the more transparent US one.