Sorry for digging an older post but need some clarification.
I want to transfer my EPF investment in Public Mutual to FSM. Had a chat with FSM CS online and the info I got is that I need to redeem/sell my PM UTs and then submit a fresh EPF investment withdrawal form to FSM. I have invested in PM since 2011 and as a result half of my total EPF funds are actually in Public Mutual. The thing is if I sell and withdraw again, I can only withdraw 30++% of what I am going to sell and not the same amount. Is there another way to do this to by retaining the same amount of funds to reinvest into FSM.

I have just realized how much I have been losing with Public Mutual. Did a detailed computation and the returns are less than half of EPF dividends that would have accumulated had I left the amount in EPF. The last time I did a detailed check was in 2013 and at that time it was on par with EPF and I thought in the long term it will give better returns. Well, have no one to blame but myself for not monitoring my investments. I just never expected PM to be so bad when so many other fund houses can do so much better.

Thanks for the suggestion. I guess that would work.

Now thinking whether I should just leave that money in EPF after redeeming coz that's already half of my retirement fund.

This post has been edited by jdgobio: May 23 2017, 05:23 PM

I calculated based on age and minimum basic savings as per EPF guidelines. Since its a fresh withdrawal it is subject to the withdrawal rules.

Correlation means that they somehow move in the same direction up down and similar quantum of movement. So that it can be inferred that they are somehow moving in tandem. It does not mean that they are the same asset class.

This post has been edited by jdgobio: May 29 2017, 03:24 PM

Johson Lee is gonna have a short life. The investors will put a contract on his head and he will be snuffed-out in prison ... after the ass-raping part of course.

Most, but not all. While there are many greedy people who knew what this whole thing was about (but crying foul now anyway) , there are also many ignoramus who went in coz these other greedy fellas convinced them by hiding the truth.
Johnson Lee's scheme is not bad compared to the many others which are running and still pulling in millions in investments. They are still loyal although many months never get "interest" claimed to be some compliance issues. These loyal guys have already made their money and are now protecting the schemers coz otherwise they will kena whack by those they brought into the "investment".

North Korea launched ICBM that can reach Alaska. US is preparing to put a stop to this NK nonsense. War might be coming.

Might be. Dunno for sure. But I think the time is nigh for the US to do something about the idiot Kim before he does something really bad.

I think it doesn't really matter who is on the US side. The US is a superpower with power projection capabilities that neither Russia nor China have. NK is threatening to attack one of the 50 states of the USA and is now finally able to deliver on that threat. The US have always made it known that they will not hesitate to make a pre-emptive strike against countries that threaten them with nukes. (Note that most countries with nukes agreed that they will never strike first with nukes but not the US). Even during the cold war Russia & the US never made such direct threats to each other. I really don't see China and Russia supporting NK but they will probably try their best to stop the conflict from escalating into war.

I hope they find a way to get rid of Kim and his regime and put a more sane government in power without starting a war which is what they will be trying first with the plan B being a nuclear sub in the Sea of Japan waiting for instructions to release their nukes.

Sorry for side-tracking, but I believe that its good to know this as this will affect the financial markets for sure.

IRR takes the time value of your investment into account and gives you an annualized rate vs ROI which is just the return on your total investment without taking the time/duration into account. So you're absolutely right about its significance and relevance in managing one's portfolio. But I think many people with non-finance background tend to simplify it to something that is universally understood like ROI but they don't realize that this is not the full picture of their investments performance.

Some calculations to show how additional cash from investors affect the NAV & unit price. This is based on my limited understanding of how the fund accountant prepares the daily fund accounts in order to come up with the NAV & unit price calculations.

So in summary, the new cash injected by investors will directly increase the NAV but only after the new investor have been allotted his share of units. This increase in NAV is diluted by more units issued so at the end, the NAV per unit or unit price remains the same as it was before the new cash injected. Did I miss something?


Attached thumbnail(s)

I believe traditional finance concept states that Bonds/Fixed Income will yield better returns in bad times (interest is brought down by The Feds/Central Bank to discourage savings and encourage investments to spur the economy and thus bond yields goes up). What kind of bond funds will be the best for this scenario?
Esther Bond for e.g. seems to be slow and steady and doesn't really go up a lot during a downturn. So its not really suitable for this scenario. What bond funds have negative correlation to most equities so that it shoots up to prop-up your portfolio during a downturn?

Actually that was not a general question, it was a specific one. In the context of FSM MY, which Bond fund is suitable for this. Bond fund specifically, not commodities, precious metals, mmf, etc. Any ideas?

Based on this, Libra Asnita Bond has the lowest correlation with other UTFs (at least with those in the list). Thank you, that's a very good find

Thank you for the candy boss

Yup, I checked the graph too and although the correlation is -ve, its not a big enough -ve to push it up to buffer the portfolio so it doesn't really help that much. Theoretically, if we have perfectly inverse correlation (-1.0) then the UTFs will move in opposite directions and total returns will suffer (diworsified).

With a mid-term target (3-5 years) of seeking alpha, I am wondering whether it makes sense to keep 20% - 30% FI in the portfolio when it isn't really gonna help much in case of a general downturn. Wouldn't it make more sense to sell all equities and go into bonds when the downturn happens instead? Of course this is assuming there is an active monitoring of the port periodically to identify the potential down-turn in time. In this scenario will it make sense to go all in into equities (make hay while the sun shines)?

This is what I am thinking too. If I plan to build a balanced portfolio or have at least 40% FI to weather the storm it makes sense because the smoothing out effect is substantial. If I want to hold only 20% in an aggressive port, does it really make sense? It helps but to such a low extent that it doesn't really matter much. I am thinking that it makes more sense to go all-in into equities until it starts to cool-off or signs of a downturn appear. But conventional port building always advocate to have at least 20% in FI? Am I missing something fundamental here?

Don't feed the troll.

I have seen those statistics as well and I agree that with a long term investment horizon (>10 years), it absolutely makes sense to have higher % of FI or even 50/50. But my question is for the mid term, <10 years horizon. In the mid-term it is highly likely that the aggressive port will outperform the balanced port. Of course there could be a black swan event somewhere within the period to throw a spanner in the works but this is where the switching comes in. Yes, timing will be crucial so it would be important to stick to pre-determined metrics on cutting losses e.g. switch to bonds when the fund drops X% within a certain time span. Take emotion out of it, and do it methodically.

Does this strategy have potential or is this looking for trouble? Appreciate any feedback on what you think about this strategy.

Don't have a detailed plan yet, just exploring the idea right now. If I decide that its worth pursuing, then will come up with a detailed method. If/when I eventually come up with the plan, it will not try to cover all scenarios, it will try to be robust and include both quantitative and qualitative metrics and allow room for a judgment call while ensuring that emotions stay out of it. Conceptually seems interesting but I am not experienced enough in UTFs to foresee the potential downside.