No, they haven't reduced the charges yet. The longer they delay it, the more customers they are going to lose.

---

Added on May 23, 2009, 1:00 pmNot sure what you are referring to - I only get one login, and that login summarizes everything on the same "system" so it seems.

There should be only one system though, because while there are PB and PM funds, they are all managed by the same subsidiary and presumably the same system.

This post has been edited by howszat: May 23 2009, 01:00 PM

No wonder I didn't see this. It's not on their PM Online login page though a little section near the bottom that says you cannot do switching is gone.

Next, it's time for PM to reduce their service charge. Let's hope they wake up and realize they are losing business (at least in my case) to the competition every day they delay this. If they are already awake, then they should get off their behinds and do something.

But hey, thanks for the improvements so far.

That is very true.

Branch customer service may be what helped the bank to grow in the past, but they need to catch up with the Internet Age, which started many years ago. When I first used their online FD deposit, I was expecting it to appear in the online statement and that's it. I couldn't believe it when somebody rang me up and asked me to pick up a paper deposit certificate from the branch! Kinda defeats the purpose of "online" really.

But I must say I'm happy with the changes they have made to PM Online recently. Now, I can do everything sitting on my bum.

When you have switched ALL units from ABC, you can switch back to it anytime. Cost you 25 bucks, that's all -- unless you have enough MGQPs.

When you get the slip posted to your address, it will have an initial UserID and Password which is valid for 30 days. Using this User ID/Password at the PMO site, you change to your preferred UserID/Password, and that is how you activate it.

You can then use PME option 3 to register each individual fund and option 2 to make investments in those registered funds without having to login & request a PAC each time you make an investment if you were to do the same thing from PMO.

How do you calculate 6-folds?. The highest return fund over that period is something like 2-3 folds. Which fund(s) are you referring to? Distributions don't count, because they come out of the total NAV.

There seems to be two different pages on the same topic saying two different things (or at least not saying the same thing):

1) http://www.publicmutual.com.my/page.aspx?n...e_mutualgold_01

Loaded funds only, no mention of the number of switchings allowed per year. So this means no limit?

2) http://www.publicmutual.com.my/page.aspx?n...ces-mg_benefits

Up to 12 switchings only. So this means regardless of loaded or not?

Which one is the right one?

The total amount of investment you have before the payment, and the total amount you have after the payment are still the same.

Which means there is absolutely no point in knowing when the payment date is, or how much the distribution actually is.

All it is is a marketing gimmick designed to catch people who didn't know any better.

I agree with those who said UTC are nothing more than sales people and provide little added value.

About the only monitoring they do is to keep you informed about new funds, hoping maybe they can make a little commission off you.

There are not any that monitor in terms of advising when/what to buy and when to sell. If they exist, and they are any good at it, they would have been appointed Fund Managers, and not remain as UTC.

There would be those who still prefer to go through UTCs for whatever reasons, and those who do not.

For those who do, they are welcome to pay the full service charge. For those who don't, PB/PM management should not require them to pay the full service charge. Charging a full fee for service-not-rendered is bad business practice.

I suspect (I hope) that things will change with the PMO website. If it doesn't, there is this thing known as "competition". And they can only lose business if they don't do something about it.

The implementation should be rather simple - those who go through their UTCs for processing pay full fee, those who invest online directly get discounted fees.

I haven't met all 30,000 UTCs, but I suspect a large majority do not depend entirely on the commission as their sole source of income. But you are right, what to do with them is a big question for PM.

Whether they should do nothing in the face of competition is the other question they have to address.

---

Added on November 28, 2009, 11:38 pmNot at all. Customers can voice their dissatisfaction and give their feedback to the companies. In fact, companies often pay big bucks to do customer satisfaction surveys.



This post has been edited by howszat: Nov 28 2009, 11:38 PM

Whether you buy one time or 20 times, the sales charge is a one-off charge of 5.5%. It is not recurring yearly unlike the management fee of 1.5% which is a yearly charge.

To use your example of 10K. The sales charge is 5.5%.

scenario 1: if you stay invested for 5 years, the yearly equivalent sales charge is 5.5 / 5 = 1.1% per annum. The total effect yearly charge is 1.1 + 1.5 = 2.5% per annum.

scenario 2: if you stay invested for 10 years, the yearly equivalent sales charge is 5.5 / 10 = 0.55% per annum. The total effective yearly charge is 0.55 + 1.5 = 2.05% per annum.

The longer you stay invested, the lower the effective sales charge per annum. Whether you go for monthly or lump-sum investments, the effect of sales charge is practically the same.

500 x 12 x 10 = 60000

60000 x 5.5% = 3000 3300 total

PS: Is it NOT 12 x 10 x 5.5 = 660% if that's what you are saying.

This post has been edited by howszat: Jan 3 2010, 04:39 PM

No sales charges are incurred on "switch" transactions if the source funds you are switching from are already loaded (ie sales charges already paid).

---

Added on January 3, 2010, 9:01 pmIt's not a minus point, it's actually an irrelevant point. The total value of the investment is the same before and after distributions/dividends, which is why it is irrelevant. You cannot say the same thing for stocks or FD.

This post has been edited by howszat: Jan 3 2010, 09:01 PM

No, afraid that's not the case.

Amplification is purely due to the total amount ($ value) of the investment, which doesn't change with distribution. You cannot make amplification happen by simply tweaking the number of units. The total number of units is irrelevant.

Otherwise, Fund Managers would simply make units of very small NAV value which gives everybody a large number of units and everybody's investments would be amplified and everyone would be very happy. But that's not how it works unfortunately.

Let's take a simple example. Let's say Fund A holds RM 1 million of stock ABC. The appreciation/amplication of the stock is purely due to the RM 1 million. The stock market don't care whether the fund is split into RM1 mil x 1 unit, or RM500k x 2 unit or RM1 x 1 million units.

Moving forward, you still have RM 1 million. Just because you decided to split it up doesn't mean your 1 million now have greater amplication effect. You cannot create something out of nothing.

In your example, after the distribution, EACH unit will have a lower NAV, so it is WRONG to assume it will still go up by the same 1 cent. Comprehend?

No, wrong.

No compounding effect here. Unlike FD where the total value goes up after interest. Here the total value doesn't. Your RM 1million is still 1 million before and after distribution.

Very simply, in your example, you cannot expect that a lower NAV after the distribution will still have same capability of increasing by the same 1 cent. It simply doesn't.

Your example was wrong to begin with. But no dispute/reasons from you why it cannot increase by the same 1 cent? That's because you don't have valid reason.