Not exactly right, old fund doesn't mean it won't go up, performance wise all depend on their protfolio aka stocks they are holding. New fund and old fund doesn't make any difference, the different in performance come from their protfolio.

Different funds have different strategies and investment are done based on the prospectus set and under trustee supervision. They can't go beyond their scope under the trustee agreement and prospectus set. Just like if the prospectus of the bonds fund is aiming at invest in bond, they can't go to stock market to buy equities.

The primary reason of new funds keep on coming out is because investment bank or UT company can make more money through it (comission/front end load/management fee), also there are plenty demand out there after several years of equities bull run that people look at their past few years (UT) performance which is way beyond their conservative FD deposits. I don't say future will be the same nor UT is good nor bad to invest currently, don't get me wrong here.

The more new fund with new strategies will keep some interest investors out there. Just like people saw oil price keep on shooting up then they want some sort of fund that invest in oil or oil company (resources) etc. so it is a demand and UT company meet the demand by launching resources fund etc.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Sep 18 2007, 03:16 PM

I prefer old funds which has track record or those which has won award for consistent performance. Got track record better than no track record (this cannot be said for PCSF, turbo so much within a month 20%+)

To me New funds or Old funds are the same. New funds NAV is lower is a gimmick

This is quite true and people persume it is 'cheap' but actually it is the same. Either they launched IPO price at Rm1.00, Rm0.50 or Rm0.25 makes no different. But a lot of folks out there see the Rm0.25 is 'cheap'. I came across an aunties say want to choose the RM0.25 one but don't want the Rm1.00 by saying the RM1.00 is more expensive but don't know the different between the two funds nor knowing what are the fund investing.

This is the advantage of having old fund, no doubt. Meanwhile, there are plenty of new funds that come with different sectors play. Both have pros and cons.

Yeah, true..
From my perspective, I look at new funds because most of the new funds are investing in the most recent hot portfolio..
Old funds can't really change their scope anymore as cherroy said, so new funds is the only way to go..
Get into what's hot for some quick cash..

great sharing there..

1. fund portfolios aren't static.. (there're mandates and investment criterias)
2. cost of entry is cited as important towards new fund purchase.

how about..
3. new funds are also required during downtime?
(take note of upcoming new fund launches.. despite subdued market conditions)

Personally think the currently, you can't classify current market condition as down nor bear. Look at bigger picture and long term chart, still most worldwide stock markets are not far from its historical high.
Take a look on 5 years chart, still market is at high side.

But condition can change in the future which no one can predict correctly how it will be.

Instead new fund should be launched during bear market as time and time again, it proves that bear market (especially when recession near to end) is the time to pick up some good stock that price is under distressed despite company fundamental still intact. But launching new fund during bear market, I think fund house will have difficulty to sell it, that's why nobody want to launch new fund at that time instead launching during a bull run will receive overhelming response and fully subscribe.

Yes, fund portfolios are not static throughout, but not as frequent as some retailers, buy and sell in just few days. They will review their portfolio from time to time which depends on market movement, company fundamental etc. if nothing changes much, then they generally hold for long term, only trade small portion of their fund.

Yes, if fund house launch new funds during bear market, it's really difficult to sell the funds, although that's the best time to invest. Most people will only invest when bull market and stop invest during bear market. Anyway, only people invest in other way round can be rich...

Slightly OFF topic.

I have invested in 4 (relatively new funds) PIADF,PCSF,PFEPRF & PIABF. I'm looking to invest in the older funds, any recommendations? I'm aggressive, so only equities please.

Have you consulted your agent..?
Your agent should be able to recommend you some..

But here's my take, sorted in descending order:

PCSF
PIADF
PBADF
PFEPRF

I have other funds as well, but they're not performing well..
So going to switch them to these funds..
You can load more into PCSF, since the typhoon is over now..
I believe PCSF is just in its infancy, a higher jump should come closer to the Olympics..
What's better is that PCSF might be able to pay a high dividend at the end of the FY before Olympics..

PIADF is stable income+growth fund, you could consider topping up more..
I'm estimating a dividend of not less than 3 sen, with growth potentially to 0.28 at its FY end..

For older funds, you could try PFEDF..
It has quite a track record, and the dividend was almost 4 sen if I'm not mistaken..
I can check my records for you, or you could ask your agent..

18/09/2007





KLCI
All Time & Current High: 24/07/2007 1392.18
Correction Low : 17/08/2007 1191.55

If you want aggressive, PAGF is an aggressive fund and it has been launched for more than 10 years.
Anyway, a local fund PRSF is a good choice, mostly invest in bluechips.

19/09/2007





KLCI
All Time & Current High: 24/07/2007 1392.18
Correction Low : 17/08/2007 1191.55

PRSF already 13 years, so it has almost peaked..
Our local market is not moving very fast now..
The best is to choose regional markets..
Better leverage opportunities..
PCSF is the best performing regional fund at the moment, and more upside as Olympics is closing in..

EDIT: If you look at percentage wise, PCSF made a little over 2% since yesterday, but PAGF only managed a little less than 1.7%, while PRSF, not much to say..

This post has been edited by Jordy: Sep 20 2007, 01:50 PM

Well, it has reached it's peak before the recent correction. Now still can buy mar
If KLCI goes back to it's previous high, I'm seeing another 10% more to go for this PRSF fund

And yes PCSF is kind of good for those with the balls

---

Added on September 20, 2007, 1:48 pmDon't slam me, I might be wrong

This post has been edited by dzi921: Sep 20 2007, 01:48 PM

I didn't have the balls before, so PCSF only stands at 10% in my portfolio at the moment..
Soon, I'll be switching 45% from my other funds into PCSF, and wait for Olympics..
Look at the bigger picture, regional funds are breaking more previous highs than us..
We only managed once if I'm not mistaken, and that was at end of May..?!

I also have no balls till now so not really eyeing for PCSF even though it's so attractive.

Lol, investors take calculated risk..
I'm betting on PCSF for now..
Once my other funds are released, I'll go into PCSF..

20/09/2007





KLCI
All Time & Current High: 24/07/2007 1392.18
Correction Low : 17/08/2007 1191.55

Ai yo yo...

Why my PSMALLCAP and PIOF down...

Nevermind also, I just switch portion of my PRSF into PSMALLCAP. Consider as lower entry for PSMALLCAP lor...

what i was referring back to the point that i raised about having new funds.. as an alternate vehicle to transfer risk/loss from the older funds.

so, older funds that have higher evaluated stocks can transfer (sell high).. to a new funds (buy low).. when the stock market is not in favorable long condition.

by doing so, the fund company do not have to force-liquidate their older stocks but convert them to cash for a ready entry to other stocks.

as for new funds.. their portfolio may not be fully vested and so, are able to absorb these good performance, higher priced, older stocks from the older funds at a lower price..

these internal transfer do not required actual transaction in the stock market and thus able to further reduce the cost of administering a fund per se..

it can be a very prudent move for the managed fund company..