I wonder why the original agent's agreement is required? It's just like buying from the shops - if you don't like what a shop is selling you, you can go to another shop anytime.

This PIX fund appears to just follow the KLCI in performance, and yet have a full service charge. There are other funds that track the KLCI at a much lower charge, like 2%. So what's the attraction?

I was refering to PIX. Website still says 6.5% service charge, but I assume it's now 5.5%. The performance of PIX follows the KLCI which means the fund managers doesn't have to do much except to buy the components which make up KLCI. That's why other types of funds which do the same thing (track KLCI) have a lower service charge (<2%) than normal (equity/balanced) funds which require more active management from the fund managers involved.

OSK-UOB KLCI Tracker Fund

http://www.oskuob.com.my/OSKUOB/page.jsp?n...funddtl_tracker

1% fee on purchase, 1% fee on redemption = 2%

CIMB-Principal KLCI-Linked Fund 2

http://www.investmentgame.com.my/game/fund...-one?fund_id=15

Sales charge: 2%

This post has been edited by howszat: Feb 4 2008, 10:03 PM

Ok, I take back what I said previously said about PIX.

When I initially looked at the performance graph for the past 1 year, it looked like the performance was similar to KLCI. When I look again at the longer term (3-5 years), it's giving higher returns even though the up-down pattern is the same. So, it's not just passively tracking the KLCI.

Sure, Public has got some good funds. I've got some myself.

The image tags appears as blank to me... Can other people see the links?

Anyone looking at PBCPEF or PCSF?

Have they reached the bottom yet, or could drop further?

>> Buying Unit Trust is like investing in shares, however you need to consider a longer time horizon like at least 3 to 5 years to see the real returns because of the ups and downs of the markets worldwide.

I agree, subjected to caveats below.

>> There is no such thing as to buy the lowest and sell the highest. But you have to ask yourself whether there is any potential for the fund to grow such as PCSF for medium and long term.

Certainly not the most lowest or most highest because that is going to be difficult to predict. The "potential" for a high-risk fund like PCSF is difficult to define because of its volatile nature. For eg at the end of Oct, 07, it was at the peak. Then it dropped to the lowest point on 22-Jan, 08. The difference between the two points is something like 41%. If you get in at the wrong time as a lump sum investor, its going to take a looong-loong time to recover.

>> In Unit Trust, we always advise people to do some dollar cost averaging especially when the market is moving downwards, because you tend to get more units. If the price subsequently go up, you would benefit from this
practice.

Which is what I'm getting at in my previous post. Buy some when it's down, but you could buy less now or hold off until later *if* you think it's going to go down further.

>> As evidence from the past, investors using the dollar cost averaging method tend to gain more. The dollar cost averaging always works well with Asset Allocations meaning you would take advantage when market is high by switching to bond fund part by part. switching back to equity when market is low.

This sounds like what a balanced fund should do for you, but what you need to do yourself with mostly-equities funds. Which is exactly what I'm getting at in my previous post - buy some equities when it's low. How much and when is the question. Alternatively, as you say, do it part by part.

>> People say there is no right or wrong way of investing, but you have to be open minded and prepared to hear what others have to say. From there, you make your own decisions.

Sure.

>> I may not be answering directly to your question, but just want to share with you another Option that you may want to consider. WE want to work out a win-win situation for our customers and us.

Always useful to hear other opinions, even from a Unit Trust agent.

This post has been edited by howszat: Feb 18 2008, 11:18 PM

>> And those prepared to invest more ( do dollor cost averaging ) during the crisis would tend to gain further bcos they get more units.

This works best *if* the investor has also been divesting when the market is good.

>> Currently, it is my personal opinion that China this year could be in a consolidating due to overheating of economy and impact of US economy, but should be good in the medium term.

I share the same opinion, but wanted to see what other people think when I asked the question about the 2 China funds.

>> For equity fund whether you area prepared to switch to bond fund partially when price or valuation is high or stay put is your personal choice. Balance fund is in 50% equity and 50% bond, and it stays invested in that manner, might not take advantage when market is low.

Different funds have different percentages for "balanced" funds, but the idea is that the percentages should not be exceeded. So using your 50/50 example, when equities are going up the percentage would increase to greater than 50%, so the manager should sell some to bring the balance back to nearer 50%. Conversely, when equities are down, the percentage would decrease so the manager should buy some more. In theory, at least.

>> Public Mutual has the softwares to show you whether to stay invested or stop investing according to past chartings. You would see a clearer picture iif you go through the softwares and investing with virtual money. Dollar cor averaging down wards have certain advantages.
>> You can approach your agent to discuss further.

That's news to me. I will talk to my agent next time. Thanks.

I disagree with the advice because it is only part of the story.

Fundamentals are important, of course. But one should not ignore timing altogether.

One can never tell for sure what's going to happen next, but one should be able to tell the difference between bull and bear markets.

If one believe the fundamentals for a particular stock or fund for the long term is good, then it is better to buy in a bear market, and hold off buying (or at least not buy so much) in a bull market. NASDAQ is a good example of what happens if you go in at the wrong time - it was at a peak in year 2000, and 8 years later it is just half of what it was.

Timing is also an indicator of fundamentals. In a bull market, when people are chasing the price up and up, you can almost be sure that whatever you are buying is not going to be cheap relative to the fundamentals. Besides, as far as the China funds/shares are concerned, I suspect there is far more sentiment than fundamentals involved.

PCSF started in Jun, 07. Now it is sitting at (minus) -6%. And that is only if you had gone in when the fund started. If you had gone in at a later (read much higher) price, the loss is even worse. It is difficult to see how that can be defined a "best fund" in any terms.

As far as I can tell, all the Bond funds are low-load units with a service charge of 0.25%. According to the prospectus, if you switch from low-load units to Equity/Balanced funds you pay "At NAV + Service Charge".

On the other hand, if you switch from loaded units Bond funds, you don't pay service charge. But what are loaded units Bond funds? Because every fund that is >0.25% sc belong to the moderate or higher risk categories so they are not really bond funds. Can you clarify?

Thanks for the clarification.

I would tend to agree. The China market is no good right now, but it has great potential if they can get their current problems under control, and they seem to be committed in achieving this.

Their political situation is very stable compared to the past where there were "power struggles" each time there is a change of leadership.

Top secret new fund: PBCPDF

No announcements on the PM home page, no Fund Information page?

This post has been edited by howszat: Mar 27 2008, 12:10 AM

My 2 sen says it's the other way round - stockmarkets are yardsticks of economies months after the events.

There are certainly those who invest in the stockmarkets with long term views (as things probably should be), but there are many others who don't. For eg, much of today's pricing in the stockmarkets is based on news that came out yesterday. The news that came out yesterday is say regarding, a US economic indicator of some sort for the previous months or quarters.

An even more curious phenomenon is the effect of earnings reports. You could get a good report showing how profits have increased, but the stock price fell (sometimes by quite a bit) because it did not meet analysts expectations, sometimes by just a minute amount. OK, you could say the fact that it did not meet expectations is a sign of things to come. You could also say the analysts simply got it wrong.

I don't disagree there.

I'm simply saying that stockmarkets are not good indicators of the underlying economic conditions because there is too much noise due to fear, greed, sentiment, and just plain speculation.

Your statement: Stock markets are yardsticks of economies 6 to 12 months ahead.

My 2 sen: Stock markets are not good yardsticks of economies 6 to 12 months ahead.

>> sky 1809 is valid for saying that the market are priced ahead of the real economies.

No arguments about the market being priced ahead/forward, in theory. It makes sense that you buy now based on what you believe, or more precisely hope, what the market is going to be like in the future. But that's not the point.

If you look at the stockmarkets over the past, say 6 months, the massive daily ups and downs are reactions to released data which measures either some productivity index, or some unemployment figure, or earnings/loss reports, etc - all of which measures things that have happened in the past.. People are using the past to predict the future. Not everyone behaves like that of course.

>> after you read them and if you still chooses to believe it's not true, then it's so much better than you're not only at odds with sky 1809, but really seasoned traders, economist and those financial guys.

You know, if those seasoned traders, economist and those financial guys really know what they are talking about, most people still would not have heard of the term "sub-prime" today. Speaking of financial guys, ever heard of Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Countrywide, Bear Stearns and their multi-billion losses?

>> go, read it first and then see, if it is rationale or not.. yes? (it's priced forward, and not the other way round)

Don't believe everything you read. It can be good to do the opposite thing. As Mr. Buffett said, "be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful".

Don't get me wrong - I don't claim to be an expert, in fact far from it. But I am saying "Stock markets are not good yardsticks/measurements/indicators of economies 6 to 12 months ahead.", simply because there are too many variables and unknowns. Priced ahead - yes. Good yardstick of what will actually be the case - no. The truth is, nobody really knows what will happen in the future.

After saying all that, I should clarify that I believe in the long term, the stockmarket is still a better bet as an investment than money in the bank.

I don't believe I have done any criticizing apart from pointing out the facts, ie, the big players can and do get it quite wrong. In other words, nobody (or at least very few) really knows what the short term future holds when it comes to the stockmarket (short being say your example of 6-12 months).

My investment approach to equities is no different from what any Unit Trust Agent would tell you - you have to have a long term view, and long term being normally quoted as at least 3-5 years.

As I said, no arguments about this pricing forward, based on perceived future earnings.

But what people think will be the case is a very poor indicator of what will actually be the case. There are too many other factors that people just cannot predict. Let's take Bear Stearns - how many of those investors who were until recently singing its praises had expected the company to effectively collapse?

It's a big slice of the pie in recent events.


You don't need my permission - What you believe is up to you. But the saying "those who can do - those who cannot teach" did cross my mind.

My interpretation of what Buffet said is this - if people have priced down shares because they think things are going to be bad, it's time to buy. What Buffet didn't say is - you must also know what you are doing.

---

Added on May 5, 2008, 12:55 amNope, I didn't say you said that.

Don't take things too seriously or personally

This post has been edited by howszat: May 5 2008, 12:55 AM