i've been having this theory for sometime.. perhaps you guys can help me out.

what are the reason(s) for a fund company to keep on introducing new funds?
i know, there're the obvious reasons.. how about the less obvious ones?

have you guys ever thought about a fund company doing intra-trade, intra-transfer amongst their funds?

i got gut feeling that something of that sort is happening.. it's a huge scheme and it somehow relates to why new funds are required..

thus far, it's a theory..

i find this is quite the standard reply/response you get anywhere..
however, am not sure what exactly you meant by:
1. recycling of funds
2. keeping the cost low

..have in relation to launching of new funds altogether? care to elaborate?

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)

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..

look beyond a "few days"..
i've got a funny feeling that the world is playing musical-chair..

you're reading me way out of coordinate!!
if i elaborate, you'd probably wouldn't understand.. what's the merit of doing so?

it's odd that you guys don't even know what is a 'musical chair' game..
it's not so much about who's being smarter here.. but i have a feeling that most of you here don't read adequately to protect yourself as a genuine investor..

punting stocks and punting funds are but a game..

i've already shared.. perhaps you're just too lazy to go find out more?

keen observation there..

ouuch.. ! it's the most painful way to repurchase a loaded fund and buy into another loaded fund again.. do calculate your opportunity cost carefully.

not unless you're an agent per se.. they do it for strategic considerations.

what's your fund allocation looks like, david?
it seems like you're moving quite a bit of fixed-income to equities..

i keep a ratio of 70:30 (fixed:equity)..

can't really find a clear advantage of the initial offer period (where you are not allowed to switch-in)..
buying into a fund during the initial offer period won't have any effect on the price.. (it's like idle money)

but your cost is obvious.. 6.5% on your initial loaded purchase, then followed by a 5.45% on the new fund which you intended to buy.
the entire round trip cost you 11.95%

are you afraid that the fund going 'full house' before the initial offer period is up? chances are.. a staggered fund size increment is already in place and it's transparent to retail customers like you and i.

as far as investment is concerned, may i guess that you're just testing the waters only?
rm1k is some money to some people.. knowing what you buy into and how to measure it.. is a foundation of becoming an investor.

you don't have to call your agent.. just drop a call to 03-6279-5252 and ask to speak to customer service (you need to punch a few keys, actually). after the verification process, you can proceed to ask about your account details..

for your own benefit.. try to apply for telemutual services (read up from the website on what it is)..

if your rm1k is chicken feed.. you can ignore all the above.

the calculation should come somewhat like..

(RM1K - RM65)/NAV = Units invested

the RM65 is the sales charge and the NAV is taken on the closing day, on the date your purchase..

anyway a listening to telemutual will tell you how much is your investment at the tip of your keypad(phone)

market on steriods?!?

hahaa... now i can really sense a sort of MUSICAL CHAIR is going on.. you guys are getting anxious and twitchy too eh..

i don't know about you guys there.. overlooking the tiny RM25 switching fee. since you get hit with that fee.. your investment has not hit the greenzone(mutual gold) yet..

so do consider the tiny RM25 over your entire fund holding as a denominator.. running up a RM100 in fee / month can signify quite something-something over your investment cost-base.

so, my guess is that you guys will most likely make swift switching (sekali bang type).. instead of switching by tranches/group.. well, swift fund movement can be very frustrating (if timing the market is what you're trying to do)..

i switch only when necessary.. and in tranches.. and the switching transaction can be alot. it's very costly if doing it out of the greenzone.

hope to see you in a mutual gold seminar next year then..

folks.. when you execute a switch.. don't expect to see an update so quickly.. it can take 3-working days (same goes with new account creation).. but make you keep a duplicated copy of the switching form.. if the said form does not have an official date stamp.. that can be "iffy" if there's a dispute later on.

some branches/agents do not submit forms on time back to HQ.. so the official date/time stamp is crucial to lock the price for the transaction.

the system between pbank and pmutual is still pretty primitive.. the core system is driven by ibm as400 platform..

the irony is.. even when you perform a redemption and elect to credit the proceed to a pbank account.. pmutual will have to issue a hardcopy cheque and bank it in.. old school style.

folks..

i noticed a not so correct assumption regarding the price vs performance issue..
it has alot to do with asset classes in the managed fund industry.

funds that have value of RM1, mimics the par value of a fixed income asset class/category/group.
anything below that RM1, is just a mere valuation of the fund concern.. you can't exactly treat it like a single stock per se.

what i can't absolutely be certain is.. how fully a fund is vested will have an indication to its price, moving forward. you see, when a new fund is first launched, it may not be fully vested as per the deed.. as the investment period moves forward, so will the vesting level.

from a fund management point of view.. i believe a 40-sen fund is no different from a 90-sen fund.. however, the fund manager can choose to split the 90-sen fund to par it down to 45-sen to raise the affortability level.. ahh, but there's a catch for doing so.. it may have quickly hit the "deed" which amongst other thing.. also mentioned how many units are allowed in circulations at any given time.

some funds couldn't get the authority approval to expand(in unit terms) and it's forced to stick with the higher price..

thus.. if p-ittikal performs a split, it will be in a very tight situation.. for the fund size(in unit terms again) will explode to multiple times of its full-house limit.. so the price painfully crawls up.