The institutions is just distributing the fund and they are not buying it 🤦‍♀️ hence no losses to them and even the fund house there are almost to none losses because they are only collecting management fee annually while the actual losers are the individuals who buying it at rm100k Min entry point 🤦‍♀️ so in fact losses are only probably a couple of hundred or about 1000+ because of the high entry point at rm100k

It will would have gain more drama if the entry price was as low as rm1000 then you will see more drama outside of the distributors or the banks 🤦‍♀️

AHAM actual wipe out is about 70% of the fund while 30% are still in actual money because they manage to liquidate some before the whole thing went south while the mandate was holding at least 15% in cash anytime

what when (NAV date) did you see the fund still has 30% in value ? not supposed to be negative ?

1stly it is will never be negative 🤦‍♀️ because even if you lose 100% in bonds it will be zero at the lowest hence nil price 🤦‍♀️

Check the mandate as they have the mandate it is 15% of cash at anytime while another 15% when they manage to sell off before the forced takeover by FINMA

Go ask AHAM or check your statement during early March

Since April suspension has been lifted, as per feedback will be negative due to settling liabilities (Didn't mention in detail as of what type of expenses). Also advancing funds to bring NAV to zero for now.

This post has been edited by csbong87: May 15 2023, 01:15 PM

Based on annual report FYE 31 Jan 2023 for both single bond fund 2 and 4, they were about 93%+/- invested remaining probably in FX forward/swap or deposits.

Typically, the liabilities of the fund includes accrued management fee, trustee/custodian fee, bank charges, derivatives (FX forward/Swap), fees due to distributors, auditor etc... The fund may have defaulted but the fees/charges etc... still need to be paid unless waived by counterparty.

I presume when you meant by "advancing funds", the fund manager is coughing out some money to bring the fund back to Zero NAV. I think this would be the right thing to do because a negative NAV may imply that the unit holders owe monies to the fund, whereas the deed has made clear that the liabilities of the unit holder is up until the amount invested.

everyone got this?

3… 2… 1… AHAM PRS #MerdekaBonus Campaign is here!

Grow your retirement savings! Grow your wealth! Be prepared for your golden years!
By investing a minimum of RM1,000 into any of our Private Retirement Scheme ("PRS") funds, you will receive an additional 1.0% Free Units based on your investment amount. The maximum investment amount for this campaign is capped at RM10,000 per participant.

Complement your retirement savings with AHAM PRS.

Don't look at 1%. It's marketing. Look at overall funds return. Are AHAM fund returns acceptable to you and your risk level. If yes then put in your money. For me personally their return sucks so I dont bother with them. I prefer consistent 10%p.a Vs 1-3%p.a

1% is nothing when they already charged you sales charge 🤦‍♀️ look at the returns and then fees which you will be losing end with mediocre returns