For discussion sake...

It's not a loophole. They are allowed to go all the way to 30% provided they meet certain rating conditions.

The other hand, the re-rating was sometime in early Jan 23. I believe with all the adverse news coming out and all, it would be quite difficult to dispose of the Sukuk. Hence, they can only hold on to it until all avenues exhausted and the security is zeroized.

As to SIDREC requirements, you will need to write to the fund manager first and ask for explanation. The fund manager has 90 days to resolve your complaint. Once you have obtained a final response from the fund manager, and the response is not satisfactory, you may proceed to file a claim with SIDREC within 180 days from receipt of final reply.

Please note, if you go via SIDREC, your claim will be capped at RM 250K.

Yes, for discussion's sake and to help TS have at least some avenues for redress instead of just accepting his fate. TS really at a loss what to do.

Also to put fund manager(s) on the spot so that if he/she really messed up, don't get away so easily. Or at least for TS to get a proper explanation rather than just take the NAV writedown like that.



BTW, you seem like someone quite well versed in these matters, any thing to advise TS?

You are required to read and understand the prospectus before completing the application form. Also, you maybe required to complete a suitability assessment to indicate your risk tolerance. It would be quite tough for anyone to paddle backwards. As with any investment, there is always a risk. The downside is because the fund is diversified, the fund many have retained some value instead of suffering a complete write-off.

Some of the things I can think of on top of my head is...you may want to ask the fund manager:

1. why was the Sukuk chosen;
2. Why wasn't it disposed off when the Sukuk was re-rated;
3. why was such a large concentration of the sukuk opted?; and
4. Also, whether the limits and restrictions had been complied with.

Ask them for an explanation on this.

Any claim for compensation generally is a very tall order unless you can show that they have deviated from the prospectus.

Sorry to say whatever explanation given will likely be big BS as you should investigate who is the LA/FA for facilitating this issue of the sukuk in the 1st place 🤦‍♀️ which is why they cannot disclose the issue itself which is why they are HODL it until to zeroise the value

This post has been edited by xander2k8: Sep 19 2023, 07:04 PM

OIC...

So no need to waste time and accept fate while filing complaint to SIDREC and pray that they will take action instead 🤦‍♀️ but chances are close to 0 because of the LA/FA would have sorted out this with RHBAM before they invested into it and remember money out left hand and still goes back in the right hand

It's a unit trust fund. Why do I want to know who the LA/FA for facilitating the issue. Even if i knew who they are, I don't have a contract with them, only with the trustee, in which the legal interest of the unit holder is vested with and the fund manager engaged to managed the fund based on the prospectus.

If you have read, both newspaper, media, publicly available info and the annual report, you would have known why the company defaulted.

Where the asset is incapable of being valued, the operations will zeroized it.

Whatever it is waste time or not, it is the right of anyone to exhaust all avenues. If someone files a claim and got back something, are you going to be liable to compensate TS cause he/ she took your advise?

As I have mentioned, the fund needs to be managed in accordance with the limits and restrictions contained in the prospectus, to mitigate concentration risk. Depending on which fund TS invested in, especially those which suffered a huge drop and material exposure, its worth having a look at.

NAV dropped 20% just because one sukuk is writeoff is a major big red flag.



This post has been edited by john123x: Sep 19 2023, 08:34 PM

I mean if 20% of the portfolio comprised that bond, it makes sense. Was the coupon high?

Not so easy to catch a asset management making such stupid mistake like not following maximum allocations per bonds. It will be allowed in their mandate.

I think you don’t understand UT in the 1st place 🤦‍♀️ doesn’t matter what it says in the deed as you do not and will not have to power to change the deed in the 1st place 🤦‍♀️ hence which is why it is called UT in the 1st place as when the second you invested in them you have already given your trust to them for the manage the units itself 🤦‍♀️ and you will and will not have say in the deed in itself 🤦‍♀️

aurora97, are you asking to change the deeds that had been established?
Or "he" is just ..........

Never asked to change the Deed. I am saying what is in the Deed.

Not sure what the other guy is rambling about.





No one said anything about changing the Deed. Not sure how you mistook what I said and turned it into something else.

Despite the impression of "free reign" the manager, as I have mentioned, it has to be managed in accordance with the Prospectus (i.e. the strategy, restrictions & limits). For instance, you can't be buying bonds for an equity mandate, vice versa.

The legal rights of the unit holder is vested in the trustee. The trustee is suppose to safeguard the interest of unit holders and custodize the assets of the fund. If the Trustee is not doing it's job (i.e. allowing the manager to buy assets that are not in accordance with the prospectus/deed) holding the manager accountable, you mean there is no re-course for unit holder agianst the trustee and manager? This is mind blowing to me.

man, not even bond fund is safe. 60/40 is a joke

Facepalm guy, please stop rambling will ya.

Isn't this the 2nd time rhb has been hit with this? Iirc weren't their funds badly affected by MEX sukuk before too? (might be wrong and it was a diff fund house if so I apologise)

60/40 is probably a balanced fund, as it is not a dedicated bond fund, it will probably have less exposure.

Any investment carries with it risk. Buy something within your risk tolerance. The higher the risk, the higher the return and consequentially the greater possibility of loss.

Believe, it had been given extensions few times. Had been selling the good quality issuer to cover the the bad issuer ACSB. Only recently kementerian Dalam Negeri (“KDN”) has decided not to grant an extension of the concession via a letter dated 3 August 2023. The whole thing exploded out.

What you mention is Alpha Circle. The other bond is MEX, some funds have this bond.

I don't trust any investment-related products from banks anymore especially SCB, RHB.

This post has been edited by Sunshape: Sep 21 2023, 10:44 PM