The other way round, higher interest rate, lower the bond attraction is.

Generally, yes, you can, fund switching generally being allowed if the fund is within the same house, and same nature.

It is gov bond.
Here. http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/989232/+600

One word, miles better than UT.

For up to ten plus thousand to hundred, it won't have much of issue in term of liquidity problem.

More than that specifically millions and above, yes potential have this kind of problem.

There is, just quantity is not high or liquid enough for large sum as previous mentioned.

There is no problem of selling, just it may depress the price a little bit.

So the worry of cannot sell is minimal, unless we are talking of significant sum then a bit different story.

I don't know market will go higher or lower, or exploding to the upside, I am noob in knowing this or predict the future, but if one can time the market well, please don't go for unit trust, invest directly into stocks, futures or ETF, which seems more appropriate.

I forsee a lot of funds will use 2008, 2009 as starting point or base to show how well the fund is performing.

While this is not a sustainable figure of performance over the long term.
Bare in mind some funds have lose more than 30-40% over the period from 2007-2008 low particularly overseas fund or so called global or regional funds, especially properties and China related theme funds. A lot of those funds are still "under water"

When you lose 30% from starting point, after that, the fund going up back 30%, you still lose money.
RM1 lose 30%, become Rm0.70, up 30% from Rm0.70, it becomes 0.91 only.

If one invested during 2008-2009, it is very common to see the investment grow more than 50% across. Everything goes up.
In fact, a lot of stocks out there register 50-100% gain over this period, some even more.

Sometimes, I really don't like the ad and some prospectus, always choose the period which give out best performance figure. Although there is nothing wrong, the fact I worry is it may give wrong impression to non-investment savy ordinary public out there.

I forsee in the future, a lot of new fund prospectus may use 2008 as benchmark year to start with.

Those period from 2006-7 to 2008-2009, are all being swept under the carpet.

I have one relative invested in China theme fund (back then China market is the hottest topic), bought a fund starting at 0.25, after years now 0.17~0.19, and get zero dividend in between.
What's good about 30~40% rise from the bottom for her? Something to cheer about?

Yes & No.

I can choose the 10 years period which give best performance while there is another 10 years period with worst one.

For eg.
1996 to 2005, the performance won't be very good.
1998/99 to 2007, superb performance.

For future 10 years,
If I use 2007 as my next starting point, it won't able to match another one with 2008.

With 2 set of data, it also doesn't address how well the fund performance without any benchmarking.
By looking how much % has gain, doesn't mean the fund is performing good or not.
A fund may register 50% gain during the period, but if I bought Genting share during that time, around Rm3-4, I gain 150%.

UT performance is about benchmarking. If the UT is not performing well or just match the benchmarking indices, why I paid 5-6% initial service charges and annual fee of 1.5% for the service?
I might as well invested directly into indices, like index ETF, owning index, owning index futures etc.




This post has been edited by cherroy: Oct 22 2010, 12:47 AM

A lot of time, we heard agent talk, this fund last year gain 20%, it was good.
or some prospectus show
xyz fund gain 20% last year, abc fund gain 15% last year, blar blar, so the new fund is projected to be ....

There should be never a projected return at all!!

The past performance doesn't guarantee nor indicate how future performance will be, so how can you project the a new fund or the fund projected return?
Contradicting on its own.

Yes, you are wrong.

When you invest Rm10,000, only Rm9500 is invested, Rm500 goes into upfront service charge already, disregard you make money or not afterwards.

And also, disregard the fund making money or not, the fund will charge 1.5% management on the fund NAV, aka if the Rm9500 invested in stock/bonds is still the same Rm9500, no movement, they will charge 142.50 out of the fund aka now become Rm9357.50

NAV is the real worth of the fund or the fund portfolio/holding of invested share.

Market price can be higher or low than NAV, which depended on buyer/seller willingness aka just like ordinary stock traded market price.

Charge is according to ordinary share brokerage

LOL, look more like copy and paste sales statement...

---

Added on December 12, 2010, 6:24 pmHe ask how to buy online aka use online platform to purchase UT, or is the online portal offer this service, just like eFD.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Dec 12 2010, 06:25 PM

It is just another ordinary UT fund, as far as I know.

So no limitation.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Dec 12 2010, 11:10 PM

Just to add, inflation heated up, bond goes south.

Please don't bull at every topic.

This is theorectically only, and we know market doesn't behave what you think, or predict.

What if, market is straight line creeping up just like since 2009?
You are buying higher and higher.

How to know this is a correction?
How to know when is the correction.

DCA can make your cost higher, and can lead to massive loss as well.

There is no foolproof method or which method is better than the other.

You have 12k now, whether lump sum or DCA, both don't offer advantage over each others.
It depend on the outcome, how market behave then.

I only know, DCA is only good for earning commission, as an agent that you can ensure steady stream of commission coming in without need to persuade customer to buy again.

Don't put up statement like that, it is never 100% true.
Matter of time?, 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? By then I might be no longer exist already.

Nikkei was as high as 30k, now 10k
Nasdaq was as high as >5000, now after 11 years later 2850.
KLCI was at 1340 back 1994, now after 17 years, 1530. Even FD beat it.

You don't understand what I am trying to say.
UT, stock market, can result in loss even after 5 or even longer term.

Eg.
an index fund that tracking KLCI that you bought during 1993, KLCI was 1300, after 18 years, KLCI now is 1500, how many return you get? 1500-1300= 200/1300 = 15% over the 18 years, which even FD is beating this kind of return.
This is not yet counted the potential annual management fee of 1.5% over the 18 years period, which amounted 27% total on the fund NAV already.

While there are a number of UT that yield you loss even after 3-5 years or even longer period.

Economy is up trend, but this doesn't mean UT must be uptrend as well. There were listed company go burst during bad time, there are bond defaulting during recession time, which can sink a fund performance greatly.

Yes, stock market and UT can yield good return, there is no doubt, if choose the right one, right timing. But to say UT 100% must yield good return, this statement is not necessary a must.