Here are some of the top performing funds over the 3 months to end of Apr-08.


%___ NAME_________________________________
13.5 Hwangdbs Global Commodity Fund
11.0 Pruglobal Basics Fund
10.0 Amglobal Agribusiness
09.5 Hlg Global Resources Income Fund
09.5 Ing China Access
07.7 Amglobal Climate Change
07.6 Hwang-Dbs Environmental Opportunities
06.9 Hlg Asia-Pacific Dividend Fund
06.4 Prucommodity Plus Structured Fund
06.1 Pruasia Pacific Shariah Equity Fund
05.7 Hwangdbs Global Emerging Markets Fund
05.6 Cimb-P Climate Change Equity2
05.5 Maakl Asia-Pacific Reit Fund
05.5 Osk-Uob Big Cap China Enterprise Fund
05.3 Cimb-P Greater China Equity Fund
05.1 Cms Asia Pacific Oriental Fund
04.6 Ta Asia Pacific Islamic Balanced Fund
04.6 Alliance Global Equities Fand
04.5 Amschroder European Equity Alpha
04.5 Pruasia Pacific Equity Fund


Accuracy is not guaranteed. Not meant as a recommendation on anything.

I get my numbers from http://biz.thestar.com.my/business/unit_trust.asp which I load into a database, and from which I can then compare different funds across different periods. I have a little program that does this automatically because I'm too lazy to do it manually.

There is another website http://www.invest.com.my/personal/funds/price which does some of it for you, but you can only compare 3 funds at a time, for pre-selected periods.

Other sources like Personal Money make comparisons for 1-year or longer periods.

>> 00% capital protected if held to maturity

Zero percent?

This post has been edited by howszat: May 31 2008, 08:19 PM

In a kind of way, I was thinking that a well-informed investor would not have a preference for capital-guaranteed products.

As cherroy mentioned, typically about 10% is invested in high-risk, high-gain products so that the potential overall gains could be better than just FD. What makes it worse is that the high-risk products could be at the lowest point in the cycle at the maturity date where you have to cash-up, whereas waiting a little longer to sell may have yielded significantly different (hopefully higher) results.

So why not just put 90% in FD, and 10% (or whatever combination you choose) in an aggressive UT where you have the flexibility to change as required and not be tied to a fixed maturity date?

Then again, these products typically have high minimum-amount requirements, so the customers they are trying to attract cannot possibly be classified as not well-informed.

Just putting out another viewpoint. No offence.

This is most unexpected, or at least I didn't expect it

HLG Vietnam Fund

Start price in March: 0.5000
Today price: 0.5603
Difference: +12%

Vietnam? and considering practically every other fund is in the red?

.. the one with 10 units of Philips 42" LCD TV to be won?

Excellent.

Online transactions. Sales charge of 2%, though some agents (eg HSBC ~2.5%) have been doing discounted charges for sometime.

List of fund houses is limited at the moment, but I expect that would grow.

---

Added on August 23, 2008, 5:59 pmI agree with this.

And the thing is most people who buy UT don't have the time and/or knowledge to make investments in share-markets etc directly, so they depend on fund managers to manage on their behalf.

Agents have a role to play too in explaining things (especially the risks) properly but they are not really expert investors. The "expert" investors are the fund investment managers, but they are also the ones making the losses. About the only thing an agent can say which would be easily understand by a customer is how the fund made 30% last year etc. Some fund houses/agents go through a risk-profiling questionaire when the customer first signs up and explain how their profile fits in with the various categories of funds available, but other fund houses don't seem to do that.

This post has been edited by howszat: Aug 23 2008, 05:59 PM

>> Actually some stock doesn't need frequent monitoring.

Only some? But that's not the point, is it? The point is you need to know which stock do and which stocks don't to begin with.

>> Thats y in my previous post i mentioned "why you need to buy UT". They must know the reason why.

The thing is you don't need to know as much about UT as you do about stocks - in fact you can't "fully understand" UT as you called it, because for many funds, the UT manager can change the allocation of their portfolio at any time within the terms and conditions specified in the prospectus which in many cases are very broad.

>> 1. For some beginner/ they don have enought capital they got to buy UT trust as buying stock need more capital where as UT minimum is 1K.

On the contrary, only about 10 or so stocks are greater than RM10, the rest (about 1200+) are less than RM10 which means the minimum to buy is less than RM 1K.

>> 2. Divesified - some may think divisified can reduce the risk (single stock risk). Although i think divesified may reduce your return but surely it can minimize risk.

Diversification will potentially reduce both the gains and losses, whichever is applicable.

>> Amway 6.90 = RM 6900

The minimum is 100 shares and not 1000 shares. So RM690 is all you need.

Yes, I do buy stock. You pay RM40? I don't - I only pay RM12. You pay 0.6%? I don't - I only pay 0.42%

Which one is better? That's a different question. My response was to your example of the minimum being 1000 shares which is not correct.

No, I don't lose anything. I will make RM24, in fact.

HLG Vietnam Fund:

Price on 20-JUN-08 = 0.5074
Price on 29-AUG-08 = 0.7738 (+52.5%)

http://www.invest.com.my has both daily prices and % returns for most if not all funds available locally.

---

Added on
.

Just realised they have now become a subscription site. haiz...

This post has been edited by howszat: Dec 15 2008, 10:10 AM

In the Investment Linked Funds section of the Unit Trusts PDFs.

http://www.btimes.com.my/Current_News/BTIMES/MarketData

300 or 300K?

Hard to say, on LYN some people get rich real quick...

Most UTs require a minimum of 1K as initial lump sum investment, and a minimum of 500 for initial regular investment. The odd one or two has a minimum of 100. So that effectively rules out UT for you.

Foreign currency FD require a minimum of the equivalent of 10K. So you are pretty much left with normal FD, for now.

Ah, this has caught my eye recently... still reviewing. Can't give an exact and precise mathematical formula as to why though...

To say "The distribution may not help in short term but it really help to lowering down the average cost per unit in LT (Long Term)" is just completely utterly wrong.

That might be what you think you prefer, but practically, mathematically and financially, it makes no difference.

One needs to understand something as basic as:

x/y * y = x

It doesn't matter what "y" is. At the end of the day, you still get "x".

The Euro common currency is a lousy idea full of holes. The Euro people know it, but the answer out of that shit is not that simple.

Unlike individual countries that can take whatever course is the best for their own future, Euro countries cannot. Unlike the UNITED States of America which have a central government, the Euro is just a pile of badly mixed rojak.

From an investment point of view, fundamentals and technicals are useless. You need to gamble/guess what the politicians are going to do next.

Italy is supposedly next, yes.

The problem is when we say "EURO", who are they? The voters in Germany or the voters in Greece? Let's say they don't agree - what next? That's when the guessing starts...

From an investment point of view, I quite like this. If it goes to shit (big drop), I will buy up large hoping that Germany and France will come to the rescue, and everything will go up again. Would that be gambling or investing?