You are partly correct, but even with stocks, you can actually reduce the risk if you hold fundamentally strong stocks for longer periods.
Stocks with great business growth will ride through in times of volatility.
Commodities, such as gold, used to be safe haven, but now with hedge funds speculating on commodities index, we can hardly say that gold is safer as compared to stocks. Unit trust is considered safe because of the portfolio diversification, which reduces the risk, and you have experienced managers behind each of the funds.

If you want to look for investments that you can top up without commitment, then I'd say unit trust is the best choice.
Stocks comes second, but the time required for monitoring is tremendously long.
So, all in all, we want something that will compound our savings while we just leave it there without worry.

In time of uncertainties, investors usually looking for some certainty.

Capital Guarantee Investments  perhaps work better with today investment climates. , the uncertainty and slower economy.

A good asset class when comes to asset/risk  allocations. A good wealth protection tool.

It is my personal opinion that Capital Guarantee has a better capital protection than REITS , though not actually comparing apple with apple. The returns could be equally attractive as REITs on papers, actual  performances  may vary from one fund manager to another. Withholding tax on reits are quite high.

But for a period of 2 to 3 years is rather short for Capital Guarantee investment standard, especially for Maybank where the track records are lacking ( they sound too bullish )

If you think you know a lot of things about them.

It is time for you to share some things, good or bad of them. This is what this  forum for.

We can debate here.

Honestly no one product is perfect to all, may be to some only. But in time to come, this product can be perfected. The bottom line is whether the banker could produce the desired returns as advertised. It could and might not, or doing better than expected.

If they do able to produce desired returns covering all the expensive costs, then  it is fine.
And if you want to know the A to Z, then it is your duty to call up Maybank. It is not my job to do the A to Z and report back to you.

If an investor has 500k in FD, and wants to earn slightly better than FD without taking much risk. Supposing bank can only guarantee 65K of 500k if the bank is facing a problem.

What is your investment advice to be given to him or her, if he insists he wants 500k to be guaranteed and other than FDs  ?

If you are given a job to perform as CEO of the company, basically your job is to solve the problems. You are not paid only  to bring out  the problems of the company,without offering any solutions.
I did mention some things about Guarantee product in other threads, and it is boring to repeat the same things again and again.  I am sure no one is interested in it.

And till today, i have not heard that investors are getting less than Capital Guarantee. If you do, let us know.

Anyway, I am not the sales person  for Maybank.

Are you implying that you are more experienced than the managers, who have been with the company for years?
If not, it is time you trust someone who is BETTER than you. Criticising someone's credentials is nothing more than criticising your own wits.

Which fund manager's name do you need? I can name all the fund managers in Public Mutual if you want to
I might know the names, but I will not know what they're doing with the money.
Who cares how they manage the funds, as long as they manage it better than any layman would, right?
That is what unit trust is about, we just leave it to the fund managers, because that IS their job.
I assume you have invested in unit trust too, correct me if I am wrong. If I am right, so why DID you invest, when you do not know what the fund managers are doing? First of all, what QUALIFICATIONS that you have to even questioning the decisions of fund managers?
I hope I do not have to take this further, because I feel it is plain useless to even continue this "conversation"

What is the big deal if you managed funds before. Even you were ex PM, who cares ?

There are many US hedge funds went bust too. There were too many fund managers failed badly.

Even a football team won a match 10 years back, does not mean they are good forever.

You talk as if the whole world would collapse if without you.

Frankly speaking, the rich and the super rich do not have to go around telling people they are rich. Only those not so rich do that.

A professional Fund Manager by professional standard would not condemn other fund managers, and without doing any analysis.

Only the unprofessional ones do, and with lots of bad feeling at heart.

The Capital Guarantee Fund is only RM 100 million  per launch.  The bond is guaranteed by an International Insurance Co.

If you think a foreign international insurance cannot afford to pay out RM 100 million on bond guarantee, that is .

This company paid out about US $ 5 billion claims after Sept 11.

No further argument.

Thanks for pointing out the risks involved.

Hmm...I knew about this but didn't think so far down the chain. Anyway, I am not a fan of capital guaranteed funds. The fact that it invests so little in equities does not suit my risk appetite 

It's been a month my mom 100K in the current bank savings but still it's hard for me to choose the right investment to diversify ..  . The best choices I see right now is :

1) ASB Loan - problem with inheritance .. and the guarantor
2) Unit Trust - Public Mutual or anything high rated from Lipper (too many funds ..  )

Bank FD is too low except the long term one .. 15-30 years (CIMB MaxInvest) or Alliance 20 years .. is there any new FD promotion in this month (August)?

Thank you