【~~kinwing~~个人专区】长期投资的旅程

kinwing

刚刚在一个部落客看了一个很有意思的文章，所以转载在CARI向大家分享这个文章。不过很抱歉的是这文章是以英文写的，所以原汁原味的转贴过来，希望大家能看得明白这篇文章是批评本地某个"Brilliant Bank"和其期下子公司的利益冲突(Conflict of Interest)。看了这文章后，我想大家都应该知道这文章是映射本地那一个银行，进而让大家认识所谓一些管理层素质很好及很有诚信的银行的一些不为大众所知的一面。

http://malaysiafinance.blogspot.com/2009/03/brilliant-bank-fairytale-with-conflict.html

Friday, March 20, 2009Brilliant Bank -  A Fairytale With  A Conflict Of Interest?
Once upon a time there was a successful bank called Brilliant Bank. It grew more than 10% every year for the past 20 years and then successfully ventured into fund management. Brilliant Bank had the best return on capital, best return on assets, the lowest NPLs and the highest capital adequacy ratio among all other banks in the country. Heck, it even compares very well with other banks in the region.

Thanks to their steady and careful management culture, their fund management business also witnessed similar growth patterns as the bank. The fund management unit is 100% owned by the bank. Funds under management grew exponentially. After a few years they have about 20 pure equity or equity linked funds. The total funds under management for equities may well be around RM10bn. The total market cap for the bank is around RM20bn.

The unique thing is that in almost every single fund, Brilliant Bank shares will almost always be one of their top 3 holdings. Fair enough that Brilliant Bank has performed exceedingly well over the long term, and that in turn has helped many of the funds to outperform the irrespective indices. But surely everyone can see that this has to be a gray area when you want to talk of things like transparency, conflict of interest areas, corporate integrity issues, etc.

So much so that the amount of shares held by the "funds" in Brilliant Bank may reach 5%-10% of free float of the bank. Decisions are made by fund managers, working in a fund management unit 100% owned by Brilliant Bank. Really, nobody sees any conflict of interest here??!!

Anyway,in this fictional story, nobody complained because Brilliant Bank performed well, and hence the funds also performed well. There will come a time, if and when Brilliant Bank digs a hole in some financial exposure, and say loses 70% in value over a short period of time. Can we expect the unit holders of the funds to start complaining then? If that happens, what will be the repercussions if the funds were to buy even more shares in Brilliant Bank.

When is buying substantive shares considered as "supporting the share price", and when it is not? If the action is done by one party, that is easy to gather evidence, but what if the buying is by 20 funds? When can we say there is collusion, and when there is no collusion.

I am just writing a fictional story (gulp), but maybe certain things are even more obvious in reality than in fiction. In order to prevent this fictional story from becoming a non-fiction tragedy, I would like the Securities Commission to look closer to the following rules or conventions:

a) do we have a clear guideline when a majority owned fund management unit buys shares in related companies; there must be guideline on percentage of funds' exposure and even minimum time line in holding the shares; there must be safeguards that minority shareholders will not be disadvantaged by the timing of the trades that these funds enter into

b)there must be utmost transparency in how much shares, at what price,and when were the shares acquired and disposed to all unit holders

In the mean time, Brilliant Bank continues on its merry ways by producing good results and getting liquidity mopped up by the ever growing fund management unit. You scratch my back, I scratch your back... but hey,your back is my back!!

[ 本帖最后由 kinwing 于 21-3-2009 07:16 PM 编辑 ]

美丽新世界

呵呵，cari很多人还不懂，或者有得懂，
但因为某个原因而假装看不见

ThermoFisher

你看到的其实很多人都已经看到，没说出来并不表示我们不知道。。。

firehawk

原帖由 kinwing 于 21-3-2009 01:19 PM 发表
刚刚在一个部落客看了一个很意思的文章，所以转载在CARI向大家分享这个文章。不过很抱歉的是这文章是以英文写的，所以原文原汁的转贴过来，希望大家能看得明白这篇文章是批评本地某个"Brilliant Bank"和其期下子公司 ...

谢谢分享，我是后知后觉之辈，简单道理，但不说还真没联想到 。。。。。

等了很久，一直讶异，何以它的价钱出奇坚挺，明白了 。。

现在在想，这虽然是好股，但万一有什么冬瓜豆腐，那 20个基金经理，会这样做？

率先抽身？ 还是努力去扶？ 还是要听大老板指令？

kinwing

"Brilliant Bank"的基金子公司也只不过是徒有虚名而已，本地最大的基金公司，放屁！！！
要不是它发售了总共67不同类型的Funds，不变成本地最大的基金公司才怪，结果在这67个Funds里只有两三个Funds表现有点出色却在那自鸣自擂。

我靠！！！ 67个Funds里头有一些Funds的回酬表现是跟大市相反地，既是这几个Funds跟大市的Coefficient Correlation是负数(Negative)，一点也不出奇。结果这几个跟大市回酬表现相反且比较出色的Funds被以扬长避短的方式来向投资者宣传它们的基金表现是那么的杰出？？我挑战它公布它所有Funds综合起来的总回酬再扣除那高昂的发售费和管理费，我很肯定它的总回酬是差过大市的。

所以我认为发售那么多Funds是赚钱的一个策略。比如Fund A表现不好，那它就另设一个Fund B,但这Fund B的投资策略是跟Fund A完全相反地，结果FundA表现差劲但Fund B表现却出色。久而久之，Fund A因为表现差劲而逐渐退出市场而FundB得以继续生存在市场上，进而被这基金公司利用来吹擂它的公司因FundB出色表现而变得很成功，这是典型的”生存者偏差”(Survivor Bias)。而且每发售一个全新的基金其实是最赚钱的时刻，比平常的年均征收的管理费用高出好几倍！也难怪这”BrilliantFund”那么喜欢设立新的基金。

既然它的赚钱方向是跟投资者相反地，那就形成了利益冲突，这也难怪投资者并不能从它的基金里赚到钱了，不亏就算很好了。我现在也很后悔买了这”BrilliantFund”结果被套了，只能怪自己当初无知，当然也有一小部分的原因是相信”BrilliantBank”的名牌效应，而带来惨痛的教训。

tracylow

分享的太好了.....
和同行比较它的跌幅来的慢.....

ThermoFisher

原帖由 kinwing 于 2-12-2007 07:21 PM 发表
很多公司都赶在十一月尾公布季度报告，而我所买的公司也不例外。
8) Public China Selected Fund (PCSF)已从当初买入时NTA的0.2138上升到现在的0.2615,共增长了22%。由于对中国经济的看好，因此PCSF的NTA虽曾经一度冲上了0.28(意味着增长了30%)，我却没有想过要套利，反而希望能长期持有以图能在未来3至4年带来初次投资的双倍回酬 。

赚钱的时候不逃，被套的时候才来XX大众信托基金，何苦呢。。。

ThermoFisher

原帖由 kinwing 于 29-4-2008 10:04 PM 发表
买进PUBLIC CHINA SELECTED FUND（＂PCSF＂）也是我的错误选择 ，因为我自己所管理的投资组合回酬比它好上很多，也直接的让我觉悟其实我自己可以比一般的基金经理做得更好。当然，PCSF的发售时间是错误以及是不负责任的，尤其是在中国股市处于高度牛市的时候才发出新的基金以投入中国股市是愚蠢的，这跟一般无知散户追高股价没什么分别。相反的，我倒认为一个基金要投资成功，应该在股市最坏的时候才发售，这才合理。但毕竟OPEN ENDED MUTUAL FUND还是做不到这点，因为它还是需要无知的投资散户买入才能成功的发售运行以投入股市。反而CLOSED ENDED FUND就可以选择在任何时候发售，比如ICAP，这种类型的基金将能在熊市是大展拳脚，扫入便宜货，这才能在将来的股市回升时大赚一笔。

现在看回头，你现在的想法还是和当初一样吗？

peng01

下星期二，brilliant bank 推出新的基金，敬请期待

tan81

三更半夜来做功课。

很少看你这么好火。
还好我一直都是反基金的。

kinwing

鱼大兄不要误会我之前写的文章是要发泄我对PCSF的差劲。要shoot PCSF，何必写出那么长篇大论的费话,短短几句粗口来骂它就足够了。

其实我对自己本身很多被套的投资并没什么怨言，除了PCSF另我感到特别不满意，觉得很多人（包括以前的我）被基金公司骗了还认为它们是好的，所以就根据我从CFA所学到有关基金的知识再加上我对投资基金的经验，所以写出对投资开放式基金的弊端一些看法，而不是纯粹的要shoot PCSF。

毕竟投资的过程是长期的，间中难免会因为开始的无知和冲动而犯下无可挽回的错误，幸好不是致命性的错误。所以现在是在思考和闭门思过，并从中吸取教训，以在下一次类似事情发生时能及时纠正错误。

密码侦探

原帖由 kinwing 于 22-3-2009 10:18 AM 发表
毕竟投资的过程是长期的，间中难免会因为开始的无知和冲动而犯下无可挽回的错误，幸好不是致命性的错误。所以现在是在思考和闭门思过，并从中吸取教训，以在下一次类似事情发生时能及时纠正错误。

人非圣贤.谁能无过.适时改正.得以重生.

可以问一下,你吸取了什么教训? 下一步会如何做?

kinwing

我之前说投资PCSF不是致命性的错误，是因为当初买入此基金只不过是试探性质的投入大概3千块。

吸取到的教训是假设真的要投资基金，那就要选择正确的基金，因为基金有分成几种类型，如开发式基金(Open-Ended Funds), 封闭式基金（Close-Ended Funds)以及交易型开放式指数基金（简称为“指数股票型基金” － Exchange Traded Fund)。根据我对以上三种类型的基金，我认为开发式基金(Open-Ended Funds)是最差劲的。还有就是投资基金时切勿头脑发热，要在买进基金是先查清楚此基金成立的宗旨(Objective)和其目标(Target)以及其效绩衡量标准(Benchmark)，还有就是此基金发售的时间是不是正确的。

以下是我在此主题的第222楼曾写过对开发式基金(Open-Ended Funds) 的一些看法。

买进PUBLIC CHINA SELECTED FUND（＂PCSF＂）也是我的错误选择，因为我自己所管理的投资组合回酬比它好上很多，也直接的让我觉悟其实我自己可以比一般的基金经理做得更好。当然，PCSF的发售时间是错误以及是不负责 任的，尤其是在中国股市处于高度牛市的时候才发出新的基金以投入中国股市是愚蠢的，这跟一般无知散户追高股价没什么分别。相反的，我倒认为一个基金要投资 成功，应该在股市最坏的时候才发售，这才合理。但毕竟OPEN ENDED MUTUAL FUND还是做不到这点，因为它还是需要无知的投资散户买入才能成功的发售运行以投入股市。反而CLOSED ENDED FUND就可以选择在任何时候发售，比如ICAP，这种类型的基金将能在熊市是大展拳脚，扫入便宜货，这才能在将来的股市回升时大赚一笔

至于下一步会如何做，应该会逐渐减少对开发式基金的投入，并从此以后对投资开发式基金抱持谨慎的态度，至少不会再买进充满着利益冲突的"Brilliant Fund"。

SinIsSky

原帖由 kinwing 于 22-3-2009 10:18 AM 发表
鱼大兄不要误会我之前写的文章是要发泄我对PCSF的差劲。要shoot PCSF，何必写出那么长篇大论的费话,短短几句粗口来骂它就足够了。

其实我对自己本身很多被套的投资并没什么怨言，除了PCSF另我感到特别不满意，觉得 ...

同意你的想法，利用这次的经济危机，为未来铺路~
共勉之~

ThermoFisher

所谓不经一事，不长一智，我也曾吃过大众基金的亏，所以我明白你的感受；吃亏是因为我对基金错误的认知和期待，并不只是针对大众信托基金；大众信托基金的操作是受到国家银行监督，买卖的股票和基金的各种用于销售、展示的文件也是经过国家证卷局的批准与认可，是合法合理的，这就是游戏规则。

kinwing

是的，现在吃亏好过改次有更多资金投资时犯错，那时就更亏大了。至于那些所谓＂基金游戏规则＂只不过是监管机构的一种逃避责任的说词，任由法人及大机构侵犯散户投资者的利益。

假设散户投资者一味人云亦云的投资买进一些不怎么长进的基金，又不愿花时间去思考为什么自己投资的基金会那么差，却深信那些基金销售员所说的＂长期投资才能看到成绩＂（这句从基金销售员的嘴讲出来的话是对长期投资价值投资者的侮辱:@ ），结果自己给人家卖了还要向他们道谢。

草根一名

很多代理员，他来兜售投资配套时，
总会说，现在把钱放在银行几乎没利息了，不如投资更好。

他们总“故意”忽略一点，所谓的“投资”，并非稳赚。
纸上的往年赚幅数据，是在非危机时刻写下的，
现在下滑风险增大，难道把钱投资，会好过让通膨侵蚀现金能力？

我宁愿让钱被通膨侵蚀 1%，好过被股市侵蚀 20%。
那些投资配套的佣金，已经被侵蚀 15% 了，
这个他们却半字不提。哈哈。

我国有 3月的政治转变，原本猜不到它的走势，究竟是托着，
还是让它下滑再炒高等。但看到最近本地股市的表现，
哪个“做法”已经浮出海面，是风险、是机会，相信你也猜到。
说真，单看这种手法，对这群国家领袖未来经济掌控能力，
还真担心。

相信过后，可能年中后，可能年尾，不知道何时，
会有一个小涨潮。因为去年数据太差，
很多的数据变得较“漂亮”，让人误以为触底了。
但这个很可能是另一个 bull trap。
短暂投机还可以，长期入场未必是时候。

[ 本帖最后由 草根一名 于 22-3-2009 02:33 PM 编辑 ]

kinwing

从ICAP的一个网站转载了一个比较开放式基金（Open Ended Fund)和封闭式基金（Close Ended Fund)的文章（我只是帖了文章里面比较重要的一小部分，要看全文请点击以下的网链进去ICAP的网站看）。不过文章是以英文写的，希望大家能看得明白 这文章想要带出的讯息是投资开放式基金（Open Ended Fund)和封闭式基金（Close Ended Fund)的好处和坏处。

http://www.icapitaleducation.biz/index.php?section=5⊂=1g


(a). Closed versus open（简称＂CEF＂）

CEFs have a fixed number of shares outstanding. In contrast to UTFs, the amount of funds available for investment remains stable for CEFs. This is the reason why they are called closed-end. In the case of UTF （＂UTF＂是Unit Trust Fund的简称）, the number of units is flexible and is affected by inflows of new funds and redemption of existing units. This is the reason why UTFs are also called open-end funds. The fact that is one open-ended while the other is close-ended has major implications. Why?

(b). Who really is the fund manager?

CEFs have a fixed number of shares outstanding and the amount of funds available for investment remains stable for CEFs. In the case of UTF, the number of units changes constantly. This is a very important distinction given that stock markets are driven by cycles of fear and greed.

Fund managers of CEFs need not have to worry about inflows and outflows of funds, whereas fund managers of UTFs have to constantly worry about having enough cash to meet redemption requests or to invest the new funds flowing in.

During the peak of the market or periods of greed, UTFs experience heavy inflows of funds. Fund managers of UTF have no choice but to invest at the peak even though valuations are expensive. Conversely, during periods of fear or panic, UTFs experience heavy outflows of funds or redemptions. Fund managers of UTFs are then forced to sell their investments to meet redemption requests, even if it requires them to sell at cheap prices. This essentially means that the real fund manager in the case of UTFs is actually the individual unit trust holders and not the appointed fund manager. UTF fund managers have to act and decide according to the greed and fears of its individual unit holders. In stark contrast, for a CEF, the shareholder?s buying and selling activities have no impact on the funds available for investing. The fund manager's investment decisions are totally separated from what the shareholders decide to do.

(c). Better investment opportunities

Given the fact that CEFs do not experience inflows and outflows of funds, their fund managers have a broader range of investment choices and greater flexibility in deciding where and how to invest. This allows them the following advantages :
  *  Invest with a long-term strategy;
  *  Invest in undervalued but relatively 'illiquid' securities;
  *  Invest in smaller capitalised securities and
  *  CEFs can be more focused when investing.

As CEFs can be more focused when investing, CEFs offer potentially higher returns.

(d). Lower expenses, better returns

As we all know, expenses are bad for returns. Fortunately, CEFs have lower expenses than UTFs. Why?

As CEFs have a fixed number of shares outstanding, there is no need for continuous and expensive marketing and distribution expenses. UTFs, on the other hand, have an extensive and expensive marketing and distribution network and the costs are borne by the individual unit trust holders through the loading fees, which can range from 2 to 7% of net asset value (NAV).

Since CEFs do not experience constant inflows or outflows of funds, CEFs do not have to buy and sell their investments frequently. With a lower portfolio turnover, this means that CEFs can have much lower stock broking commissions than UTFs.

(e). Less reinvestment problems

Since CEFs have a fixed number of shares outstanding, they do not experience constant inflows or outflows of funds. Therefore, CEFs have less trading activities. With less buying and selling to do, CEFs would have less reinvestment decisions to make. Why is this important?

The more reinvestment decisions there are, the higher the risks of making the wrong decisions and thus the higher the chances that the performance of a fund would be inferior. As a result, the chances of success for CEFs are much higher.

(f). Premium/Discount

Like all other listed companies, the market prices of CEFs need not equal their NAVs. Again, like the share price of any listed company, a CEF may trade at a premium or discount to its NAV. For CEFs, the discount/premium is a feature that provides investors with the potential for additional returns. When the CEF?s premium widens or its discount narrows, the return of the CEF, based on its share price, will be greater than the NAV return. This premium/discount feature cannot be found in UTFs.

[ 本帖最后由 kinwing 于 22-3-2009 02:37 PM 编辑 ]

美丽新世界

原帖由 ThermoFisher 于 21-3-2009 15:16 发表
你看到的其实很多人都已经看到，没说出来并不表示我们不知道。。。

看到但没人说出来，股东大会也没人发出疑问，
分析员只会一路唱好，然后公司依然故我，
那表示了什么？

ThermoFisher

大众银行每一届的股东大会你都有去吗？或者大众银行的每一个报道你都看过？不然你怎会知道没人问过，也没人说过呢？

分析员唱不唱好自然有他们的理由和议程，难道每间公司还要看分析员的脸色做人？那么不是很奇怪吗？我国法律没规定那么做是犯法的，那么表示他们有权利这么做，别人管不着。。。

这世界上不存在完美的公司，至少马来西亚没有，如果你真的无法忍受也没办法，大不了不投资。。

[ 本帖最后由 ThermoFisher 于 22-3-2009 06:47 PM 编辑 ]