【~~kinwing~~个人专区】长期投资的旅程

AK-

不要叫我前辈，说不定你比我还年长 。

1)经一事长一智，从此卖了PCSF我已经不看本地的open-end UT ...
kinwing 发表于 15-11-2010 04:30 PM

原来你的恨是因为PCSF ～ 呵呵～

不过，从开始接触投资以来，很多人都把PCSF骂得狗血淋头。

我一直很好奇一件事，

1）这支基金，自25-06-2007开始至今才3年。
    在当初买的时候它还是一直很新的基金，为什么有这么多人还去买它呢？

2）这么新的基金看不到基金经理的能力，为什么这么多人有信心的投资于它呢？

3）既然投资在高风险基金，就该知道经济风暴的来临肯定侵蚀它的表现啊，那怎么还是有这么多人在低点砍仓呢？
呵呵～ 想不通～～

4）一般人、普通人、非专业投资者，投资股票型基金本来就是（至少）以10年最为理想，怎么还期待它能短期获暴利呢？


我虽然对投资一窍不通，但我在开始买人生的第一支基金（PSEASF，agent介绍的）时，也用了约1个星期，
来研究及考量，基金所投资于国家的前景 及基金经理的表现，才下决定买它。

也许我在投资领域是新人，
所以觉得基金不是一个可以发达致富的工具，但却是一个很好累积财富的工具。

不知道我这样的想法会否太天真？

kinwing

回复 381# AK-

大众基金设立了这么多种类的基金，再差总有一两个不错吧？假设大众将其所有基金综合起来，它们的回酬扣除了管理和Agent费后不一定会比大市好。如果大众基金期下的基金扣除相关费用和税收后的回报率不比其基准指数（Benchmark Index)来的高，那我还不如买基准指数基金（Index Fund)？

市场上有比大众更好的基金，为什么要选它？再加上我自己本身懂得投资得到的回酬比大众基金高，还是自己来做更好。其实我当初买PCSF只不过是测验下大众基金有几好（to test the water)，所以意思意思的投入RM3,000，结果一个风暴大众很多基金就趴地了，PCSF到目前为止还不能超过它的基准指数。所谓高手一出手便知有没有，这也让我见识到大众的＂实力＂

还有就是你说基金经理表现不错，你有什么证明？你可以自己算出基金3年，5年甚至10年的扣除相关费用和税收年均回报率(Net Annual Compounded Return)吗？那这年均回报率比其基准指数的回报率来得高吗？

AK-

回复  AK-

大众基金设立了这么多种类的基金，再差总有一两个不错吧？假设大众将其所有基金综合起来，它 ...
kinwing 发表于 15-11-2010 09:06 PM

大众基金设立了这么多种类的基金，再差总有一两个不错吧？假设大众将其所有基金综合起来，它们的回酬扣除了管理和Agent费后不一定会比大市好。如果大众基金期下的基金扣除相关费用和税收后的回报率不比其基准指数（Benchmark Index)来的高，那我还不如买基准指数基金（Index Fund)？
1) 你这个问题我之前有思考过～也请教一些人～
我也不知道他们给的答案对不对～
他们如下回答我：
“PCSF 中国基金，会受外汇兑换率影响，从而使到基金表现不如大市（应该是指benchmark index）。而benchmark index 是不考量外汇的因素。”
leek，帮忙看看，他们这样的解答，有错误么？

不过，我同意这么多基金，不论是什么公司，总是会有表现好的基金，也会有表现差的基金。



市场上有比大众更好的基金，为什么要选它？再加上我自己本身懂得投资得到的回酬比大众基金高，还是自己来做更好。其实我当初买PCSF只不过是测验下大众基金有几好（to test the water)，所以意思意思的投入RM3,000，结果一个风暴大众很多基金就趴地了，PCSF到目前为止还不能超过它的基准指数。所谓高手一出手便知有没有，这也让我见识到大众的＂实力＂
2) 呵呵～之前我就已说明了我指的是 一般人、普通人、非专业投资者。
再者，你这么说我觉得有欠理想。
这有点像有人投资股票，to test the water，后来被股票烧到手。
然后就说，股票真是害人不浅～
呵呵～ 其实我要表达的是，我不是说基金很好，而是说，是不是策略不对？
再来说到投资，一般人 应涵盖 股票、基金、黄金、房产。

还有就是你说基金经理表现不错，你有什么证明？你可以自己算出基金3年，5年甚至10年的扣除相关费用和税收年均回报率(Net Annual Compounded Return)吗？那这年均回报率比其基准指数的回报率来得高吗？
3）这个问题，我在未买基金时，也思考过～ 还问我的agent，但都不能给我详细的计算回酬方式。
不过，后来cari网的大大指点后，自修计算如下基金投资实际回酬率。
这是已经扣除服务费。
请参考目录～
http://cforum.cari.com.my/viewthread.php?tid=2003478
9） 个人研究 5 - 债券型基金回酬率的计算 & 2000年至2010年8月20日的总回酬率表。IRR=5.77% （第152楼）
10）个人研究 6 - 股票型基金回酬率的计算 & 2000年至2010年8月20日的总回酬率表。IRR=10.21% （第158楼）
24）28-09-10 个人研究11 - （答案篇-part2）投资基金作为退休金，但NAV跌到比刚买时还低，该继续么？答案：我个人的选择：要，继续！为什么呢？因为。。。。。。。。。(第305楼）

结论：
个人觉得不同的工具，应该有不同的使用方法。
就如同保险是保障功能、转移风险工具，并不是个投资工具。
不知我这样的理解是否有误？

呵呵～ 大家互相交流～ 呵呵～

kinwing

Hi Ak兄。已经夜了要去睡觉了，等我看了你的计算回酬方式，然后再看明天有没有时间上来再回复。

kinwing

之前曾写过对PB.Mutual的看法，再次将这些看法转贴。

(1)
"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。"

(2)
"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。 "

(3)
"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。 "

(4)
"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。"

(5)
"只能说买基金首先要知道其基金经理的背景和能力(Public Mutual基金经理的背景不大透明，而且当他们离职时投资者也无从所知，我对这种情况可没什么信心)，以及他的历年表现和回报率。第二较重要的是买进的时机。

还有就是基金的Benchmark也很重要。至于PCSF的Benchmark是MSCI-GOLDEN DRAGON Index,所以PCSF到目前为止都认为它的表现还是打败Benchmark (不过net of fees 就很难说了),因为MSCI-GOLDEN DRAGON Index的表现更糟糕。由此来看MSCI-GOLDEN DRAGON Index适不适合成为PCSF的Benchmark，这就见仁见智吧。 "

kinwing

还有各路的投资兄弟曾对PB.Mutual的评语

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

Brilliant 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 their respective 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 meantime, 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!!

kinwing

http://goodstockbadstock.blogspo ... -more-fundsthe.html

I know I should not make too much enemies with my writing especially when I am still looking for a job in the asset management industry. My job hunt so far to get into the industry have been mostly disappointing- not even a single phone call for interview. So, I should not criticize the people that are supposedly can be my potential employers. This is especially true when I am increasingly desperate to get a job in investment management. For example, when I write about CIMB previously, I receive some harsh comments on the level of my intelligence and the size of my b****. So, for the benefit of my future career, I should stop criticizing, right?


However, I am the kind of idiots who like to voice out things that I don't like. Sometimes, I can be quite annoying. Trust me, the kind of stuff I write here is at most 5% of my rant with regards to anything business related. I admit that I may not be right all of the time, but, since this is my blog, this should be a space that I can voice out my opinion freely. It is not that I am a pessimist, I am an optimist. If not, I would not go long on shares. I just feel that, in investment, you need to stay on guard all the time, don't let the euphoria consume you and cloud your judgement. Since lost dollars are harder to replace, it is generally better to be a bit conservative.


So, after the long unrelated introduction, what is my rant of the day? Well, I plan to write about this for quite some time, but, still hold back as I don't want to make another enemy. However, there is always a trigger. The trigger is when I read about Public Mutual launching another funds tomorrow. I am sure this is not the first fund being launch by PM this year. Others mutual fund companies enjoy launching funds for fun too. So, this post is not about PM only, it is about the propensity of our local mutual fund industry to launch a huge array of funds into the market. In PM case, the number of equities fund alone is staggering. You can find the list of equities funds here: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3 and Link 4 (all four links lead you to different list of equities fund). I believe even Coca Cola do not sell so many types of soft drinks and fruit juices to meet the different demands of customer around the WORLD.


I think, if I remember correctly, during my Primary school days, there are just a few general funds available for investment i.e Public Aggressive Growth, Public Growth, Public Savings etc. However, recently, we see an influx of funds in Malaysia. The funds are normally created via this process : 1) Look at what is the popular theme. 2) Make a good story out of what is popular 3) Sell the story to the naive investment public and wait for the cash to come in. The problem with this approach is that, by the time the unpopular theme become popular, it is already too late. The market for that theme may be heading for its peak. Just look at the China-related funds launch during the massive run-up in Shanghai Composite, I am not sure most of them have recovered their money yet.


Another problem I have with this sort of funds is that, with new fund lunches, you expect a new fund manager to manage the new funds right? What if I tell you that PM never increase the number of fund manager despite the increase in the number of funds? Here's the profile of one of their Senior Portfolio Manager:



This Ms. Tan manages four funds and co-manage another seven funds. So, in total, there are 11 funds under her charge. It is possible that this Ms. Tan is a remarkable and amazing fund manager, hence, she can juggle her time well to manage such a vast array of funds. This is particularly true if she is the only one in PM set-up that manages multiple funds. However, she is not an exception, in fact, she is the norm. Here's a link to their master prospectus of one of their major series of funds (there are 6 series in total) : http://www.publicmutual.com.my/d ... 20Master%202010.pdf (warning: PDF File). Try look for a fund manager name, then, search that name using your PDF reader search tool. You will be amaze the number of time the same name pop-up as fund manager in different funds.


I admit that there may be overlap in certain areas like Ms Tan generally manages Far East and dividend-related portfolio. However, within the Far East sector, there are general fund and a sector focus fund. When it comes to portfolio allocation decision, which fund should have the right to buy first? Unless they employ different trader to do the deal for different funds(which is unlikely since they have same fund manager for different funds), there bound to be a conflict when deciding who get the first bite of the cherry. Imagine, after comprehensive research, they found a sufficiently liquid stock but not liquid enough for two or three competing funds to go in at the same time without violating market manipulation laws, which one should get to go first? How they decide? Would it be the sector focus fund since its investment universe is limited? If it is the sector focus fund that get it, would it prevent the general fund in getting into attractive industry as the sector focus fund is normally focused on industry that is deemed attractive? I have no answer to all this questions and more importantly, I do not know the VALIDITY of such concern, so I may be wrong.


When the investor pay 5% as fund management fee(corrections from dleboone: the real fee structure is 5% sales commission and 1.5-2% fund management fee), we expect the fund manager to spend 8 hours a day looking at investment opportunity for their particular fund right? Well, Ms. Tan dedicate slightly less than 44 minutes a day looking for investment opportunity for each of her fund (assuming 8 hours work days and no administrative procedure for the fund manager). The best mutual fund manager of the world like Peter Lynch, Anthony Bolton, Bill Miller and Bruce Berkowitz rarely manage more than two to three funds. Some manage only one fund. So, anecdotal evidence may suggest that the number of funds that a fund manager manage can have an effect on his/her performance.


Ok, enough about the fund manager, let's move on to other stuff- the question of diversification itself. The modus operandi of most of this fund management firm look like this : Launch a general fund, gauge the consumer(note: it is CONSUMER not investor cause they are treating them as someone you can rip off) interest and then, leverage on the interest to launch sector focus fund. Let's take a hypothetical case, Mr Newbie Investor is new to investment. Mr UT "Con"-sultant introduce him a Far East equities fund. During his selling process, Mr "Con"-sultant tells Mr Newbie the benefits of unit trust which is mainly diversification. Since Mr Newbie is inexperience, diversification seems a good idea. So, he buy the funds. A few months later, PM launches another fund, now, a Far East Infrastructure Fund.  Mr "Con"-sultant again sell Mr Newbie the new fund. He use the same idea of diversification again. Mr Newbie, which are inexperienced, again buy the fund thinking that there are sufficient diversification. By end of the year, Mr Newbie have purchase all sort of Far East related and Infrastructure related fund from Mr "Con"-sultant. Thinking that he has sufficient diversification, he sleeps well at night. Until, suddenly, Far East market collapse, his diversification is not really diversification as his portfolio are concentrated on one single region alone. Similarly, if infrastructure industry collapse, the same thing happen. You are not diversifying when you are buying the same crap. Some unit trust consultant like to draw the chart which says if you hold X amount of stock, you will diversify away most of your risk. Hmm, if I buy 30 China-related construction stock, does it mean that I am safe from a collapse in Chinese property prices?


I have further things to say about this topic, but, it may be dragging this a bit too long. For the benefit of the MTV generation where attention span is less than a few minutes, I shall stop here with a recommendation. If unit trust are so bad, what can we buy? In Malaysia, I think the options are limited as they are not much ETF around. The best choice would be Tan Teng Boo's icapital.biz Bhd. Despite the valid concern on management fee  structure raise by AhYap on ICapital's international funds, icapital.biz Bhd, which focuses on local equities, management fee is still reasonable. It is less than 2% annually with zero performance fees. So, if you want to invest, but don't want to do it on your own, the good option is really limited in Malaysia. icapital.biz Bhd certainly fit into the good category in a limited pool of choices. Another option is to travel down south, open a Singapore stock trading account. From there, you can buy a wide variety of ETF from around the world.


I have to admit that I am not that familiar with all this ETF and stuff as I am more of a stock picker than anything else. But, I think my recommendation should be much better than buying most mutual fund in Malaysia where the sole motive is to increase their asset under management. In investing, being bigger is not better. Good fund manager will actually keep or limit the fund size to ensure decent returns to their investors.


Disclosure : I do not know Tan Teng Boo in person and are not paid by him to write this :-)


P/S: To all the unit trust consultants out there, no pun intended for calling you all "con"-sultant. I believe there are good ones out there that genuinely can add value for their client.

AK-

呵呵～ 没有兴趣看那长长的英文字～ 呵呵～ 抱歉～

待你看了我的计算，给点意见～ 呵呵～

kinwing

回复 383# AK-

1) “你这个问题我之前有思考过～也请教一些人～ 我也不知道他们给的答案对不对～
他们如下回答我：
“PCSF 中国基金，会受外汇兑换率影响，从而使到基金表现不如大市（应该是指benchmark index）。而benchmark index 是不考量外汇的因素。”
leek，帮忙看看，他们这样的解答，有错误么？

不过，我同意这么多基金，不论是什么公司，总是会有表现好的基金，也会有表现差的基金。”

PCSF可能会面对外汇兑换率影响，但是这几年来零吉对新币，人民币，台币以及港币并没有大涨，相反的是新币和人民币的升值对PCSF有利。所以那些人说的是Bull Shit!

2) “ 呵呵～之前我就已说明了我指的是 一般人、普通人、非专业投资者。再者，你这么说我觉得有欠理想。这有点像有人投资股票，to test the water，后来被股票烧到手。然后就说，股票真是害人不浅～

呵呵～ 其实我要表达的是，我不是说基金很好，而是说，是不是策略不对？再来说到投资，一般人 应涵盖 股票、基金、黄金、房产。”

You still don’t get me.我之前曾说如果你有得选择可以做得更好，为何不去那么做？如果市场上有比PB.Mutual更好的基金，为何还要买PB.Mutual？就是因为我投资过PB.Mutual所以知道它的回酬并不如宣传的那么好，所以我不再投资PB.Mutual，但我并没说过因为”被基金烧到手所以基金真是害人不浅”，我是说PB.Mutual不够好。而且我也不曾因为被PB.Mutual烧到手而停止买基金，所以你的说法＂这有点像有人投资股票，to test the water，后来被股票烧到手。然后就说，股票真是害人不浅＂只是你的个人看法，我可没这么说。

还有就是以＂一般人、普通人、非专业投资者＂的借口来辩护自己不能追求更高的回酬是说不过去地，毕竟人是要进步的。至于你说＂是不是策略不对＂，那我也可以说＂为何不用对的策略在更好的基金或投资工具，为何要用对的策略在PB.Mutual？＂。

3) “这个问题，我在未买基金时，也思考过～ 还问我的agent，但都不能给我详细的计算回酬方式。
不过，后来cari网的大大指点后，自修计算如下基金投资实际回酬率。这是已经扣除服务费。”

看了你有关算基金回酬的帖，基本上你应该了解基金回酬是怎样得来地。之前问你会不会算基金回酬是怕你盲目的轻信PB.Mutual agent的说法而堕入了＂被人卖了还要谢谢他／她＂的情形。

结论：
个人觉得不同的工具，应该有不同的使用方法。就如同保险是保障功能、转移风险工具，并不是个投资工具。不知我这样的理解是否有误？
我的帖只讨论股市和基金投资，至于其它的什么保险或风险转移工具并不在我要深入讨论的范围之中。

kinwing

我虽然对投资一窍不通，但我在开始买人生的第一支基金（PSEASF，agent介绍的）时，也用了约1个星期，
来研究及考量，基金所投资于国家的前景 及基金经理的表现，才下决定买它。
...
AK- 发表于 15-11-2010 05:54 PM

算了算AK兄买进PSEAF的回酬since inception （自22-10-200７至15-Nov-2010，既3.06年）
Total Accumulated Return = 13.23%
Total Annual Average Compounded Return = (1+13.23%)^(1/3.06) – 1 = 4.15%

而PSEAF的Benchmark是Public ASEAN Index（我对PSEAF指定Public ASEAN Index为它的Benchmark有很不满的意见，容我等下再说），Public ASEAN Index的回酬如下

Total Accumulated Return = 10.74%
Total Annual Average Compounded Return = (1+10.74%)^(1/3.06) – 1 = 3.40%

表面来看PSEAF的回报率是好过Bencmark（4.15% > 3.40%)，不过PSEAF总回报率13.25%是否已经扣除相干费用或税收就不得而知了？如果还未13.25%还未扣除相干费用或税收，那PSEAF的回酬是否高过Benchmark就难说了。

还有就是为何PB.Mutual要用自身或相关公司（Related Parties）来制定Benchmark，既是Public Asean Index，我看这根本就是利益冲突（Conflict of Interest）。谁晓得PB.Mutual会不会为了显示它的基金能够年年击败Benchmark，所以用一些＂低能＂的Benchmark？倒不如PB.Mutual说它的基金回报年年都能超越某些香蕉共和国的Benchmark我才说它"厉害＂。

我建议PSEAF应该以中立组织所设立的Benchmark如MSCI South East Asia Index来做比较，那才能显示它的回酬率是经得起考验地。

AK-

回复  AK-
1) “你这个问题我之前有思考过～也请教一些人～ 我也不知道他们给的答案对不对～
他们如下回 ...
kinwing 发表于 16-11-2010 12:33 PM

1）你给我的感觉你似乎深受其害叻～ 呵呵～
我想问问在那里可以看到某家公司的总市值？
比如，如何知道public bank berhard 及 CIMB 的总市值呢？

2） 呵呵～ 如果有好基金，需要你介绍了。期待你的分析及计算～
之前去上网找过其他公司的基金，但它们好像没有的查指定时段内的回酬率，没这么方便叻～

3）对于我的计算结果，有何指教呢？ 哪里需要改进呢？ 请指点。
  其投资实际回酬复利率IRR =10% 左右，是否 计算有误呢？
愿你不吝赐教～


4）的确，如果人可以进步，又何必固步自封呢～
投资的经验我尚浅，根本不能与你相提并论～
而我的投资策略，是要攻守兼备，要配合各种不同的可能生活情况。
说简单点，发生事了，唯有自己能救自己～ 经历啊～ 呵呵～
所以也就如此，在你们这些股票投资者眼中，我这类就过于胆小及保守了～ 呵呵！

再者，你说你的帖只讨论股票和基金投资，在这里需要向你道歉了，因为我都在误解你了～呵呵～
因为我一直都以【理财规划】为出发点～

我喜欢下棋，因为我需要考虑的不只是下1步、2步 ～呵呵～

kinwing

1）你给我的感觉你似乎深受其害叻～ 呵呵～
我想问问在那里可以看到某家公司的总市值？
比如，如何知 ...
AK- 发表于 16-11-2010 06:02 PM

1)失败乃成功之母，我从投资RM３K在PB.Mutual后小亏了几百块吸取到教训，总好过拿着好几百万时才在PB.Mutual翻船。所以何来深受其害？深受其益才是。

2)之前曾说了现在要买本地基金的话我只推荐唯一在Bursa上市的封闭式基金icapital.biz(ICAP)。你可以去它的网站看看。
http://www.icapital.biz/english/

ICAP的自上市以来的NAV年均回酬 since inception （自19-10-2005至11-Nov-2010，既5.05年）
＝(RM2.52/RM1)^(1/5.05) - 1 = 20.08%

其股价自上市以来的NAV年均回酬为
＝（RM2.04/RM1)^(1/5.05) - 1 = 15.16%

http://s.lowyat.net/uploads//attach-85/post-368285-1288752950.jpg


ICAP的Benchmark为KLCI Index
KLCI Index的5年年均回酬大概是10%至11%

3)计算投资年均回酬复利率（将以下的方程式套用在Excel即可）
＝［（１＋总回酬率）＾（１／投资年数）］－１

我之前算PSEAF的回酬，是因为你说过＂我在开始买人生的第一支基金（PSEASF，agent介绍的）时，也用了约1个星期，来研究及考量，基金所投资于国家的前景 及基金经理的表现，才下决定买它。＂。所以我算到PSEAF自创立以来的年均回酬复利率是4.15% （创立自22-10-200７至15-Nov-2010，既3.06年）
PSEAF总会酬率 = 13.23%
PSEAF年均回酬复利率 = (1+13.23%)^(1/3.06) – 1 = 4.15%

所以你自己本身算出来的＂投资实际回酬复利率IRR =10% 左右＂跟我得到的不符合，能的话请显示你的计算方法。

4)我在金融业工作了几年，现在在投资银行做，且我自5至6年前已经开始投资股市所以累计了一定程度的经验，再加上本人是毕业于金融专业地（Degree in Accounting/Bankin Finance和CFA），对股市投资有较深入的了解。

还有我的帖也讨论理财的比如如何存钱投资，只不过本人不喜保险和金融衍生工具，所以只点到为止。

我也喜欢下棋，尤其是中国象棋。只不过周边的朋友都不爱玩这种费时思考性质的游戏，所以已经很久没下棋了，棋艺已经退得七七八八了。

kinwing

＂我想问问在那里可以看到某家公司的总市值？
比如，如何知道public bank berhard 及 CIMB 的总市值呢？＂

要找出公司的总市值，就要看年报或季度报告，然后从这些报告找出该公司的Total Shares（已经扣除了Treasury Shares或所谓的库存股），然后将这Total Shares乘于其最新的股价，就可得到公司的总值。

公司总值(Market Capitalisation)
= Total number of shares * Share Price

AK-

1)失败乃成功之母，我从投资RM３K在PB.Mutual后小亏了几百块吸取到教训，总好过拿着好几百万时才在PB.M ...
kinwing 发表于 17-11-2010 01:13 PM

呵呵～ 这回儿，在你这里挖到宝了～

谢谢你的指教～ 呵呵～


我并不是指PSEASF 过去3年会有10%。
每次都听到agent说基金会能带来每年约10%的收益，
我为了确定，而开始研究及计算过去基金的数据表现。
而我计算的结果，一般上需要10年才可能比较趋近10%这个回酬率。

由于，我是投资新手，所以我不奢望我能找到一个明星基金，
我只是想知道一个“平凡”的基金，若是投资5～10年能为我带来每年多少的收益。

---

例子一：  PAGF fund
以下是2000年～2010年一月份  到 20/08/2010  ，
各个年份 到 目前 的总回筹率。
   
以上，很清楚的显示，每年投资1000元，11年后的今天总投资额RM11,000， 共得回筹总数为21,183.50 ，
IRR =10.21%

---

例子2：




此人在29-03-1981到23-09-2010之间，
每年固定在3月29日投资于PSF基金，
30年的实际回酬年利率 IRR =9.61%.

carrien_foong

kinwing-我看了你的投资记录。。Rcecap可以长期投资吗？目标价多少呢？谢谢

kinwing

kinwing-我看了你的投资记录。。Rcecap可以长期投资吗？目标价多少呢？谢谢
carrien_foong 发表于 17-11-2010 04:17 PM

嗨carrien_foong，

你先说你对RCECAP的看法和你曾对RCECAP做过的研究，然后我才说我对它的看法。我现在在论坛分享我的看法时不再spoon feeding，而是要双方面的交流。

kinwing

呵呵～ 这回儿，在你这里挖到宝了～

谢谢你的指教～ 呵呵～


我并不是指PSEAS ...
AK- 发表于 17-11-2010 04:09 PM

AK兄，

我了解你对投资回酬率的要求是10%，PB.Mutual可以达到你的要求是没错(其实PB.Mutual算是不错的基金，不过我有更好的选择所以我不选它)，但只要它的扣除管理和税务费用后的回酬率低于Benchmark的回酬率，那PB.Mutual的表现就不达标。我再强调，PB.Mutual算是中上的投资选择，但如果它的表现比不上Benchmark，那还是转而投资它的Benchmark（如Index Fund或自己replicate Benchmark)或投资其他更高回酬或收费更便宜的基金。

还有你算PAGF Fund应该错了，根据我自己本身算到的
（N=11, PV=0, PMT=-1,000, FV=20,652.61)
所以I／Y（既所谓的IRR）＝12%，而不是10.21%

至于PSF Fund，我得到的是9.36%，跟你的9.61%相差不多
（N=30.5, PV=0, PMT=-6,000, FV=917,673.55)
所以I／Y＝9.36%

AK-

AK兄，

我了解你对投资回酬率的要求是10%，PB.Mutual可以达到你的要求是没错(其实PB.Mutual算是不错 ...
kinwing 发表于 17-11-2010 05:03 PM

1) 我是用excel算的。帮我看看哪个算法才对.谢谢！
我之前用左边的算法来算，是因为我觉得年头投资，年尾拿钱。难道我这样的算法有错误？
如果采用右边，那不是第11年我才投资1000，第11年就拿了20k回来？
我很乱～

1	-1,000		1	-1,000		-1,000
2	-1,000		2	-1,000		-1,000
3	-1,000		3	-1,000		-1,000
4	-1,000		4	-1,000		-1,000
5	-1,000		5	-1,000		-1,000
6	-1,000		6	-1,000		-1,000
7	-1,000		7	-1,000		-1,000
8	-1,000		8	-1,000		-1,000
9	-1,000		9	-1,000		-1,000
10	-1,000		10	-1,000		-1,000
11	-1,000		11	-1,000	20,652.61	19,652.61
12	20,652.61				IRR	12.00%
IRR	10.21%

2）请问封闭式基金的优缺点是什么？

AK-

kinwing 发表于 16-11-2010 04:21 PM

  请教你几个问题，

1）你介绍的ICAP 基金，请问是投资于哪个国家为主？哪个领域？
   我进去你介绍的网站，看资料时，需要username 及password ，要如何申请？

2）你在390楼说，

PSEAF的Benchmark是Public ASEAN Index
还有就是为何PB.Mutual要用自身或相关公司（Related Parties）来制定Benchmark，既是Public Asean Index，我看这根本就是利益冲突（Conflict of Interest）。谁晓得PB.Mutual会不会为了显示它的基金能够年年击败Benchmark，所以用一些＂低能＂的Benchmark？倒不如PB.Mutual说它的基金回报年年都能超越某些香蕉共和国的Benchmark我才说它"厉害＂。

我建议PSEAF应该以中立组织所设立的Benchmark如MSCI South East Asia Index来做比较，那才能显示它的回酬率是经得起考验地。

后来看到，大众的基金所用的指数都不完全一样的。
有的用FTSE bursa Malaysia KLCI, 而PCSSF 则用 MSCI Golden Dragon Index 等等。

有个很好奇的是，PB系列与public系列的基金，
PB AUSTRAILIA DYNAMIC BALANCED FUND
Public Australia Balanced Index

Public Australia Equity Fund
S&/ASX 200 Index

i）同样是投资澳洲，为什么用的index 不同呢？
ii）采用何种index，到底是以什么作为标准？

3）你所介绍的封闭式基金，都是要在股票交易所交易的，那也就算说它的价格是依据供需而定。
但如要购买，也要等它再次开放，对么？

kinwing

1) 我是用excel算的。帮我看看哪个算法才对.谢谢！
我之前用左边的算法来算，是因为我觉得年头投资， ...
AK- 发表于 17-11-2010 06:00 PM

1)这就取决于你几时拿回那20,652.61，如果是在11年后的年尾收回（11年年尾跟十二年年头没多大分别），那年均复利回酬率就是12%。如果是在12年后的年尾才能拿回20,652.61，那其年均复利回酬率就是10.21%。

2)我曾经写过有关封闭式基金的优缺点，不过是用英文写的，而我有不想费时翻译，所以就将写过的英文篇章转载至此。至于AK兄你有＂没有兴趣看那长长的英文字＂，就由得你咯。

"...In order to encourage investors to be long term shareowners for a fund, the fund can impose several restrictions to the fund such as 1-year lock in period, 2-month disposing notification period and close-end units. So ICAP decided to setup the fund with a close-end basis. The subsequent paragraphs I would like to differentiate what is a close-end fund (“CEF”) and its different to an open-end fund (“OEF”).

[size=100%]

[size=100%]A CEF is set up as a company under the Companies Act and is generally listed on a stock exchange. CEF has a fixed number of shares outstanding and its capital is raised through an initial public offering (“IPO”) like any other public offerings. Investors who buy the shares of a CEF will become shareholders of the company. Like all other publicly traded securities, shares of a CEF are bought and sold in the open market. Its share price is determined by supply and demand in the marketplace.

[size=100%]

[size=100%]Whereby the OEF, or more commonly in Malaysia it is so-called the Unit trust funds (or in the US it is mutual funds) which is not incorporated as a company but as a trust where monies are collected from investors to be invested and managed for investors' benefits. OEF’s units are first offered through an IPO. However, OEF units will vary even after the IPO. As the unit holders of OEF are still able to buy or sell theirs from/to the OEF, and the OEF is responsible to issue new units for buyers and cancel its existing units to liquidate cash in order to meet the unit holder’s redemption. Sometimes, some of the fund mangers of certain OEFs claimed that their fund size have increased a lot during a short period, however please take note that the increase of the fund size not necessary because of the fund manager’s ability to achieve superior return but just merely indicates that there are more units being issued.

[size=100%]

[size=100%]In view of the abovementioned difference in between CEF and OEF, I would like to point out the one of the most important advantages that CEF consists is the professionalism of fund manager is retained much better than OEF.

[size=100%]

[size=100%]Why we want to invest a trust fund? The most common pitch used by trust fund is that it allows the man in the street to enjoy professional fund management. However, due to the open-end structure of an OEF, the investment decision making is indirectly made by the retail investors, not the professional fund manager. Investors themselves end up being the one controlling the buying and selling of the fund's portfolio, not the fund manager.

[size=100%]

[size=100%]When the stock market is bullish, investors tend to flood new monies into OEFs. When this happens, the OEF receives an inflow of cash and needs to invest the monies received based on their investment mandate. Thus, investors are 'forcing' the fund managers to invest, even when some of the shares are trading at high valuation. In a bear market, investors tend to panic and start to redeem or sell their units. Fund managers of the OEF have no choice but to liquidate their portfolio to raise cash to pay the investors who sold or redeemed their units. Thus, investors 'forced' fund managers to sell when the stocks may be trading at attractive valuation. Once the fund managers are ‘forced sell’ the stocks, it will trigger another round of market crashing and investors will be more panic and selling/redeem more units. So it is just a circle of market crashing, panic, selling and market crashing again. In short, the fund managers of OEF are dictated by the emotions of unit holders who are tend to be more in short-term tenure, and thus eliminating the benefits of professional management and long-term investing.

[size=100%]

[size=100%]On the other hand, the buying or selling activities of the unit holders of CEF will not affect the investment decision of the fund manager once it is after the IPO. If any potential investors would like to buy the CEF’s units or any existing investors would like to dispose the CEF’s units after IPO, they can trade to buy/sell the CEF’s units at the secondary securities market such as Bursa Malaysia, and the CEF is not responsible to any of these trading activities. This is the reason why CEF is required to be listed at a secondary market for the ease of trading the units. Thus, the fund manager of CEF can efficiently utilise the proceeds from the investors for long term investing and buy more units during bear market with cheaper valuation and selling more units during bull market with higher valuation without disturbances from the trading activities carry by the unit holders. This is one of the reasons that CEF can outperform OEF in term of investment return."