Letter to a fund manager of a local Insurance Company

Here's a letter i wrote to a fund manager (investment-linked) of a local insurance company. Until today, there's no reply from them.

In the year ending Nov 30th, 2007, A** Equity Fund had 92.6% in Equities. That time, the index was 1,396.98. 1 year later, when KLCI is at 866.14, A**'s Equity Fund's equity exposure drop to 42.5% ! Isn't that "buy high, sell low"?

Put it another way, the summary is as below:
Date ------------------- KLCI ---------------A** Equity Fund's Equity Exposure
30th Nov 2007 --------1,396.98 ---------------------------92.6%
30th Nov 2008 ---------866.14 ----------------------------42.5% !!!

Shouldn't it be the other way round? And if the fund manager can't time the market (which i believe nobody can), shouldn't A** Equity Fund maintains as an "Equity" Fund with 70% to 90% in Equity? Having 42.5% in Equity is less than what a balanced fund is putting! And having 42.5% in Equity when prices are low is even more unexplainable!

Please explain this when i can't see any logical reasons for it (other than the fund manager having "buy high, sell low" syndrome, or join the herd mentality to be fearful when prices are low or trying to gamble the market's direction).

And in year 2009, KLCI earned 44.7% while A** equity fund earned less than 2/5 of KLCI's return! And the annual report don't even mention the reason for such poor performance! If the unit holders are truly the owners of that fund, don't they deserve an explaination for such poor performance?

And please don't say that A**'s equity fund return of 17.5% is better than FD! If you travel from Penang to Singapore by flight, and reach there after 7 hours (when other air planes can reach within 1 hour), do you accept excuse as "At least our flight is faster than going by car" ?

As a result, A** under perform KLCI during these times. Am i right to say that? If that is so, then what's the point of hiring A** as the fund manager for their equity funds? Might as well they just buy the Index or ETF and save the 1.5% management fees, and don't earn a return WORSE than KLCI (not to mention savings on the huge upfront service charge, or ended up being tied up to the terrible fund for 6 years to enjoy 0% service charge).

And also, please don't say A** equity fund beat benchmark since launch. The comparison is simply not fair because KLCI doesn't include dividends into their price. Had KLCI add between 3% to 4.5% yearly dividends to the price, A** Equity fund would under perform by a wide margin!

Waiting for an explaination for me to explain to my unhappy clients.

__________________________________________________________________

Lesson Learned:

Don't find mechanic regarding your health.

Don't find doctor regarding legal issues.

Don't find investment companies for insurance.

Don't find insurance company for investments. They Suck!

Is a low price fund means higher potential gains?

To answer this question, we need to understand how a unit trust fund’s price is derived daily. For example, why a particular fund’s unit price is is RM 0.2858 in a particular day, and not RM 0.2832 or even RM 0.2953. Who determines this price, and how is this price derived?

A fund’s price is determined by the underlying asset’s closing market price divide by total number of units of that fund on that particular day. This is the equation:

Fund’s Unit Price = Underlying Asset’s Closing Market Price / Total Units in the fund.

From the above equation, the fluctuation in a Fund’s Unit Price depends on the Underlying Assets, and it doesn’t depend on the fund’s Unit Price. After all, a fund’s unit price depends on “how many slices the fund is sliced”. The more units sliced, the fund’s unit price will be lower.

In fact, if both funds have the same Assets in the same proportion, both funds will fluctuate in the exact percentage, irrespective of the number of units in the fund. Putting it in a laymen way, if Fund A with unit price of RM 0.20 per unit increased by RM 0.10, then fund B with unit price of RM 1.00 per unit will increase by RM 0.50 (and NOT RM 0.10)!, if both funds have the same underlying assets at the same proportion. Both funds will increase by the same percentage, and not by the same amount!.

How about in reality (as oppose to the above “theory”)? Let’s take a look at 2 funds from one of the unit trust companies in Malaysia.

Fund A’s unit price is RM 0.4042 on 2nd Oct 2006, while Fund B’s unit price is only RM 0.2156. If a person wants an “aggressive” fund (fund which fluctuates in prices a lot), does it mean that Fund B is better? Or does it mean that fund B have more potential for higher return simply because the fund price is lower? Let’s take a look at their month by month’s prices from 2nd Oct 2006 until 1st Oct 2009 below:

*NAV is adjusted for unit splits/ bonus issue or distributions.

Simple Analysis

Fund A (the fund that have a unit price almost double of Fund B) have (in terms of percentage):
a) Higher Return
b) Higher advancement from the lowest price to the highest.
c) Higher changes in a month

In conclusion, a fund’s unit price does not tell whether the fund is a volatile fund, better potential for higher returns or it’s an undervalued fund.

A much better way to measure a fund’s volatility (fluctuation in unit prices) is looking at:

1. Fund’s Asset Allocation (percent in Equities, Bonds, and Money Market).
   - Funds that invest mainly in Equities will fluctuate more than funds that invest mainly in Bonds.
   - Funds that invest mainly in Bonds will fluctuate more than funds that invest mainly in Money Market.
   - In fact, more than 90% of the long term return can be attributed by Asset Allocation.
2. Fund’s objective/ restrictions or sub-category of the Assets Class.
   - Funds that invest in overseas will fluctuate more than funds that invest locally (due to currency exchange fluctuation)
   - Funds that invest in high dividend paying stocks will fluctuate less than funds that invest in low dividend paying stocks (like growth stocks).
   - Funds that invest in a specific sector/ group will fluctuate more than funds that are well diversified (no particular concentration on any sector/ group).
   - Though these factors do determine the fund’s fluctuation, but it doesn’t play a big role like (1) above.

Luckily for laymen, FMUTM did a good job to make it compulsory for all unit trust funds that have 3 years track record to publish their fund’s volatily. Read their full article here: http://fmutm.com.my/doc/BrochureinvestorMay09.pdf .

Anyone still thinks Berkshire Hathaway class A at USD 100,000 per share is “expensive” when compared to a “cheap” share of USD 1 per share?

More often than not, it’s the other way round!.