CAPITAL MARKETS: Maximising your unit trust returns

 

Unit trust is an investment vehicle that allows you to invest in a variety of asset classes, offering diversification benefits ■ It’s important to select the best of breed unit trust funds tailored to your asset class and target market to optimise your investment porfolio. when comparing investment options, look at both the investment fee and the overall ROI that the investment offers.

Unit trust is an investment vehicle that allows you to invest in a variety of asset classes, offering diversification benefits. However, to get the most out of them, it’s important to select the best of breed funds, diversify your investments globally and invest through channels with lower management fees.

■ When comparing investment options, look at both the investment management fee and the overall ROI that the investment offers

A COUPLE of weeks ago, I met with a middle-aged couple interested in getting serious about achieving financial freedom.

During our initial consultation, they mentioned that their current investments were in the form of unit trusts recommended by a friend, who is an agent.

However, when I inquired about the specific asset classes their unit trust funds were invested in, they struggled to answer and seemed confused.

This is not an uncommon scenario. Unit trust, one of the most popular investment types in Malaysia, is often misunderstood.

Its easy accessibility and affordability makes it a seemingly a friendlier option for beginners compared to more aggressive investments.

The fact remains, there are still many aspects that are misunderstood about unit trust funds. The ease of access masks the complexities.

So, in this article, we are going to reveal five truths about unit trusts that will help investors make better investment decisions.

Misconception 1: Unit trust is a type of investment

Truth 1: Unit trust is an investment vehicle

A common misconception among new investors is that a unit trust is a standalone investment that focuses on a single asset class, such as property, gold or shares.

In reality, unit trust is an investment vehicle that allows you to invest in a variety of asset classes, offering diversification benefits.

Think of it as a basket containing a mix of investments, like equities, bonds, or even real estate investment trusts. This differs from directly buying individual stocks, where you invest solely in the equity asset class.

For example, if you are looking to invest in Malaysia equities, one option is to directly purchase stocks from several Malaysian companies on the stock market.

Alternatively, you can also invest in a Malaysian equity-type unit trust fund. While the unit trust fund is managed by a fund manager, the asset class you are investing in remains essentially the same or similar.

The specific investment vehicle that you choose is not important. What is more important is the underlying asset classes that you choose to invest into, whether it is using unit trust, exchange-traded funds (ETFS), or other vehicles.

For instance, if you purchase

Malaysian equity unit trusts from three different fund houses, you may think that you are diversifying your investments.

But in reality, these Malaysian equity funds, despite being from different fund houses, still concentrate your exposure to a single market segment.

In essence, you are putting all your eggs into one basket, ultimately investing in a single asset class.

Misconception 2: Equity unit trust funds are as risky as other high-risk investments

Truth 2: Equity unit trust funds are much safer than other high-risk investments

Unit trust funds benefit from a third-party trustee structure, which acts as a safeguard by ensuring the fund’s assets are held on behalf of investors and invested according to the trust deed.

Compared to many other investment schemes, unit trusts are indeed much safer.

Why is that? To illustrate this, let’s take a look at the accompanying diagram.

There are three parties involved in a unit trust fund in Malaysia. The first party is the unit holder, which is you.

Let’s say you invest RM100,000 capital through your fund manager. The money does not actually go into the fund manager’s bank account; it goes into a trustee account, which duty is to hold and protect your capital.

The fund manager is responsible for identifying which equities to allocate the capital to, while the trustee buys and holds the shares according to the fund manager’s instructions.

The beauty of this unit trust model is that it protects your investment.

Even if the fund manager hypothetically goes bankrupt, and has to close its business, your capital is still safe.

This is because the trustee, not the fund management house, holds your money.

Therefore, when you invest in a unit trust fund, you not only getting a return on investment (ROI), but also a return of investment – the return of your capital that you had initially put in.

Misconception 3: Investing in one or two super-performing unit trust funds can grow our serious money effectively

Truth 3: To grow your wealth effectively, you need to diversify globally

The quest for the “best” unit trust fund is a common one, but is it the right approach?

Many investors believe that investing in a single unit trust is effective enough to grow their money in the long run.

The truth is, the way to ensure the growth of your portfolio is by diversifying your asset classes globally.

Take, for example, the impressive performance of the global equities, which have shown an upward trend over the past 30 years.

Several key factors contributed to this phenomenon, including a rising global population and advancements in technology that fuel global demand and productivity.

As many businesses worldwide experience growth and increase their profit, this translates into a rise in global equities.

In contrast, if you were to invest in a share or one fund that focuses on one sector or country, the growth would be unpredictable and less sustainable in the long run.

Therefore, to achieve sustainable growth in your unit trust ROI, ensure that you are diversifying your unit trust funds globally to optimise your growth.

Misconception 4: Unit trust funds are expensive

Truth 4: Unit trust funds can be either expensive or cheap, depending on the channel and market you invest in

One crucial cost to consider for unit trust investors is the sales charge, also known as a front-end fee, applied when purchasing from your chosen fund manager.

When investing in unit trusts through traditional channels, the fees can sometimes go as high as 5%.

It’s important to scrutinise these fees, as high fees can significantly eat into your portfolio’s performance.

For example, suppose your unit trust generates an 8% return in the first year. If the front-end fee charged by your fund house is 5%, your actual return becomes only 3%.

Fortunately, with the online investment platform options and corporate unit trust advisor channel available today, there are many platforms where you can find front-end fees as low as 2% or even lower.

This makes choosing the right channel crucial, as it significantly impacts the fees you pay.

When comparing management fees of your different investments side by side, it is also important to take into account not just the percentage of the fees, but the overall returns of each type of investment and the markets that you invest in.

For example, investors often compare unit trusts to ETFS. ETFS typically boast lower average annual management fees compared to unit trusts.

Due to these lower fees, ETFS might appear to have the potential for higher returns compared to unit trusts.

On the surface, ETF may seem like a better investment option. However, this is not true for all markets.

For example, the investment environment and opportunities in developing markets are vastly different from the developed markets.

In such cases, some unit trust funds managed by experienced professionals have a higher chance of outperforming ETFS despite the higher fund management fees.

Therefore, when comparing investment options, consider the bigger picture.

Look at both the investment management fee and the overall ROI that the investment offers.

Misconception 5: Any unit trust fund salesperson can help you access to the best of breed unit trust funds from the whole market

Truth 5: Only selected qualified advisors can help you access the best of breed unit trust funds from the open market

To optimise your investment portfolio, consider investing in the best of breed unit trust funds tailored to your asset class and target market.

This means that if you are looking to invest in an equity fund in the local market, you should ensure that you pick the best quality fund among all the Malaysian equity funds.

But how do you identify the “best” unit trust fund for your needs? It’s not as straightforward as it seems.

The reality is that many investors rely on bankers or unit trust agents to recommend funds for them to invest in.

However, relying on these recommendations might not be the best approach, as their choices are often limited to the funds offered by their own companies or fund houses.

Therefore, the best recommendation they can make may not be the best fund for you to invest in.

Let’s take the example of several Malaysia equity funds under a single fund house.

The best performing fund within the single fund house, Fund A has achieved an ROI of just under 60% over a five-year period, which is quite impressive.

However, when we broaden our horizons and compare Fund A’s performance to options available in the open market, we are faced with the truth that the fund we initially thought was the best performer (Fund A) ranks lower when compared to other Malaysian equity funds in the open market.

Even more striking, the actual top performer in the open market delivered nearly double the ROI!

In other words, by choosing the seemingly “best” fund within one company only, you could have missed out on potential gains of an additional 60% of ROI. That’s a significant difference!

To ensure that you’re not missing out on potentially better options, consider consulting with independent financial advisors who operate under corporate unit trust advisor company.

They can advise and recommend a wider range of unit trust funds in the open market, not just limited to options within a single fund house.

From the points that I shared above, you’re now equipped with a better understanding of the ins and outs of unit trusts.

Unit trust funds can be a valuable tool to effectively grow your money.

However, to get the most out of them, it’s important to select the best of breed funds, diversify your investments globally and invest through channels with lower management fees.

By following these steps, you can build a sturdy portfolio that will grow steadily in the long run and provide you the financial growth that you seek.

Source link

“Many investors believe that investing in a single unit trust is effective enough to grow their money in the long run. The truth is, the way to ensure the growth of your portfolio is by diversifying your asset classes globally.”

New Zealand may have a solution for world’s debt

Quick fix: Pedestrians walk past a Moore Wilson & Co supermarket in Wellington. The success of New Zealand’s reforms are reflected in its fiscal performance, says Ball. — Bloomberg

WELLINGTON: In the early 1980s, New Zealand was on the brink of economic collapse.

Two oil price shocks had saddled the country with high inflation, and the United Kingdom’s decision to join the European Economic Community a decade earlier had cut off access to a key export market.

Successive governments had compounded the pain with a series of policy errors – throwing around subsidies, awarding inflationary pay deals and trying to control prices, while keeping interest rates too low and taxes too high.

The result was soaring unemployment and mounting debts.

No wonder some dubbed New Zealand the Albania of the South Pacific.

Yet over the remainder of that decade, New Zealand was transformed into one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

A new Labour government took office in 1984 and embarked on a form of shock therapy that came to be known as “Rogernomics” after Finance Minister Roger Douglas.

The government removed exchange controls, slashed subsidies, privatised services and handed responsibility for setting interest rates to a newly independent central bank.

New Zealand also introduced a different accounting approach throughout the public administration.

It is impossible to separate out the precise impact of each of these policies.

But Ian Ball, a former senior Treasury official, professor of public finance management at Victoria University in Wellington, and one of the authors of Public Net Worth (Palgrave Macmillan, February 2024), says accounting reform was among the most consequential.

Accounting is notoriously dry stuff. But switching to an accruals-based approach used in the private sector, and away from the cash-based systems traditionally used by governments, forced departments to think long-term and maximise the efficient use of assets.

This is especially relevant in the United Kingdom at the moment with the government on the cusp of major budget reform.

To see what this means in practice, take the case of public sector pensions.

Under a cash-based system, the debt is accounted for when the pension is paid, which could be years in the future.

The government has little incentive to make any provision for it.

But with accrual-based accounting, the cost of the pension commitment must be recorded as a liability when the benefit is earned.

That led the New Zealand government in 2001 to establish a Superannuation Fund to pay for future pensions.

Today, this quasi-sovereign wealth fund is regarded with jealousy by countries that wish they had something similar.

Take another example: Under an accruals-based system, the budget includes a charge each year to reflect the fact assets such as buildings and infrastructure deteriorate and eventually become obsolete.

This is what accountants call depreciation.

Because the cost runs through annual budgets, there is a strong incentive for governments to enhance the value of their assets by managing them efficiently.

Under a cash-based system, there is no such incentive, meaning long-term investment is deferred, and future generations are left to pick up the bill when buildings fall into disrepair and the infrastructure crumbles.

The success of New Zealand’s reforms are reflected in its fiscal performance, says Ball.

“What you see is a very significant change.

“We had had two decades of deficits before these reforms, but once they were in effect, from around 1994, we had basically a trend of strengthening the balance sheet and increasing net worth.

“And as you strengthen the balance sheet, you have the effect of reducing debt too.”

With the exception of the four years after the global financial crisis and the devastating Christchurch earthquake in 2011, which caused damage equivalent to 11% of gross domestic product (GDP), net worth grew every year until the pandemic.

Ball is on a mission to export New Zealand’s experience.

In collaboration with colleagues from around the world, including a historian, a banker, a former UK Treasury official and the former global chief economist at Citigroup Inc, he has written Public Net Worth to explain how this approach could be the answer to the one of the biggest challenges facing almost every government today:

How to tackle excessive public debt, particularly at a time when ageing populations, geopolitical tensions, geoeconomic fragmentation and the costs of combating climate change add to fiscal pressures.

US public debt is close to 100% of GDP and is projected to rise to 122% by 2034.

Many eurozone countries are struggling to bring debts and deficits under control to comply with single currency rules. The situation in many developing countries is even more stark.

Indeed, economists from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have warned that global public debt may be higher than previously known and getting worse, and that countries will have to make much more significant fiscal adjustments to deal with the problem.

According to the IMF’s latest estimates, global public debt will exceed US$100 trillion by the end of this year, equal to about 93% of global GDP.

Against such a backdrop, the authors argue that accrual-based accounting could improve public sector productivity, helping ease the pressure on cash-strapped governments.

For example, they reckon governments could make easy gains through better management of their public property.

Cash-based accounting values property based on what you paid for it, less depreciation, with no reference to the current market value.

But without up-to-date valuations of assets, government decision-making takes place in the dark.

Should a building be renovated or sold?

How much should the state charge for its services?

A road network, for example, is a valuable public asset.

But in a cash-based system, there is no incentive to generate money from it, whether via tolls or road-pricing or some other mechanism.

In New Zealand, says Ball, one of the early exercises was to work out an appropriate capital charge for public services.

Armed with that information, the government could then decide who was best placed to deliver them: the state or the private sector.

As the old saying goes, what you can’t measure you can’t manage. — Bloomberg

Source link

Related posts:

Bretton Woods should heed the cries for fair play or go, how China can help reshape the global financial system

 Is Bretton Woods fit for the 21st century?

The world, including China, unwilling to lend to an empire that prints money

US the biggest obstructer of global recovery in 2023, Ballooning US debt a ticking time bomb for world economy

Washington’s unsustainable deficit hangs over global economy

The Bankrupting of America

The strong dollar should not become a sharp blade to cut the world, THE NEED FOR BRETTON WOODS III

Will US debt ceiling deadlock push capital to yuan market?

Bretton Woods should heed the cries for fair play or go, how China can help reshape the global financial system

 Is Bretton Woods fit for the 21st century?

America is financed by the rest of the world because of the hegemomic of the US dollar.

The world's largest economy has moved from a giver of global public goods to a taker of global resources.

Probably the best way to increase global funding is to raise the capital of the global multilateral development banks like the World Bank, Asia Development Bank, etc.

In July 1944, delegates from 44 countries gathered in a UN-sponsored conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to decide on a post-World War II monetary and financial order. 

In the closing speech of the gathering, then US Treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau concluded that the conference had succeeded in addressing the twin “economic evils – the competitive currency devaluation and destructive impediments to trade” that led to the war.

To prevent competitive devaluation, the Bretton Woods conference established the fixed but adjustable exchange rate system, which was based on the US dollar linked to gold and capital controls, securing funding from a newly created World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). 

The global free trade mechanism was negotiated first through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which decades later became the World Trade Organization.

The Bretton Woods negotiations were led by the US chief delegate Harry Dexter White and the eminent British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes argued unsuccessfully for the creation of an new international currency called the bancor, whereas the United States preferred to use its own currency.

In 1944, the US had the largest share of world GDP and was a major creditor to economies suffering from the destruction of war. It is no surprise that the Bretton Woods order was largely US-led and designed.

This Bretton Woods structure lasted until 1971, when rising US fiscal and trade deficits led US President Richard Nixon to delink the US dollar from gold at the fixed price of US$35 to one ounce of gold. 

After flexible exchange rates became the global norm, the US continued to be financed by the rest of the world because of the hegemonic position of the US dollar. It was protected by the might of the US military and its status as the strongest economy, including being the consumer of last resort.

Eighty years later, the US share of world GDP has been pared down to 26 per cent by current exchange rates but the US dollar remains as mighty as ever.

People walk past an image of US dollar bills outside a currency exchange bureau in downtown Nairobi, Kenya, on February 16. Photo: Reuters

Unfortunately, having the US dollar act as the global reserve currency is both a blessing and curse. The US is able to fund its fiscal and trade deficits easily because the rest of the world prefers to hold the US dollar.

But running protracted deficits means that the US net liability to the rest of the world is now US$21 trillion, or about 20 per cent of world GDP, with a gross sovereign debt of US$35 trillion, or roughly one third of world GDP. Fiscal debt cost is rising as interest expenses will rise from 3.4 per cent of GDP in financial year 2025 to 4.1 per cent by 2034.

The irony is that the world’s largest debtor absorbs more of the world’s natural and financial capital that encourages global consumption to drive growth. Since increased levels of consumption ultimately generates more carbon emissions, the current model is neither ecologically nor financially sustainable.

To address these global imbalances, the United Nations has suggested that a “just transition” requires US$2.4 trillion annually to fund clean energy and climate resilience. Where is this money going to come from?

What is climate finance, and why is it crucial to the global energy transition?

This is both a flow and a stock problem. The annual shortfall, or flow, can either be funded from an increase in taxation or a cut in spending. The stock issue is whether there is enough wealth to be taxed or used to fund the needed climate action.

There is growing momentum behind an initiative proposed by French economist Gabriel Zucman, in which a minimum wealth tax of 2 per cent would raise US$200-US$250 billion per year globally from 3,000 billionaires who currently pay little to no tax. Current evidence suggests ultra-high-net worth individuals have an observed pre-tax rate of return to wealth of 7.5 per cent on average per year during the last four decades, while the current effective tax rate is equivalent to roughly 0.3 per cent of their wealth.

Alternatively, the Austrian Institute for Economic Research thinks that a global financial transactions tax of 0.1 per cent could yield between US$238 billion and US$419 billion per year. Needless to say, the rich who control the electoral process in countries across the world will not allow such tax increases.

There are two big-ticket items in global fiscal spending which could be cut. The largest is subsidies on fossil fuels, which were US$7 trillion or 7.1 per cent of global GDP in 2022. On top of that, global military expenditure was US$2.4 trillion in 2023.

Perhaps the best way to increase global funding is to raise the capital of the global multilateral development banks such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. If the countries which control the special drawing rights of the IMF can apply their US$650 billion in 2021 to increase the bank’s capital by eight times the leverage, these multilateral development banks can increase their lending by about US$5 trillion.

However, doing so would require these countries to agree that this is a priority, which could be unlikely given the current global atmosphere leaning towards protectionism and isolationism.

In short, the 21st century requires multilateral cooperation in dealing with mutual existential challenges involving climate warming, social imbalances and serious polarisation. If the Bretton Woods framework does not serve the Global South because the established powers are unwilling to reform it, do not be surprised if a new set of institutions rise to replace it.

Andrew Sheng

Andrew Sheng is a former central banker and financial regulator, currently distinguished fellow at the Asia Global Institute, University of Hong Kong. He writes widely on Asian perspectives on

Source link 

French economist Marc Uzan on how China can help ...

Open questions | French economist Marc Uzan on how China can help reshape the global financial system

With the US-led financial consensus at a crossroads, economist Marc Uzan says China has role to play in systemic reform

French economist Marc Uzan is executive director and founder of the Reinventing Bretton Woods Committee, a non-profit organisation established in 1994 to address issues related to the world’s financial architecture. He has been working closely with central banks and finance ministries around the world, as well as international organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Group of 20, to bring stakeholders together to attempt to fix the system.

In this latest interview in the Open Questions series, Uzan reflects on the decades of change since the paradigmatic Bretton Woods conference in 1944, and the role China and other emerging economies will play in the global financial system during an era of heightened unilateralism and confrontation. This interview first appeared in SCMP Plus. For other interviews in the Open Questions series, click here.

As suggested by the name of your organisation, the Reinventing Bretton Woods Committee, why did you think that the Bretton Woods system should be restructured back in 1994? Can it be?

This question brought a multitude of thoughts about the objectives of the 44 nations whose representatives gathered at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in the summer of 1944 to establish a new economic order.

The world has changed considerably since then. Instead of a system of fixed exchange rates among major currencies, we now have a mixed system with major floating currency areas but fixed rates among smaller countries. At that time, we had capital controls, and now we are a global financial market. And from a small group of 44 countries that became the founding members of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Worl 

U.S. debt just hit $35 trillion. Is it putting the global economy at 

risk ...

This nation’s gross cumulative debt has hit $35 trillion — a number so large, the International Monetary Fund warns that it’s putting the entire global economy at risk. 

https://www.marketplace.org/2024/08/13/u-s-debt-just-hit-35-trillion-is-it-putting-the-global-economy-at-risk/

Related posts:

Will US debt ceiling deadlock push capital to yuan market?

Abuse of hegemony is why de-dollarisation is trending

China, Brazil to trade in local currencies

World witness peace, development, cooperation, yuan settlement, as Brazil's President Lula starts China tour, shrugs off noise from the West, ties see deeper and wider potential for growth

 China to be pioneer in building new global financial system: scholars