Posted: 10 August 2006 at 6:50am | IP Logged

Thanks guys & gals,

It is good that some of you have responded. I think it's very important for us to share our thoughts with regards to this issue. A 'lifetime savings' in the EPF should be used judiciously - that's my frank opinion folks.

When the time comes for us to retire it's more often than not that we can't (and shouldn't) be too dependable on our children.... not that the present (or future) generation are not a responsible lot. Times has changed considerably. They'll face a similar predicament when their time comes their way. Trust me on this.

Posted: 09 August 2006 at 10:15pm | IP Logged

Well..I guess it's about how the information being disseminated by the people in the unit trust. Perhaps somewhere along the line, the investors didn't have adequate information about 'maturity period' or do not fully understand what it's all about -> i.e. the process/mechanisms, how trust fund/fund management institution works, the risks and the benefits, the 'DOs' & DOn'ts' etc. etc.

Yet, I still say that if your investors do not fully understand what it is; although there might be brochures, flyers, booklets - but perhaps with 'financial/economic/investment' jargons; the onus is still on the unit trust people to make the explanations understandable.

But one thing puzzles me, I'm sure the investors have signed some sort of agreement/forms, don't tell me no one were being given explanations before signing.

Posted: 09 August 2006 at 7:24pm | IP Logged

Well...would it have been something to do with ASN and ASB investment, this phenomenon may have been avoided.

I told many pensioners that ASN/ASB are still the safest and simplest alternatives...the others are FD (that is if they are not so good about stock market, derivatives etc. etc.)

Posted: 09 August 2006 at 9:37am | IP Logged

80% of EPF members investing in unit trusts lost over RM600 million? Gosh.... how come this thing happens?

Please correct me if I'm wrong: Isn't it supposed to be a safe-haven for bona fide investors? Anyway that's what the professionals have been harping on all these while - as against investments based on charting strategies.

Of course investing in today's markets can be far more volatile and uncertain than it is used to be. But after all these years where are the so-called 'risk management elements'? Are they really in place? 

Theoretically speaking people in the investment fraternity, replete with their respectable degrees, manning such investments shouldn't be so grossly wrong in their investment strategies. Perhaps they would argue that one should be looking at a longer time horizon and accept whatever losses as 'paper losses'! I don't know, to me a loss is still a loss, and one could be buying back more units with the same amount of money put up-front.

I wonder what the authorities can do, or should do, to these 'licensed professionals'? If a non-licensed fund manager were handling such amount of money, and losses, the authorities will be quick to get them! Come on, for God sake (and the poor EPF contributors) please BE MORE STRICT to these fund (not fun) managers!

Once I have tried to try my luck to join in as an investment analyst but was shun away 'cos 'I'm not tested!' (So I gave up and promised myself that one day I'll prove those guys wrong!). So, the point is now: HOW WELL 'TESTED' ARE THOSE PROFESSIONALS? Full stop.