Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

103 Excellent

About bouph12

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,602 profile views
  1. Thank you, so, 100,000 put in that passive Lyxor tracker 3 years ago would now be worth 126,531 100,000 put in your managed fund here 3 years ago would now be worth 115,927 That 2.2% is making money -just not for you. There's an interesting article on why people choose managed funds: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/if-index-funds-perform-better-why-are-actively-managed-funds-more-popular/ A global equity fund gives the broadest area over which a fund manager can demonstrate his skill. A 10 year range gives him the chance to show how "on the ball" he is in different situations- any manager can get lucky for a year or two. Data from the Spiva Europe Scorecard 2006-2016 suggests that 98% of the global equity funds marketed in Europe over this period failed to beat the global index. If you think that your fund doing well this year will continue to do so, sorry but the chances aren't great. Data from the Index Fund Advisors suggests that of the 100 top performing funds in any year, only 9 of them are likely to be present in the top 100 the next year. The year after that it's likely to be 9 again - but not the same 9. Changing every year to the best performing funds doesn't work, either. "Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns" is the most honest sentence in the Investment business. "But my Fund manager's different!" may be true, I don't know. I'm sure I've heard something similar in Thailand before though.......
  2. I couldn't make a direct comparison between the FIF I hold and the ETFs as it hasn't been running long enough. The fund you've kindly provided a link for has been running long enough though, and suggests that your fund has averaged 7.25% pa over the last 3 years - no major difference in performance to the passive trackers. The fact sheet on the company's own website for your fund is a perfect example of the opacity that concerns me: Management Fee ≤1.6050% p.a. Trustee Fee ≤0.1605% p.a. Registrar Fee ≤0.1284% p.a. Other Fees ≤3.4561% p.a. That adds up to 6.35% pa they could be taking from you. I'm sure it isn't that much, but do you actually know how much you're paying them to get you roughly the same return as the foreign company charging 0.45%?
  3. I'm sure there are exceptions, but Thai funds generally aren't a good deal. An ETF passive tracker is usually one of the cheapest ways to invest in funds.That may be true here but there is a disconcerting opacity to the phrase "Charges not to exceed..." A Thailand bank I won't name has a tracker following the top 50 companies on the SET. Current charge is 0.51% but if you take an ETF with them you are agreeing to potential charges of 3.77% pa and a staggering potential 1.5% charge on the front and back ends. Bloomberg reports that it's averaged a return of 6.32% pa over the last 3 years In comparison, an ETF from Lyxor on the Paris exchange investing in exactly the same 50 companies on the SET charges 0.45% pa . That's it. It's averaged a return of 8.61% pa over the same period. A personal example is that I have a holding in a Foreign Investment Fund here whose main job is to buy units in a Global Equity Fund based in Luxembourg. They charge 1.5% pa for this. This FIF went up by 8.06% in the last year, which is better than a term deposit...... however: The Fund in Luxembourg who are doing the actual research and choosing stocks charge 0.75% pa. That Fund went up by 13.98% in the last year. Currency deviations might make a difference either way, but the bottom line is that Funds here are comparatively expensive.
  4. I made my first transfer with Transferwise yesterday. They charged £12.43 to transfer £2,000. The rate after deductions was 43.277 baht. There were no charges made at this end when the money arrived today (Bangkok Bank). I will use them again.Thanks from me also.
  5. http://www.thaifundstoday.com/en This is a useful research tool. You can set the graph NAV to %age and time span to1 year to make it clearer. You don't have to restrict yourself to Thai companies. Try putting B-GLOBAL or SCBPGF into the search box.
  6. Not enough room in the trough for the extra snouts.
  7. Pakistan, the country deemed worthy of receiving £374,000,000 of aid from Britain last year. Immediately stopping aid payments would be one way of getting the message across that this is just barbaric. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/733594/Pakistan-tops-UK-aid-list-as-taxpayers-pay-12-billion
  8. Yes, it seems inconsistent. Perhaps it's simply down to ease of tax collection. The Income fund declares a known amount per unit to all investors at a fixed time, which they deduct the tax from for the tax department, effectively doing the job for the government. Individual investors buying and selling units over the course of a year is, as with share dealing, harder to keep track of. I also think it's likely that the sort of people who can keep hundreds of millions of baht in accumulation funds (i.e. the ones not needing a regular income from their investment) might have some influence in the way these regulations are set up. No convoluted tax avoidance schemes to get involved in, so it's a lot easier to protect your wealth here than in the West. I know of someone who sold a condo a few years back and put the money in an income fund. He treats any income as a little bonus that shows up in his account without any effort on his part ( he's an idle layabout). He claims the tax back anyway.
  9. Not sure if it's changed since 2015, but the Capital Gains section on page 2 suggests that the profit from selling mutual fund units is the same as shares sold on the SET, i.e. no tax to pay. www.pwc.com/th/en/publications/assets/thai-tax-2015-booklet-en.pdf
  10. You're misquoting me. I wrote that it was more than 30 officers. Please read. Yes, I have sources, but I don't accede to peremptory queries. However, if you could manage to stop being fractious for a moment and just ask politely, I will gladly provide them. If not, a little assiduous research on your part will confirm what I wrote.
  11. I did read. You stated that murderers won't kill again if put away for life. You're wrong, as you admit. I'll just add this: htttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein The families of Officers Clutts and Hoffman would think your "So what?" pretty callous, as would the famillies of the more than 30 offficers killed by inmates this century in the U.S.A. alone. These were men and woman just trying to pay their mortgages and put their kids through college whilst working at the sharp end in the "Protection for the general population". I wouldn't like to guess at the number of people murdered by killers in prison worldwide. I'm pretty sure it's more than once in a blue moon. NMTA
  12. Why won't they? People have served a "life" sentence and killed again after release. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/lists/living/10-twisted-murderers-who-were-freed-then-killed-again/ Even if you mean a genuine life sentence, they can murder again in prison. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306624X9604000302
  13. It's been an effective deterrent for those executed - none of them have murdered again.
  14. I tried calling them up to congratulate them, but I nodded off from fatigue before I finished dialing...
  15. bouph12

    Furniture shop at Udon

    Going north from Index, turn right at the lights after Global House. There is a shop about 50m. along on the right, run by a guy who spent several years in Australia. I ended up getting ours about a year ago from the independent stall outside Thai Watsadu on the Eastern ring road - comfortable and good value.