基金投资101 （2006年版）

黑山老妖

申明：我不是金融顾问，以下所有的东东都是我个人见解，不能构任何的金融投资建议书。本人不为任何损失和责任负责。
disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor. Below are just my personal opinion. It does not consitute a financial statement in any form. I can not be held responsible for any loss or liability as a result of reading this opinion.

投资基本常识：
风险和回报：风险在投资中的定义一般是指回报率的变化。比如说如果投资A的平均回报率是一年5%，平均每年差别是2%（3%-7%一年）。投资B的平均回报率是7%，平均每年回报率差别是5%，2%-12%。那么投资A的风险比投资B低，2%<5%。一般来说高风险高回报。但是并不是100%的。除非是定期存款或是国家债券，没有任何人可以告诉你一定有一定百分比的高回报。有的都是在吹牛或是诈骗，可以到ASIC去检举他们。

portfolio thoery（控制论??）：通过分散风险来达到可以承受的风险和回报组合。具体的方法就是投资不同比率在不同的asset class（资产种类）里，以期达到一个预定的风险回报值。

Asset Classes有很多种，按风险排名，从低到高：
  1) 现金。一句话，活期存款。基本没风险，除非国家破产。也没有多少回报率，就是银行的浮动利息。
  2）fixed interest。定期存款。低利息，低回报。
  3）债券。国家债券是低回报的，但是风险也很低。垃圾债券，回报可以很高，但可能发行公司会倒闭。
  4）房地产。
  5）澳洲股票。
  6）国际股票。风险比澳洲股票达一点，因为还有汇率，政治的因素在里面。
  7）Derivatives。比如期货等等。个人认为是投机/赌博。当然也还是有高人能从中获利的。

regular investment - 因为我们都不是炒股高手，为了防止你在最贵的时候买进，请选用dollar cost averaging。基本上就是每个月追加一定的投资。比如第一次投资2000元之后每个月追加200元。还有一个好处就是让你养成存钱的习惯。

基金种类：
基金的分类有好多种，常见的有：
按风险分类。Income, conservative, balanced, diversified, growth。风险/回报越来越高。
按操作方法分类。Index fund, hedge fund, active fund, passive fund, fund of funds等等。
按资产种类分。Cash managment fund, Australian share fund, International share fund, resource fund, high tech fund等等。
还有就是master fund（给大户的）和 retail fund（散户）。Master fund的最低投资额为（几）十万到百万不等。Retail fund的最低投资额为一千到一万不等。
Thank you Philgu:

Strictly speaking master trust or wrap is not a product. Rather they are more like a platorm or service providing a range of different offerrings of asset class and fund managers. It is becoming more and more popular in the wealth management industry in the past decade. Most of master trust are principlely offerred to retail investors whilst wrap is more towards higher end (it can offer more exotic service including wrapping things like art collections). But master trust like CFS First Choice, ING OneAnswer,  MLC MasterKey, they are for both retail and wholesale investors. But a lot of fund managers would tier their fees (meaning higher balance lower the fees).

为什么要投资基金呢？
优点：
  1）相对投资个别股票来说，投资基金会降低风险，因为基金不会只投资一个股。
  2）不用太费心。应为你已经付钱让人给你投资了，你不用每天看股价，考虑是不是我的bhp股该卖了？
  3）比较容易套现。一般2-3天就能套现。
  4）税务比较方便。一般基金都会给你年终税单。自己买卖股票就麻烦点。
  5）用比较少的钱可以同时可以投资很多资产。
缺点：
  1）要收管理费。
  2）买哪个股票由不得你。
  3）买进卖出有差价。
  4）具体操作不由你。

如何选择投资那个基金呢？
  1）要知道自己的风险承受能力。看看你的风险承受能力（点击）。
  2）知道自己投资的期限（如果不是fixed interest，三到五年以下的投资叫做投机）。一般基金的发股书都会有一个建议投资期限，5-7年不等。现金和债券短一点，1-3年也有。
  3）看回报率。这个比较麻烦。第一要苹果比苹果。不要拿fixed intereste和股票的比。第二要比去掉管理费和别的费用的回报率。有些报表会说15%但么说是去掉managment fee以后的，那么如果managment fee是2%，那它的真正回报率才13%。越高越好啦。不要比3年的，至少5年。当然了过去的回报高不等于以后的回报也会高。
  4）比较收费。基本来说，指数基金（index fund），现金和债券基金收费比较低。股票基金其次，hedge fund和active funds最高。当然是越低越好。
  5）税务方面的考虑。增值税（CGT）是按照收入来征收的，但是如果持股超过十二个月按百分之五十收。有很多基金，特别是散户基金因为要有业绩来吸引新的客户所以要不断地实现增值=多交税。看他们的turnover rate，越高税缴得越多。当然啦，如果你的收入很低那也就没关系了。imputation credit，澳洲公司要缴收入的27%（？？？）给政府，所以就等于是你（持股人）也缴了税。退税的时候你可以用来抵税。如果夫妻俩人，户头最好用低收入的一方。如果是联合户头，税务局会用每人占50%来算的。
  6）如何加入。同样是colonial first state，如果你通过commsec加入就没有entry fee和trailing commission（也不是真的没有，而是commsec会退回那些收费），如果你直接加入就要收4%的entry fee。如果通过经济顾问加入，一般还要收trailing commission,每年有一定百分比。剥了几层皮以后，你的钱也差不多了。所以一定要看清，千万不要放松。也有经济顾问不收trailing commission，他们会收取一个固定的费用。所以用经济顾问的千万要问清楚他们的收费。按ASIC的规定他们必须告诉你他们所有的收费和利益冲突，不然可以检举他们。
  7）买进卖出的差价（buy and sell spread）。大多数基金都有这个差价。0.2-0.5%左右。看基金的种类了。
  8）switching。就是说如果你在同一个基金公司的投资是不是可以随时从一个基金转到另一个基金，有没有收费，收多少。
  9）分红。基金一般是半年分红一次。基本上都让你选择拿钱或者用分红继续投资。个人倾向继续投。利滚利啊！

FAQ:
有没有100%一定赚钱的方法呢？
没有！至少没有合法的一定赚钱的方法。

基金一定赚吗？
不是。因投资的目的，方法，管理公司和个人原因，每个人的投资回报都不相同。但是有一点很重要。就是：“长期投资会让你致富的几率接近100%，但天下事没有100%保证。”

还有吗？
现在想不起了。有问题再改。

[ 本帖最后由 黑山老妖 于 2008-1-8 21:29 编辑 ]

wuyu

谢谢分享。加分+

kukumalu

不错! lz辛苦了~~~ (怎么才能给lz加分?)

btw, 希望philgu tz也来补充下,

wuyu

原帖由 kukumalu 于 2006-10-15 13:47 发表
不错! lz辛苦了~~~ (怎么才能给lz加分?)

btw, 希望philgu tz也来补充下,

等你像我的脚丫一样多

louislu

wyatt

加分感谢

philgu

LZ has done a very good job summarising and should be very beneficial to people who don't want to read through PDS.

Strictly speaking master trust or wrap is not a product. Rather they are more like a platorm or service providing a range of different offerrings of asset class and fund managers. It is becoming more and more popular in the wealth management industry in the past decade. Most of master trust are principlely offerred to retail investors whilst wrap is more towards higher end (it can offer more exotic service including wrapping things like art collections). But master trust like CFS First Choice, ING OneAnswer,  MLC MasterKey, they are for both retail and wholesale investors. But a lot of fund managers would tier their fees (meaning higher balance lower the fees).

In my view, 60% - 70% of the return is due to asset allocation than anything else. So think about that carefully before doing anything else. The other thing I found quite interesting is that people would put more trust in fund manager's brand rather than its investing prowess. Colonial First State is currently the market leader in term of funds under management.  But really it was Greg Perry who made it by far the best fund in those days. Greg Perry left CFS with a handsome payout after CBA's purchase of Colonial. I think he just started a new hedge fund last year with very good response from market. His reputation is enough to convice the institution investors to entrust him with hundred of million of dollars. It was people like Neilson Kerr, Paul Moor made BT a dominant force decades ago. But after departure of those people, you can clearly see the failing of the performance quite easily. In my view, the most important is who is investing for you rather than the fund itself. All the saying of because we have a strong process, so it would be fine after one star portfolio manager's depature is not very convincing for me. That is one of the reasons why boutiques are getting very popular nowadays even though most of them do require a higher minimum initial investment.

[ 本帖最后由 philgu 于 2006-10-15 19:32 编辑 ]

黑山老妖

philgu, thank you for the feed back.

Thank you for clarifying master trust and wrap. I will make the change. :)

I am somehow have a different view of brand and personality for managed funds.
I believe is while who manages the fund does have an influence on the return etc, but since all "maturer" funds which had being run for a number of years would have an investment goal and strategy setup over the years. The result of the fund reflects the investment philosophy and strategy. Its like the share trading, depending on gut feeling is not the way to do it. One has to stick to a preset system. If what you mean was who setup the funds' process that really matters, then I would agree with you. But once the fund has being setup and run for a number of years, as long as the knowledge of following the process is passed on, there is really minimal human influence on its performance. Their are wizkids, no denying of that. But human can fail, sometimes very badly. Beside where human intervention works best is in bountique funds, as you pointed out, which have high fees and turnover. Might not be all that tax effective and high fees. Their benefits are questionable over the long term. Also one of the factors they can out perform is because of their smaller size, which means they can react faster than larger funds. I think this has being pointed out before by one of the wizkids, can't remember who exactly but think it was Paul Moor.

Brands are just what they are, brands. They build up a reputation of some sort over the years to reflect their strength and perception ppl have of them, all based on their process, like you said. I think this is because their process is reliable over the long term.

Also want to point out, for index funds and fixed interest funds, really everyone performs similarly.

All that being said, thank you for bringing all these up for discussion. We can discuss which fund/personality is better for a long time. But that can be in another thread. As you have noticed, I had avoided recommending fund mangers and funds to invest in. As everyone one

游子

好贴，长知识啊。

休

这个贴要顶

happysee

加分

louislu

This thread is brilliant.

louislu

What i mean is this thread is a bit general, it is going to be very useful  initially. However, I suggest we open up mulitple threads which each of them is only focus on a particular toptics or category and be deeply specific on it!

Everyone has similar experience can share their experience during their spare time, make those topics always growing.

But very first is we do need some one or any one who is really know about it to set up the categories, or even we can discuss on how to category them before we start doing it, so we can make it grow systemtically.

Personally, I am very new about this so I am really incapable to arrange the things up, I expect some one who can contribute a bit of their effort during the spare time to help, I believe a lot of ppl in this forum are keen to the knowleage like this.

Appreciate

baolqun

谢谢分享

astina

太好了,论坛缺这方面的贴子

西边雨

赞~~

西边雨

LZ和philgu有没有什么基金可推荐的？或者能不能分析一下几个比较成功的基金？谢谢

alex1031

楼主果然言而有信

++++

alex1031

原帖由 philgu 于 2006-10-15 18:20 发表
LZ has done a very good job summarising and should be very beneficial to people who don't want to read through PDS.

Strictly speaking master trust or wrap is not a product. Rather they are more  ...

不管是开新帖或跟帖，只要提出个人观点的，都要顶3还要加分++++

alex1031

原帖由 louislu 于 2006-10-16 11:50 发表
What i mean is this thread is a bit general, it is going to be very useful  initially. However, I suggest we open up mulitple threads which each of them is only focus on a particular toptics or cat ...

再顶一个5贡献出最后4分

alex1031

最早有个蓝山妖，现在又出来个黑山妖，将来是否还有绿山女妖和红山小妖，白山*妖。。。
这样可以考虑在足迹设个妖坛，而且千万不要忘记要有分数限制和认证

alex1031

顶一下，怎么还没动静？斑竹们都午睡去了？

alex1031

嗯，看来足迹上也是要催一催才见效的

西边雨

催什么？

philgu

原帖由 黑山老妖 于 2006-10-16 08:29 发表
philgu, thank you for the feed back.

Thank you for clarifying master trust and wrap. I will make the change. :)

I am somehow have a different view of brand and personality for managed funds.
...

Very fair points...

But I think it is more or less in line with fund manager's arguements. Here are a few thoughts I have regarding the mainstream fund managers (albeit working for one).

1. mentality. Most of the big fund managers run a sizeable and profitable business. They are more concerned with maintain/grow market share than anything else. It leads to the fact most of the big fund manager run portfolio more less similar. They would tweak their weighting on the stock against index. So the result is they would have similar returns against market but not significantly out/underperform. The thing they most fear is if they made a bad call and lose market share to major competitors. It is lesser of an issue to boutiques.

2. size. As you already pointed out, size is of great importance in funds management, especially in small cap space. With SGC of 9%, fund managers have ever increasing amount of money to play with. As always, investors would have home biase and invest disproportional amount domestically. Especially in the small co fund space, I believe fund should be closed when reaching $300m. Some of good boutique funds do hard or soft close their fund when capacity is reached. Van Eyke has done a research on the impact of size on return. It showed that it is statistically significant and Perpetual was the only one unaffected. But by looking at Perpetual's fund, I am very skeptical about that conclusion.

3. incentive. Most of the major fund managers are staffed by salaried porfolio manager. Even considiering very generous bonus, running your own fund is hard to resist to star performers. BRW estimated Neilson Kerr's personal stake in Platinum is exceeding $450m. Best people leave to make out for themselves.

4. conflict of interest.  You must have noticed that almost all the top fund managers are owned or part owned by one of the major banks or quasi-bank (like AMP). If you buy through a financial planner, they would invariably only recommend the product of their own. One example is that AMP adviser can only recommend you stay in an industry fund but not entering one. I always believe you should pay for good advice. But currently I don't think people are getting what they paid for. I still think the current model of commission for service is flawed with plenty of conflict of interest issues. However boutique fund manager usually will have substantial amount of their own money in the fund (where their mouth and faith is)

5.  portability of process. If a process is set up by great performer previous, it needs to be improved and evolved. Disconnected process from the market is useless if not outright dangerous. So there is not much portability of great process. When the person is gone, he/she take the insight with them. Process is not valueable but insight and knowledge definitely is.

But I will put a few caveats around for boutiques. They have problems too.

1. Boutique becomes mainstream. When boutique becomes mainstream, they lose their edge.

2. More and more commonplace for charging peformance fees. I noticed there is growing trending of charging extra performance fees (15%-20% of outperformance). In a lot of cases, unjustied. I like the concept to align interest but only when it is structured properly and fairly.

3. Quite often investment hurdle is high.

4. A bit more work needed to screen out bad one.

Additionally I want to point out that higher turnover in boutique is not true. Higher conentration- Yes, Higher turnover-most of them actually are high conviction managers.

[ 本帖最后由 philgu 于 2006-10-16 20:41 编辑 ]

philgu

There is some subtle difference btw master trust and wrap service.
Master trust like ING OneAnswer is unitised discretionary trust. So you are holder of the units in the trust. If you want to leave, you would have to sell the units and pay CGT if there is any.
Wrap (officially called IDPS or investor directed portfolio service) is slightly different. It offers a service to "wrap" all the investment onto one platform. You would be the owner of the underlying investments. So say if you want to move from one wrap product from one company to the other. You can just transfer the title to other company without incurring a CGT event.

[ 本帖最后由 philgu 于 2006-10-17 07:01 编辑 ]

黑山老妖

Thank you for the insights into how the bountique funds work and how subtle differences one product can different to the other in the same category. Just shows how a professional is miles better than an amature.

See, its only by talking to others we learn.

With regard to mentality, having market return is not necessarily a bad thing. For average managers to chase higher than market return after fees is too big an ask. Not many can do it, let alone do it consistantly. We are not short of example of those who say they are trying and consistantly fail miserably. Also be risk averse plays nicely for the average risk averse investor, don't you think? :p

Fully agree about the situation with finanical advisors. That's why there is a big push by AMP(If I remember correctly) is trying hard to push for advisor disclosure. Anyway, for average investor a GOOD INDEPENDENT advisor is invaluable. Not the kind who have monthly quota to fill or want to sale you the product with the highest trailing commission. Too bad a lot of them are just salesmen for their own parent company. I, myself have had a bad experience with a NAB finanical advisor try to paddle me MLC after I ask for other options.

Read your point of portability of process with great interest. "Disconnected process from the market is useless if not outright dangerous." Unfortunately, there are only limited number of wizkids and too many of us investors.   For us average investors who are not rich enough to be in a boutique fund or fortunate enough to be in a fund managed by the best of best, we can only hope a good process will save us from human stupidity.


After reading the part about bountiques, I have this idea about its more risky. Correct me if I am wrong here. Boutiques are more conviction managers, meaning less diversification? So there is a big risk that the manager pick one stock wrong and this years return goes down the drain. But the thing going for it is, the size is small so the bad shareholding can be dumped quickly on market without triggering a big price meltdown.

All in all thank you for the insightful information. It's good to learn from a pro. :

ps. Points added to your posts.Not much but its with gratitude.

[ 本帖最后由 黑山老妖 于 2006-10-17 08:58 编辑 ]

蓝山老妖

虽然不懂，先收藏着，顺手加分

philgu

I don't think I can be called a professional. Personally I think I am a rookie in term of investment experience. In my view, only those who made and lose serious money can be called true professional (especially those made serious gains after serious losses).

Absolutely agree with you regarding market return. The point is what you are paying for it. I think currently unlisted indexed fund are far too expensive (i.e. Vanguard). Paying 80-100 bps for no active management is a bit too deep for me. In a good industry super, you cost of indexed/ enhanced indexed fund is only around 30 bps. However there is listed index fund offerred by ssga called stree track. But because listed investment is very unpopular here (unfortunately very different from US), the liquidity is quite limited. I do envy very much the investment options people get in US.

Again boutique fund can range on quite broad spectrum of risk/return scale, from very aggressive to very conservative. Last year, I watched with great interest about a fund with over 50% in cash in a bull market. So I would not say they are necessarily more risky but definitely trying to be different. I think that is what I am looking for but lacking in those big names.

蓝山小妖

LZ好厉害,好友学问啊,我更爱你了,呵呵