New Fund: OSK-UOB US Legendary Fund

Failed to be Warren Buffett? How about exposing to the performance of his investment company, Berkshire Hathaway? Not a bad idea though.


The latest fund, launched by OSK-UOB, aims to provide capital appreciation over the short-term (18 months) whilst aiming to preserve investors' capital on the Maturity date. This is not a capital guaranteed or protected fund.


This is a wholesale fund which was structured to capitalize on the performance of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., such that the positive performance of the company and its out-performance against the Standard and Poor's 500 Index will provide the fund with returns during the recovery and rebuilding of the US economy.

Structure...
The fund will invest 100% of its NAV in a non-capital protected RM denominated structured investment issued by a domestically incorporated financial institution with a rating of at least 'A' by RAM Rating Services Berhad or its equivalent rating by any other reputable rating agency.

The Structured Investment has embedded options (comprising the underlying reference i.e. the Berkshire Hathaway Inc-Class B shares and the S&P500 index) with a payoff determined only at Maturity Date.


About Berkshire Hathaway Inc. - Class B shares
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a holding company owning subsidiaries in a variety of business sectors. Berkshire's principal operations are insurance business conducted nationwide on a primary basis and worldwide on a reinsurance basis. Berkshire's other operations include The Buffalo News, aviation training, and retail furniture businesses, as well as shoe, candy and rug manufacturing.

Source: OSK-UOB Unit Trust Management Bhd

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"You Can Keep Your Existing Health Insurance"

I wondered about this statement at the time Obama made it.  Clearly, by changing all the rules of health care insurance and mandating conformity, it was unlikely that the vast majority of Americans would not find themselves forced by 'The Affordable Care Act' to have to deal with a completely different health insurance plan and completely different set of health care providers. I now understand what Obama meant.   He was speaking to his immediate family and (politician) friends.  They are exempt from the "Affordable Care Act."  Clearly what he meant to say was: "if you are exempt from Obamacare, like me and my family, you can keep your existing health insurance."  He never meant to mislead.
Read more

Work Ethic of 70s, 80s, 90s

Image
Different generations have their own view on working. You like it or not, working is part of our live. No work = No life. However, this equation has since changed to " Working = No life ". Do you agree? Generally, those born in 70s were perceived to be loving their job. They work hard mainly because of 3 meals/day. For them, a secured life means having a stable job with stable income. They believe that with every efforts you put in, that will reward you back later. As such, over time (OT) is nothing for them. As a responsible 70s, losing their job is a serious matter they tend to avoid. That's why they usually found another job first, before resigning. How about 80s? Other than chasing for stable income, those 80s working adults will also look into the job scope , opportunity for promotion , or working environment . They will take initiative to find for better job. Hence, job hopping is very common for them. Notably, 80s are reluctant to sacrifice their quality of life b
Read more

Things We Now Know

The poor are losing ground in the new Obama world.  The facts are showing up even in the halls of collectivist extremes like the New York Times.  The rich are getting richer and poor are being locked in place.  Big government is throttling the economy and the hopes and dreams of lower and middle class Americans. Today's Wall Street Journal's article by Simon Constable lays out some of the simple and obvious facts of the Obama era: "The richest 20% of households account for 38% of spending, according to government data for 2011, the latest available.  Compare that with 2003 when the top earners spent 26% of the total."  The article goes on to say..."it could get even worse."  It will. Who really benefits when the regulators strangle the banks?  Do banks really need to get much more conservative in their lending practices?  Why does the government know best?  How far can you stretch the FDIC guarantees before American banking is simply a subsidiary of the US g
Read more