New Fund: AmAdvantage Asia Pacific ex Japan Dividend

Wanted to diversify your investment portfolio especially on dividend based investments? You may look into this newly launched fund by AmMutual named AmAdvantage Asia Pacific ex-Japan Dividend Fund, a fund managed by AmInvestment Services Berhad.

The Fund is a feeder fund, which will invest into the  HSBC Global Investment Funds  – Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity High Dividend (the “Target Fund”), a sub-fund of the  HSBC Global Investment Funds domiciled in Luxembourg. The Fund seeks to provide income and long term capital growth by investing in the Target Fund which has an investment focus on Asia Pacific ex Japan equities.


The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing a minimum of 95% of the Fund’s NAV in the distribution share class in the HSBC Global Investment Funds – Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity High Dividend at all times. This implies that the Fund has a passive strategy.

More about the Target Fund
HSBC GLOBAL INVESTMENT FUNDS – ASIA PACIFIC EX JAPAN EQUITY HIGH DIVIDEND

The Target Fund was launched on 5th November 2004 and the total fund size of the Target Fund is  USD  170.78  million as at 31st December  2011. The Target Fund is regulated by Luxembourg Supervisory Authority, the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier. 

Other than that, what's more important than the fund's past performance?

AmAdvantage Asia Pacific ex Japan Dividend is suitable for investors who seek:
  • regular income in their investment; 
  • long term capital growth on their investment; 
  • participation in the upside potential of the Asia Pacific ex Japan market; and 
  • medium to high risk investment vehicle. 

Source: AmMutual
Click here to download the fund prospectus

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