New Fund: OSK-UOB Absolute Return Fund

With market continuously rotating between "risk-off" and "risk-on", an absolute return mandate with the adoption of a dynamic asset allocation approach would be a good vehicle to ride out the volatility. With the fixed income market having outperformed over the last 5 years, there is a high possibility that good quality equities - those with earnings growth and clarity supporting healthy dividend payouts would find favour.


This is a wholesale fund which aims to achieve medium to long term (3 - 7 years) capital appreciation through investments in equity and equity related securities of companies, and exchange traded funds with the potential to deliver total return in excess of the fund's benchmark return (8% growth per annum).

Investment Strategy
Asia Pacific region (excluding Japan) will the focus of this fund, either through equity or equity related or exchange traded funds. The manager views the region as a vibrant economic growth region supported by factors such as favorable demographics, improving per capita incomes, positive foreign direct investment flows, and vast natural resources.

The strategy is to identify such investment opportunities in its early phase and select companies with strong fundamentals and attractive valuations to capitalize on its growth. Undervalued securities are uncovered through intensive and independent fundamental research.


A Barbell approach - buying dividend yielders coupled with growth (and cyclical) & value stocks would provide a combination of steady cash flows and capital appreciation. This new fund to some extent would allow the portfolio managers to focus more on stock picking without ignoring developments at the macro level.

Meanwhile, the fund's asset allocation is totally flexible between equity and fixed income / money market, depending on economic conditions.


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