New Fund: AmAsia Pacific REITs Plus

Do you remember the AmAsia Pacific REITs fund? I'm sure you have heard about it. Yes, backed by its success story, AmInvestment Management Bhd has launched a new version called AmAsia Pacific REITs Plus. The word "Plus" is used as a continuation of the AmAsia Pacific REITs and the fund may invest in listed equities in the real estate sector.


The fund aims to provide regular income and to a lesser extent capital appreciation over the medium to long term (at least 3 years) by investing in real estate investment trusts (REITs) and equities in the real estate sector.

What's the strategy?
Minimum 70% in REITs and a maximum of 29% in listed equities in real estate sector, which are in the Asia Pacific region. This is the asset allocation of the fund. Diversification in terms of country and different REITs sub-sectors (etc. residential, commercial and industrial) is expected.


An active allocation strategy will be employed by fund manager, based on macroeconomic trends and REITs market outlook of respective countries in Asia Pacific region. Meanwhile, bottom-up security selection strategy will be used for equities, with focus on undervalued companies.


Who is suitable for this fund?
  • Those who wish to have investment exposure in real estate sector through a diversified portfolio of REITs and real estate equities in Asia Pacific region.
  • Those seeking regular income and to a lesser extent capital appreciation over medium to long term
What's AmInvest aiming?
4% payout on yearly basis, which AmInvest said is achievable and is higher than fixed deposit rate offered by banks. AmInvest favors Australia, Singapore and Japan for REITs and China, Indonesia and Thailand for listed equities.

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

Why Gold and Silver? Why Online Store?

Image
Are you first time gold and silver buyers? Why don't you invest in these popular metals? If you did so, you have had a wonderful investing experience after 2008 global financial crisis. But, do you really understand these metals? Were they really precious (especially now)? Traditionally, gold and silver were one form of exchange. Because of the invention of fiat money, they were being turned into some short of "back-up" currency , in case our fiat money system go burst. It's natural when things go wrong, gold and silver tends to appreciate in value. In other words, people hold precious metals to preserve the value of their assets. 3 Reasons Why Gold and Silver... Still hot in demand , especially by emerging affluent Chinese. Traditionally, Chinese loves gold. They bought it for events such as new born baby, new year, wedding and even funeral ceremony. Strengthening USD ??? Yes. It's a correct reason also. Why? Because of news that US going to stop QE3, USD is str...
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 subsid...
Read more