|
Post by Fletchsmile on Jun 25, 2019 15:26:58 GMT 7
For the fund management houses, Aberdeen is worth a bit more discussion on the OP. While they are still a quality fund management house globally and decent long term operations in Thailand, the performance of several of their funds hs dropped. Historically they've been strong on Thailand, Emerging Markets and Asia. Whereas their North American fund in Thailand for example has always been terrible relevant to peers. In the last few years though their Thailand, EM and Asia performance has dropped. Aberdeen Thai equity based funds remain an OK choice, but a hard look needs at the EM and Asia ones. I haven't put any new money with Aberdeen for a few years now because of this, and had been phasing out several of my Aberdeen holdings. As I need money in Thailand from my investment portfolio to live off, they have tended to be first choice as sells. There are better choices for global,EM,Asia etc i.e non-Thai equities outside Thailand. So most of my Aberdeen holdings have been on "hold" or "reduce" in the last few years. This isn't unique to Aberdeen Thailand, and I've also wound several Aberdeen funds via UK or Singapore.
So they're a relative safe home for your money, and cover most geographies/sectors someone would be interested in, but not necessarily the best for performance in recent years. Some signs of that picking up again though.
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Jun 29, 2019 18:48:25 GMT 7
One thing to add to the above on Aberdeen. Since the merger with Standard Life, the cost of their funds seems to be creeping higher still.
As mentioned above I haven't put any new money with Aberdeen for a few years now, due mainly to performance and had been phasing out several of my holdings.
They look expensive now, to combine with the drop in performance.
So they remain a relatively safe, established FM house, covering most sector someone might want for starting a basic portfolio, but from a performance and cost perspective no longer the attraction they used to be.
Some signs of performance picking up. They tend to be a bit more defensive in downturns. But long run bull markets and increase in liquidity in markets generally since GFC haven't really helped their cause and strategies.
|
|
|
Post by butterfly on Jun 29, 2019 21:28:07 GMT 7
Aberdeen was good in the 90s when they were fresh and motivated,
they have been terrible for at least 15 years, and yet they can rely on their past performance to lure investors into strategies that do not look like anything like they invested historically
it's a tricky business, time to go passive
some local Thai funds by ONE investment are actually not bad, and cheap
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Jun 30, 2019 16:35:18 GMT 7
Aberdeen was good in the 90s when they were fresh and motivated, they have been terrible for at least 15 years, and yet they can rely on their past performance to lure investors into strategies that do not look like anything like they invested historically it's a tricky business, time to go passive some local Thai funds by ONE investment are actually not bad, and cheap Yes Aberdeen's best years in terms of quality seem behind them for now, and they do rely on their reputation. In Thailand they seemed to eek it out a bit longer into the noughties, and longer for some funds, compared to Aberdeen globally.
I think it's when LTFs and RMFs started appearing in mid-2000's and more companies started entering the markets to tap into that, and competition really started picking up, they started to find it tougher, though it took a few years beyond that to start showing thru. Spin-offs from FSMP I and II also probably pushed banks and other FI to look for more fee income in areas sych as AM too increasing competition. If someone looks at the number of funds offered by sister companies of banks now, there are some quite long lists now massive, whereas older FM like Aberdeen haven't increased their offerings much at all. Even a small player like TMBAM has 67 founds now compared to only around 24 for Aberdeen. The traditional FM houses have been squeezed in Thailand.
It's got harder for the managers to outperform the index, as the Thai markets get more efficient, and better governance comes in, making personal connections and inside knowledge etc less of a factor.
But the best active managers are still ahead most years, even though the outperformance is decreasing as years go by. So I don't think we're there yet in terms of needing to go low cost passive. Still plenty of actives to pick, and that's in markets where since GFC active funds globally have struggled relative to passive with so much liquidity, QE etc etc
I can't remember a time where I've looked at the top performers in Thailand over 10 years and Bualuang and UOB Good CG haven't been in top 10. Usually top 5. More often than not one of the 2 is top spot. Companies like One AM and MFC have also upped their game
Just had a quick look now at equity funds on Morningstar: Bualuang 1st over 10 years, UOB GCG 3rd. One AM is 2nd. No surprises
|
|