Teh Hooi Leng calls it a day (Aggregate Asset Management)

(24-05-2017, 05:46 AM)HitandRun Wrote:

(23-05-2017, 11:07 PM)specuvestor Wrote: And Chia it is unlikely in this case she can choose her custodian and administrator. She is doing plug-and-play; so she can only "play" what is given

To assist the discussion, I have lifted the following wholesale from Swiss-asia's website:

THE FUND MANAGER PLATFORM 

The Swiss Asia Fund platform allows fund managers to set up a cost effective fund solution for anyone wishing to set up a new fund structure. Swiss Asia is able to provide the back and middle office operations to the fund, office space, compliance, IT and corporate governance to any new fund manager. 

Fund managers who are looking to set up in Singapore or Hong Kong are able to leverage of Swiss-Asia’s expertise in setting up their fund management business. Partnering up with Swiss Asia will allow access to world market and various asset classes. 

Fund managers are able to choose their preferred counterparties for trading, custodian service, audit and fund administration.

HOW DOES IT WORK? 

Each Fund Manager carries his own investment and functional responsibilities and reports to the Management Board of the Fund. The fund manager on the platform owns the vehicle. 

Swiss-Asia does not take an equity stake in the Manager. Swiss-Asia provides access to diverse structures to wrap investment strategies. The choice of structure will depend entirely on assets under management in the initial launch the targeted expense ratio and the targeted investor base.

Setting up a new custodian is a long process and a hassle, which is why custodians tend to be sticky... especially if one has existing portfolio transferring derivatives, forwards or unquoted assets. Scale also determines the pricing of custodian which is why a platform makes sense for niche funds for speedy setup and combined scale. To have a separate custodian under umbrella fund is not even possible I think.

In theory I guess if push comes to shove it can be done but I'm not sure if it is realistic.

@grandjedi some hedge funds use prime brokers which is an even more one-stop service with their own set of custodians. End of day you have to know and be comfy with 1) who is the custodian for the counterparty risk 2) who is the administrator for the valuation risk 3) who is the auditor for fraud and regulatory risk and of course the Investment Manager (IM) for the investment risk. These are all standard disclosable info in the offering document.

Just wondering, does anyone wonder if she has a track record of managing funds before? What about her performance in her previous fund or she is just a research head without any experience in managing a fund?
We can see all the hype about her because she is a journalist etc. but real experience maybe toher wise

(29-05-2017, 11:59 AM)noob_investor Wrote: Just wondering, does anyone wonder if she has a track record of managing funds before? What about her performance in her previous fund or she is just a research head without any experience in managing a fund?
We can see all the hype about her because she is a journalist etc. but real experience maybe toher wise

Mr. Yeo had no track record of managing fund when he started Yeoman capital in 1999. His latest report card after almost 20 years.

"an absolute cumulative return of +955.68% or a CAGR of +12.91% p.a. nett of all fees, in SGD terms with dividends re-invested."
http://yeomancapitalmanagement.com/performance/

"Value investing is evergreen if prudently or conservatively implemented and, although it is not easy, it can be done. Investment success requires dedication, focus, objectivity, intellectual rigour, discipline, continuous learning, a working knowledge of accounting and plain hard work."

http://www.straitstimes.com/business/inv...ork-for-it

I find nothing on "fund managing experience".

(29-05-2017, 12:36 PM)YMPL Wrote: http://www.straitstimes.com/business/inv...ork-for-it

Thanks for the article. It was a good read but i do find the last part below (in bold) especially futile though.

For an amateur, I suggest you work with 10 stocks for a portfolio size of $100,000 to $1 million for a start. Track your portfolio performance meticulously, accounting for buys, sells, dividend receipts, transaction charges and custody charges to get your "nett of fees" outcome monthly, quarterly and annually. 

(29-05-2017, 09:14 PM)weijian Wrote:

(29-05-2017, 12:36 PM)YMPL Wrote: http://www.straitstimes.com/business/inv...ork-for-it

Thanks for the article. It was a good read but i do find the last part below (in bold) especially futile though.

For an amateur, I suggest you work with 10 stocks for a portfolio size of $100,000 to $1 million for a start. Track your portfolio performance meticulously, accounting for buys, sells, dividend receipts, transaction charges and custody charges to get your "nett of fees" outcome monthly, quarterly and annually. 

It is futile from the perspective of "performance tracking", but it is useful for proper cash flow accounting.

You need the "monthly NAV" to properly account for cash outflow and inflow. I did the same for the purpose.

in the context of the "amateur", it does more harm (distraction from more important affairs) than good (practice of excel skills), to "track the performance" i suppose. (rather than proper cashflow accounting)

I do my cash flow accounting daily. But performance tracking is done every half year.

My opinion is also that amateurs should place more emphasis on learning how to identify good buys, rather than watch how good their buys are. The tracking of our portfolio performance should be done with the objective of being accountable for our investment decisions, and improving upon it. As investments usually have a long gestation period, it places unnecessary stress on the investor to frequently review his performance, hence leading to poorer decisions (like selling too early).

Well, it's easy to start trading (and win some pocket money).

It's more difficult to hold back the temptation for the best trade.

Documenting every trade is definitely very important.

It will definitely served as a good reflection tools (after 1 year or 2 years looking back at your "sound" decision to trade).

Your trading record must contain the triggers that signal you to trade.
The circumstances that push you to trade.
How you percieved the risks and if any expected rewards/target that forced you to take action.
I think it should also contain how you feel B4 and after your trade. feel good or under pressure.

Don't forget to record your money management too.
Are you over committed?

As our value buddies says, suppose that you're only given says 10 trades in your entire life, 
how you performed in these 10 triggers will determine whether you're handsomely rewarded or not.

Give me a good trading record, and I can show you a great trader.

P.S. Noticed that there is no need for NAV or XIFF calculation of portfolio
P.P.S. I always distinguish buying a tikam stocks from a pillow stocks, as the differences will make it extremely easy for me moving forward.

It is not uncommon for new fund inflow, and outflow due to big ticket item(s) for "amateur portfolio manager", especially over the longer term. Without a proper (professional) accounting might mislead you on the long-term performance. Daily is too much of detail, half-yearly might be too much of distortion with the typical frequency of corporate action. Quarterly or monthly seems right, IMHO.

I knew a peer, who claim an excellence performance over a reasonable period. Once we get into detail, the outflow is not accounted properly, thus produce an out-sized "performance" with a improper down-sized denominator.

(31-05-2017, 09:29 AM)YMPL Wrote: It is not uncommon for new fund inflow, and outflow due to big ticket item(s) for "amateur portfolio manager", especially over the longer term. Without a proper (professional) accounting might mislead you on the long-term performance. Daily is too much of detail, half-yearly might be too much of distortion with the typical frequency of corporate action. Quarterly or monthly seems right, IMHO.

I knew a peer, who claim an excellence performance over a reasonable period. Once we get into detail, the outflow is not accounted properly, thus produce an out-sized "performance" with a improper down-sized denominator.

If one is almost fully vested at all times, then it does make sense to make more frequent (eg. monthly updates) for a "amateur portfolio manager" because the cash (dividends or capital injection) needs to be "translated to units" for the NAV tracking method.

For "less-than-amateur portfolio managers" like me, with substantial cash position (or i would like to call it "call options") and includes the cash into the portfolio XIRR calculation, it wouldn't make a significant difference whether i calculate it monthly/quarterly/half yearly/annually/5-yearly over the long term. Always easier to stay lazy i guess!