Had some time this morning. I thought I gave iCapital Annual Report a read. ICAPITAL.BIZ BERHAD
If you click on that link, there is a pdf file of that report attached.
See end of page 5. It made the following statement.
- For the financial year ending 31 May 2008, your Fund sold its entire holdings in United Malacca and UMW Holdings. In addition, it sold partially its holdings of Boustead Holdings, Integrax, Lion Diversified, Petronas Dagangan and Poh Kong. These sales generated realised gains of RM36.726 million with a cost of RM25.684 million. The sales were made as your Fund took the view that the risk-reward ratio in holding on was not favourable.
Now from iCapital perspective as a fund manager, I do understand their way of thinking and perhaps their reasoning to dispose their shares.
However, if you had followed the blog postings, iCaptal Addresses the Transparent Issue! and Feedback on iCapital's Addressing Of Its Transparent Issue!, I am rather baffled.
I was forwarded their stock recommendation list as of July 2008 and I was amazed to read the following recommendations on the stocks that iCapital said it had sold.
1. United Malacca carried a HOLD recommendation.
2. UMW too carried a HOLD recommendation.
3. Boustead Holdings carries a Buy/Hold recommendation.
4. Integrax carries a Hold recommendation.
5. Lion Doversified carries a Buy/Hold recommendation.
6. Petronas Dagangan carries a Buy/Hold recommendation.
7. Poh Kong too carries a Buy/Hold recommendation.
So, it sold 1 & 2 but item 3-7 was most interesting for me.
The investment advisory reckons that these stocks stocks are worth a buy/hold but the fund management from this very same company reckons that are justifiable reasoning for the fund to dispose some of their stock holding! Don't you think that this is so contradictory?
Macam Mana Ni?
And I am so confused on the buy/hold recommendation? So rather vague isn't it? Why can't it give a straight forward recommendation? Call a buy a buy and a hold a hold, yes?
Posts
4 comments:
Exactly.....
Conflict of interest lah......
When they want to sell rrrr, they so scare you sell first hor (if they call a sell in their investment letter first, especialllly during BEAR markettt.)
No doubt about that, Kellogg of interest ler...
Why don't anyone as a shareholder of icap just ask TTB point blank at the AGM about this issue. From my experience, TTB will be so long winded but vague on his outlook on the market in his publication then weeks later he will proclaim his outlook was correct but when I re-read what he wrote, he did not state clearly his outlook. Eveything so vague like "on one hand....on the other hand...." kind of writing
& oh yes, he thinks very highly of himself, why do u think he prefers to hire fresh know-nothing grads other than grossly underpaying them. Meetings can drag on 3hours+ with him doing a monologue....yes, he is very arrogant but if his performance is good then I think he has earned bragging rights.
On the deceit issue, wonder if it contravenes any SC rules ie talk up the market ....maybe someone should shed some light here
Dearest See,
Interesting comments.
....yes, he is very arrogant but if his performance is good then I think he has earned bragging rights.
Hmm.. bragging rights because he is good?
For me, yes performance as a fund manager is important but what is being done earns zero respect from me.
The fuzziness between their investment advisory and their fund management is simply a farce.
Where is their moral integrity as investment advisor when they can tell their readers to buy a stock while at the very same time, the fund management finds a justifiable reason to sell that very same stock?
I would not be proud of myself if my performance is achieved in this manner. In fact, I will be deeply ashamed!
Hi Moolah,
You did a great job on ICAP. From my experience working with him, I didnt see the motto "independence, intelligence and integrity" in him. BUT I would like to stress that there are a lot more fun managers who are worse than him.
SC should play a bigger role in bringing this issues to the light but it seems SC is doing its job half-heartedly. Things in Malaysia are not going to change if the regulatory bodies are not being made independent. This is more than just a transparency issue.
What best we can do is do our own analysis? But even fundamentals can be faked? I have lost trust on analysing fundamentals of malaysian companies. Learning Technical Analysis would be a good way to insure ourself from unnecessary risks.
Post a Comment