Letting go of iCap

I have decided to let go iCap. As mentioned before, while I think that iCap has a good manager, the investment ideas may not suit me. Anyway, I am selling to be able to buy some other stocks in future. The reason I bought iCap was due to it was really cheap. Now it is still cheap but not as cheap when I bought it at RM2.17. I have sold it at RM2.36 despite iCap hovering around RM2.4+ last week. Have to admit I am not a good seller.

Actual amount made over 4 months

Whatever it is, I think that the fight for board positions may not be over with today's large volume traded. Although, City of London Investment Fund has sold some stocks over the last few days, Laxey Partners may buy more. However, it remains my speculation for now.

ICap is now trading at a discount of 19.5% from its last week's NAV. Its major holdings remain to be PetDag, Padini, Parkson, F&N and Boustead.

Among the holdings, these are how I see it.

Petronas Dagangan

I like PetDag despite we seeing more and more oil and gas companies moving into the upstream side of the market. We saw BP letting go of the retail business many years ago and if I am not mistaken I am seeing many of Exxon-Mobil's branded stations changed to a brand called Petron. The letting go of the retail side of business could be good for PetDag in the longer run.

Padini

I have mentioned of my liking for Padini before, hence not repeating.

Parkson

As I like AEON and Tesco, I do like Parkson as well but the Malaysian operations only. Parkson is however heavily dependent on its China's income. For its China's operations, I am not able to reckon the position it is in. My guess is that the competition is getting really stiffer with Wal-Mart, Carrefour, Tesco fighting really hard in the hypermart business. Parkson's positioning is different but it is bound to affect Parkson no matter what. The 3 players are the largest retailers in the world ranking 1, 2 and 3. Where is Parkson? That could have affected the Malaysian owned retailer.

As for Parkson's venture in Indonesia and Vietnam, it is too early to tell the impact it is going to have onto the retailer.

F&N

Good company but its competitors are better brands and much bigger. I see its price as expensive although it does try hard diversifying into properties the next few years to cushion the negative impact.

Boustead

Great assets but I always have doubts on armed forces running companies. If you happened to be in Damansara, just compare One Utama (private owner, See Hoy Chan) against The Curve (Boustead). They are not far from each other. Which one you think has more potential or already is on the home run? This reflects management capabilities, in the eyes of an investor.

I always have the feeling that since most plantation, banks, properties stocks were doing well, Boustead will of course do well. Warren Buffett used to say, "Only when the tides are down, we will know who has been swimming naked."

Out of the largest 5 holdings, I like 2-1/2, hence may not suit my taste for now.

To many ICap's shareholders, TTB is their Oracle!

Perhaps you have heard of the Oracle of Omaha, the namesake accorded to Warren Buffett. I was at the AGM this morning, my first attendance and the thing I can say is that Tan Theng Boo ("TTB") is like the Oracle of Malaysia for many of these shareholders.

In fact, the presentation provided by TTB himself is loaded with Warren Buffett's quotes, such as - "Rule No 1: Never Lose Money, Rule 2: Never forget Rule No 1" and "Price is what you pay, value is what you get" and many more. I would say that much of TTB's investments philosophies and actions is trying to resemble Buffett's. He even claimed that to save costs, his prospectus and Annual Reports are in black and white (as color printing is more expensive) - resembling the same careful spending trait that Buffett had on his vehicle, Berkshire Hathaway.

However, few differences that tell are Buffett's Chairman's statement to shareholders consists of more than 50 pages each year and spends a lot of time explaining his investments rationale and why he invested in some of the portfolio companies. TTB is much stingier in his Annual report statement ditching out less than 2 pages each year. I think that the iCapital newsletters subscription would probably be where he is concentrating on his write-ups.

Another difference is that for of Buffett's hardcore believers, they would be willing to buy just 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway to be able to attend his AGM. (Berkshire Hathaway's A share costs USD127,000 by the way) Well, TTB is still far from that, but there are still some hard core supporters (I would think 500+ or maybe many more) as shown in the majority who supported him during the AGM.

In fact, some of them complained that the AGM this time around is time consuming and non-beneficial as most of them were there in most of its previous AGM's to obtain their annual tips from their Oracle, not to really vote. This time around, their presence are to support their oracle as the threat of resigning was too much for them to absorb. One came out to actually say, "No Tan Theng Boo, No ICap." - and its the end of the world?

I did not stay to learn about the results of this unusually extended AGM as I had to rush off to another event, but I can guess that judging from the support provided to TTB - rightly so - many of them would stay thick and thin with him - to the extent that he has become "Godly".

I would have to say, at the end of the day, I am impressed and despite the initial thoughts of voting in some of the so-called non-friendly Directors to Capital Dynamics', at last I changed my mind. However, I doubt that I can be so attached and would still be looking for opportunities to sell whenever the fund is close to its NAV - unless some of the issues that I have mentioned before are really addressed.

Whatever it is, I guess I am a different type of investor anyway, as I am the type who is hoping to control my own destiny, than relying on another to do so for me. Err someone said that already, and that someone is Jack Welch.

And hah! hopefully this is my last article about ICap for a while as some readers would be bored with these articles already. I would just concentrate on researching something else myself.

Icap: My opinion on some of the remarks made on The Star

It seems interesting that both parties - Tan Teng Boo and representative from Laxey are appearing on The Star to rally for votes from the shareholders.

Here below, I am trying to find whether rationale from Tan Teng Boo makes sense:

Point 1

Tan, however, pointed out that a share buyback in a closed-end fund such as iCapital.biz would benefit only short-term investors looking to make a fast buck.

It’s not quite true. It seems that over the years iCap has accumulated cash sitting on a low interest income from short term deposits. One would say that he is waiting for opportunities. It does not matter however if a fund allows people to make fast buck as a closed end fund is a closed end fund. It is different from an open ended fund. In a closed end fund, the fund manager is not afraid of the shareholders selling as the total number of shares remain the same. The fund manager is in control of the amount of cash and equity he holds. There is no fear of run in the fund. If the share price of the fund trades far below the NAV, he can initiate a buyback which will improve the value of the fund further, which I am supporting him to do. I am perplexed why he is adamant that this is not a good option or even consider it.

Point 2

The top 30 shareholders of iCapital.biz have remained since 2006, he said.

Not quite right. See below.

Top 30 shareholders 2006

Top 30 shareholders. 13 shareholders (see the one underlined) remain in the Top 30. Some of them are related party like Yeoh Ah Tu, Capital Dynamics, Tunku Sara

Point 3

“Hence, it would not matter if the discount between the share price and the NAV narrowed, because, these shareholders are in it for the long haul.

“If Laxey comes in and initiates a share buyback, this means that it will be using the fund's excess cash to boost iCapital.biz's share price, which will only benefit short-term traders,” he said

I do not think so. In fact, once the fund initiates a call for share buyback (say if the share price is traded at below 90% of its NAV, the management initiates a share buyback), I doubt the share price will trade much below 90% anymore. Investors will be cognizant of this. How is this benefiting short term traders only and not benefiting the fund? Is the fund manager too against short term traders benefiting? In this case, both parties are benefiting.

Point 4

Furthermore, for a closed-end fund like iCapital.biz, share buybacks would not work, Tan said.

He pointed out that share buybacks to increase the share value for companies such as IOI Properties and AirAsia Bhd, would work as they have their business operations and are not reliant on their cash pile to generate profits for the company.

However, in the case of iCapital.biz, its cash is its main asset and that is needed to invest in other equities in order for profits to be made.

Look below. iCap is not a fund that time the market (as it did not time 2008 market crash very well. It was holding too little cash for the 2008 drop. In fact, it held to cash since 2010 which was too early). ICap is a fund that is good at picking stocks. But yet it continued to hold on to cash (1/3 of NAV) until today. By doing some buy back at a very much discounted price from NAV, it is making better use of its cash.

iCap's cash holding

Point 5
“If it is using that cash to buy back its own shares, how can it buy other equities, and thus add value to the fund?” he asked.

Share buyback is adding value no matter how it is termed if the price bought is below the NAV. In this case, it is way below NAV. The only worry for not buying back is that the fear of the funds NAV will deteriorate in the short term future. If that is the case, then one should not buy the fund either. This is where we cannot foresee.

Point 6
On Laxey's statement that the board should concurrently engage advisers to research other methods to permanently remove the substantial discount at which the shares trade, Tan said this would imply that the fund would be liquidated.

“How else do you permanently remove the discount between share price and NAV without liquidating the company?

Not necessary, liquidating is selling out and closing the fund. Share buyback is not selling out. In the share buyback, there is an option to resell back the shares to the market. Anyway the option to buyback is up to 10% (under guidelines by SC) of the total shares. It is not like the call is to buy all the shares or half of the shares.

Frankly, it is not right to take out all ICap's reps

In this coming AGM, 4 directors nominated by iCap are seeking re-appointments. 2 others are newly nominated by iCap while Laxey is trying to put in 3 directors. Total maximum directors iCap can have are 7 in total. My hope is not for all iCap's nominated directors to be taken out but rather to have some representatives from alternatives i.e. those representing shareholders.

It does not mean Laxey is preferred but since it is a substantial as well as largest shareholder, I believe the mindset for Laxey Partners is being more of a shareholder rather than the fund manager. The fund manager will have different mindset as compared to shareholders. As shareholder and especially when the fund manager has not done enough to close the gap of the NAV and share price, it is good that we as shareholders have representatives so that measures done by fund manager are kept in check. It should not be a open check book especially when the price of shares was way below the NAV.

As mentioned, I certainly think that as an investor what do you do when the share price was 25% or more below the NAV. Shares buyback is a very good, immediate and fantastic tool which was not taken. It is way better than issuing dividends. For a value investor, what is easier than to put in money to buy your own shares especially when it is way undervalued.

I will not agree if anyone is to say that the cash is kept (with 3% interests?) so that to wait for better opportunities especially when your own undervalued share is in front of you. By not doing that is an injustice to the shareholder itself.

However, I am not hoping for the management of iCap not to be represented as by not having representatives, it is like putting a gun in front of the fund manager and ask him to resign. He should be provided enough support to manage the fund.

My take on the ICap debacle

I am a shareholder of ICap. So are my family members albeit small shareholdings. I think by now you would already received notice from the management company, under Tan Teng Boo who is asking you to consider long term investment vs short term return.

I am a long term investor by nature. However, the main reason why I have invested into ICap was mainly due to its share price was way underpriced. At the time of my purchase it was at 26% discount. Another reason is that it is a long term fund which suits me.

As mentioned during my purchase, I was not considering dividends either but as long as the fund manager protects the interest of its shareholders. I have read of commentaries that the fund has stocked up with "yes men" in its board, which to a certain extent is true. In fact, ICap has added 2 directors after my purchase - one from the ex-DAP fame (Tunku Aziz), another from UMNO - Dato Dr Noraesah (both whom I do not like). Naturally, most companies do appoint their friendly directors, if they are allowed to and if minorities do not make any demands. ICap's shareholders have never demanded anything, which is why there have not been any share buybacks despite the fund trading at huge discounts, provide dividends, capital return etc.

One of the commentators mentioned that Warren Buffett has never provided any dividends from his trademark Berkshire Hathaway. True. However, recently whenever the company reaches below 110% of its NAV value, he commenced buyback of the company as he deemed that the company was way undervalued. Whenever the share price trades above 110% of NAV, he will stop the buyback.

Now, my mistake as well as Tan Teng Boo's (read one of his quarterly) is that we thought Laxey Partners is there to support the management. It may not seemed to be or is the fund acting as activists fund?

My say is that for those who are going to the AGM, hear both parties out. Having alternative board members in the board may not be a bad thing as it actually allows better corporate governance. Yes, most people are for their own investments. Who aren't? I am, as in protecting my own investment as well.

Tan Teng Boo with Capital Dynamics has done well for iCap, but that is not a license for him to do anything. As I have said, he is paid with a very good fee and last year alone he was paid more than RM5.9 million based on 1.5% x NAV + fund manager's fee.

The right decision to do when the fund was way undervalued was to do share buybacks (if the AA allowed to). Although being a smart investor, he did not do that, and as a shareholder, you should ask him why rather than agreeing to all that is done by the management company.

My say is let's hear all parties out. Do not blindly appoint your directors. Besides 5 seeking elections, there are actually 4 more seeking re-appointments. Just remember, it is not just about the 5 seeking elections.

Lesson on iCap: How do you attack a Closed-End Fund

Something is definitely brewing for this usually inactive closed end fund, iCapital.biz. Firstly, as in my previous article, this fund has been trading way below its Net Asset Value (NAV) for a while now. While the fund has continually been trading at steep discount, sometimes as high as 29%, Laxey Partners and City of London Investment Management Fund (both UK based) have been slowly but religiously accumulating the stock for more than 8 months now. As at now, both of them have accumulated close to 14% of iCap. Note that the discount between the stock price and NAV has closed its gap, with just last Friday itself iCap rising 6 sen to RM2.38. Its latest NAV is RM2.96 hence still trading at close to 20% discount.

What is the probable reason? Just 2 days ago, Icap announced that Laxey Partners is requesting for 3 board seats in the next AGM on 10 Nov 2012. Read below properly.

Laxey Partners is requesting for 3 board representatives, iCap countered back with 2 others (besides some who are up for reappointment) where one of them is a former CEO of F&N Malaysia (now I can see some links as iCap does hold F&N). iCap currently has 6 directors and the maximum allowed under its Article of Association is only 7. Hence, already there is a small war here as some names will not end up as directors at the end of the voting. And as you can see this war could turn major. It could go to as far as the fund being liquidated.

The question is with the representation from Laxey assuming that it manages to get its representatives into the Board, what could potentially happen. Dividends and even liquidation comes into my mind. As I have mentioned before, the reason why some people are not interested in this closed-end fund is due to no dividends paid by the management. It seems that there are other reasons as well, such as fees.

I am not surprise by the management's decision not to pay dividend as their income are measured by the NAV (x 1.5%) annually consisting of management (0.75%) and investment advisory fees (0.75%). The more dividends it pays, the lesser the NAV. Hence, it is rightly so that it protects its turf by not paying.

Management fee of 0.75% per annum

Investment advisory fee

Now, the irony is that Laxey Partners under Andrew Pegge did the same thing 5 years ago on Amanah Millenia Fund. Laxey basically accumulated up to 19.41% of Amanah which was then trading at a similar huge discounts to its NAV as well and basically garnered enough friendly votes to liquidate the fund. The only difference was, Amanah was not a well-performing fund. iCap is.

Same story re-hatched from Amanah Millenia Fund 5 years ago?

How will the war penned out?

Actually, I don't know. Based on the statistics of shareholders, I am not sure who will support who. The thing is that Capital Dynamics Asset Management and several directors collectively hold around 3% of the fund. They will have friendly parties but I think that the bulk of the shareholders are pure shareholders who basically invest for long term. Nevertheless, I do sense that the situation could be quite dire for Capital Dynamics.

I have tried looking at the movement of shareholders. Over the last few years, the number of holders actually consistently decreased, which is not surprising as some are just taking profits while others were not willing to wait. They could have been the weaker and shorter term holders.

No of shareholders as presented in its Annual Report

In what situation can the fund be terminated? I do not have the Article with me but I am guessing that it will need 75% approval from shareholders through a special resolution. See below.

The only thing I can find on the clause for the fund's termination from prospectus

First things first though, which is the appointment of directors - what will happen in the coming AGM? I don't know, but if the fund is going for liquidation, I think most neutral investors may opt for it as immediate return would just overwhelm long term wait, at least in this case - which means they would be supporting Laxey Partner, the gwailo fund company. Hey! Over the last few years iCap has not been doing much and investors can just take the money and and buy F&N, PDB and Parkson themselves, if they want to.

Another thing, I have a feeling that this presents trading opportunities at this moment, as some people might want to snap up the shares so that they can be strong enough to fend off any decisions to take away the funds. Hence, if Capital Dynamics is really in defense mode, the shares may in fact trade right up to just a slight discount from its NAV. I am actually surprise why Capital Dynamics does not see this earlier though. To me, if it really is terminated, just represents a big blunder on the part of the management. To me, if the existence of the fund is under attack, the management has got to provide more than managing it well - after all they are being paid very well.

What iCapital did last one year

The closed end fund made its Annual Report announcement last Friday. Last year was a decent year for iCap to my account, not a fantastic one. Anyway, here are some of the details.

Size of Holdings and Market Value of Holdings as at 12 Sep 2012

The transactions iCap made are as below. It basically shows that iCap did not make any purchase at all, signalling that they rather hold cash than increased positions into stocks. Cash level, hence increased.

What about performance over a longer term. It is a long term fund and the little transactions that the fund has shown to us guides that by having less transactions, they can still outperform the market substantially.

The weird thing is that despite its consistency in outperforming the market, its share price kept more and more further apart from its NAV. Why? Well, according to my mum the fund does not pay dividend. To me, it is not a problem but perhaps to many investors it is. I can see the point.

Other articles on iCap:

Why I bought iCap

ICap: An overperforming fund with underperforming price

ICap: One should not look at P&L as indicator of performance

This morning I was talking to my mum. While talking to her about ICap, she was saying that ICap's profitability is low. Only then I realize that perhaps why its share price is low comparative to its Net Assets. Some may look at PE as indicator. Not unusual as if based on your indicator from Bloomberg or any other financial sites, they only mention PE or Dividend Yield.

The right indicator for closed end fund (or any investment fund for the matter) is Net Asset Value. Net Asset Value is the barometer which values the market value of investments ICap holds. The Net Asset can be in the form of cash or shares that it invests into. For example, as at 2 August 2012, its Net Asset Value (NAV) was RM3.01 per share while the share price it was trading at was RM2.24 - which means a RM0.76 discount from the NAV.

Why one should not look at P&L?

Well, P&L indicates the revenue or income that the closed end funds get. For example, dividend that it gets from shares it holds during the period is a revenue. So is the interest income that it gets from the cash investments it puts in the bank account or money market. If for the quarter, it does not sell any shares, it will not register any profit or losses from investments. It however does not mean the companies that it invests in is not doing well.

As an example, if it bought Parkson at average RM2.00 per share and the shares of Parkson is trading at RM4.80 as at the reporting period, and ICap does not sell any, it will not register any profit.

See below.

For my other article on ICap, please see below:

Why I bought ICap


ICap: An overperforming fund with underperforming price

Some commentaries from ICapital - quite interesting

Was looking through ICap's 4th quarter report - quite interesting comment. Read below:

Meanwhile, ICap continues to hold RM134 million in cash. Between 29 Feb and 31 May 2012 there were no trades. So bloody easy their job, they would just stick to long term investment and call. Remember the saying, "It is much harder to find good stocks than finding bad ones."

The sale in most recent financial year was probably some units sale of F&N's shares, I believe.

It seems that the European economic calamities is causing havoc to the entire world. Yesterday's market in NYSE / Nasdaq and Europe were pretty precarious and it does not help when John Paulson predicted a 50% chance that Euro will collapse!

Why I bought ICap

When I first started this new portfolio which I am going to call "Intellect Point Portfolio", I did say that it is going to be a small and long term portfolio for kids education. Started off with RM32,500, now it's NAV has exceeded RM60,000 after 1-1/2 year. The original intention is for this fund to continuously beat the market, that's it. Honestly, I do not expect it to perform so well, as I was going to take a very long term view of this fund. I have more than 15 years to go with this fund and most probably (hopefully) I am not going to touch it. This is not a retirement fund though.

With the sale of AEON few days ago, I have decided to buy 3,500 units of ICap at RM2.17 today.
 
Why do I buy ICap

Frankly, this is a much more careful purchase. Why?
(Hey, if I am wrong in this call, I can safely say Tan Theng Boo also wrong, mah! :) Hence the pressure off myself )

Besides that, first of all, it is undervalued. Yes, it is much easier (against any other businesses) to determine whether the closed-end fund is undervalued by virtue of its traded price against NAV. As at yesterday, ICap's NAV was RM2.95 while its traded price today which I have bought at is RM2.17, a whopping 26% discount from its NAV.

Secondly, the fund is sitting with cash. As at 29 Feb 2012, RM134 million is held in cash. This cash it is sitting on is higher than the RM115 million cash it was holding as at 31 May 2011, its last year-end closing. This shows that ICap has been a net seller of stocks (on top of the cash dividends they get). They are hence sitting on 1/3 with cash while the other 2/3 is invested. With the amount of cash they are sitting on, it shows that they probably are more careful than me. You see, the beauty of closed-end fund is that they are not susceptible to investors pulling out, hence the cash holding only shows that they are taking a little pessimistic view of things thinking that shares will drop in future - that's where they will buy.

With RM134 million in cash, this means that literally they are having RM0.957 in cash out of the traded price of RM2.17. Then, why is it that ICap is trading at such a discount? You can see that some shareholders are probably not patient. In shares investing, patience is a virtue. ICap has in fact been trading further apart from its NAV.

I can only speculate that since Icap has never issued any dividends, some investors just got tired of holding it for long term and sold. Most of them of course probably sold at a slight profit I believe, as RM2.17 to RM2.25 is probably the upper end of its historical traded price over the last 3 - 4 years. These investors just got tired and been selling.

What has changed since my last article.

If you have read it, over the last few months, ICap has just gotten a seal of approval from 2 decent-sized funds. See below. Both the funds - City of London Investment Management Company and Laxey Partners Limited are now holding more than 6% each of ICap - hence making it for first time ever ICap has a substantial shareholder (means more than 5% holdings).

This seal of approval is important as it shows that some decent sized funds are giving a seal of consent on trusting the managers of ICap to act on behalf of them. (Do Google these 2 funds to see whether these are very small or somewhat trusted funds)

I sincerely do not expect this fund to have a run as it is holding a substantial percentage in cash (except for the readjustment to its NAV). Hence from this is a very long term view as I do not expect dividend either.

What is my status on the "Intellect Point Portfolio" then.

No more cash, huh!


This is my personal view and is not representing an advice to the readers to buy or sell.

Deciphering what ICapital did on ICAP

As in my previous article, I highlighted that ICAP is a closed end stock which is undeservingly trading at much below its NTA. Latest as at 12 April 2012, it is trading at RM2.22 while its NTA was RM2.87, a  22.6% discount to its NTA. Perhaps what some investors do not like is that this stock does not pay dividend. Hence it is not part of a dividend stock portfolio which is now becoming an important thing for longer term investors in Malaysia especially.

Another thing about ICAP is that not much is known about the actions that the closed end stock does except until its Annual Report is out. We do not know the position they probably would have taken on especially when it comes to purchasing new stocks or whether they have sold some of the investments over the 1 year period. Some of their actions can however be deciphered if we do a little bit of work by checking out the companies that they invested in. As at 22 June 2011, ICAP has a portfolio of 10 stocks as below:

With Updates on Suria Group as at 16 Apr 2012

If we check out the companies that they invested in and look at the Top 30 shareholders, we can get some information. From above, we know that as at some of the dates that are presented they have increased their stake in Boustead while selling some of F&N's shares. I think they probably have same opinion on findings with regards to F&N. No change as at those dates mentioned were made for ICapital's favorite Parkson and Padini. So was MSC and Suria Group.

I am not able to find out what ICapital did for 4 others if its investments. Unless I look through all the Annual Reports, I am also not able to find out whether they have added on to their portfolio.

On how they perform since 31 May 2011, well the NAV of the company improved from RM2.77 to RM2.87 in 12 April 2012. Well, this is not going to be a good year for ICAP, probably (as they have about 50 more days to go).

As for cash holding, they have increased the cash holding as at 30 Nov 2011. This is probably due to they could not find anything exciting to put their money in or it could also be that the market is on the expensive side. They are not wrong.

In any case, due to the discount and looking at the portfolio they are holding, ICAP is not a bad closed end fund to hold, I should say. I would love it better if they pay dividend however.

Note: Updated on 16 Apr 2012.

Serious Investing!

ICAP: An overperforming fund with underperforming price

Perhaps the one "i" brand recently that underperformed. Look at Apple's price...Now valued at $550 billion and moving towards $600 a stock...Wooohoo!

Anyway, let's talk about iCap. I have to admit I have not been following iCap until lately. Latest NAV (best barometer to measure the funds performance) as at 15 March 2012 was RM2.88 but its share price was at RM2.24, a 22% discount to the NAV. To be fair, it is the only listed closed end fund in Malaysia and a very successful one.

While I like the concept closed end fund better than open ended fund, there are just none to compare. The only way to compare is the performance against KLCI which they do very well indeed.

Why then is it trading at 22% below NAV? In fact when the fund was introduced, it was at premium over its NAV. Starting from around October 2008, investors started to discount it from its NAV and lately the price pulled further and further away from its NAV. Look below:

 Why? Usually, a fund trading at a discount from its NAV would be due to two main reasons.

1. Investors no longer believe in the fund managers - in this case, I do not think so as they continue to perform well and it you do a straight line measurement of performance, it achieves a staggering 29% over a period of the 6-1/2 years since its inception in 19 Oct 2005. There is no reason to fault this amazing performance;
2. Investors expect the performance of the funds to be below par -  for iCap, I have to admit it is difficult to measure this as the latest portfolio they revealed was 22 June 2011 as below

Since then, they probably would have moved in and out for some of the stocks but I have the feeling that they would keep to some of the larger holdings such as Parkson, Padini, Boustead, Petronas Dagangan still. F&N? I would like to discount F&N now as I would like wait and see the performance of F&N after its lost of the Coke's franchise. Don't know about iCap though.

Those who follow iCapital's newsletter would probably know better what they like - I don't. In any case, I am a little perplexed over why a strong performance fund is trading at such a discount.

Serious and Happy Investing!

visit www.fb.com/MalaysianInvest