Standard & Poors covered 17 global equity funds managed by life insurance companies.
During the 3 years from 2003 to 2005, the annualised returns are:
NTUC Income's Global Equity Fund 19.2%
Average of 17 funds 15.1%
Difference 4.1%
NTUC Income's fund earned a superior return of 19.2%, which is 4.1% higher than the average of 17 funds.
Why?
1. Our expense ratio is 1.3% compared to the average of 1.7%; the difference is 0.4%
2. Some of the other funds may have other charges and fees that are not explicitly disclosed.
3. Perhaps, the fund managers of NTUC Income have performed better.
We have chosen global equities for this comparision because there are a large number
of such funds, and performance is not easily distorted by differences in asset allocation.
What about the future?
Past performance is not an indication of future performance. But, it is clear that the lower charges of our fund, will continue to be a key factor in producing superior returns for our investors.
Conclusion: Choose NTUC Income funds for our low charges and superior return!
I thought we should not choose what to invest in base on past performance?
ReplyDeleteWhy then would you advise choosing NTUC Income for it's "... superior returns"?
Are there any guarentee that the future returns by Investing with Income would be bear the same outcome?
I advise people to choose Income funds for our low charges. Even if our returns are average, compared to other funds, our investors will get 10% to 20% more, from our low charges over a period of 10 to 20 years.
ReplyDeleteIf we can earn "superior return", it will be a big, big bonus. But this cannot be guaranteed.