Like Tree8Likes

Mpf providers

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
  1. #31

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,289

    The minimum the MPF providers need to do is give more choice in funds to select. Add ETF’s (global not local) and lower the fees substantially.
    There is no reason for the government to let them make so much profit on the back of the people.

    jrkob likes this.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    15,557

    A few things.

    Found out a bit more information on the Manulife DIS. It invests solely in the Vanguard Moderate Growth Fund and are passively managed. I can't find its underlying investments but presume it is just going to invest in other passive vanguard funds. It seems by law the DIS needs to follow the CAF Reference Portfolio being: 60% FTSE MPF All-World Index (HKD unhedged total return) + 37% Citi MPF World Government Bond Index (HKD hedged total return) + 3% cash or money market instruments providing a return at MPF Prescribed Savings Rate (HKD unhedged total return).

    In relation to any MPF funds investing into any trackers (for example 2800.HK) I can't find any evidence that the MPF provider fees are net of the ETF provider fees. This leads me to suggest that the MPF fund pays the tracker fees of 0.09% AND then charges the MPF subscriber their fees of whatever it is (0.7 - 0.9%). If that's the case, they are just making pure profit for doing nothing. Happy to be proven wrong.


  3. #33

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cramped island
    Posts
    5,585

    actually i find this puzzling.

    1. the overall mpf scheme is open. hk govt invited mpf participants/banks to join and continuously accept participants.
    2. disregard the earlier participants that charged high fees, anyone that thinks this is a lucrative market can easily charge must lower fees and win over market shares. which supposedly is a large pie.

    so, why are the other guys not doing this ?
    this is not a closed market, there are so many people that can join in the foray..
    doubt any of the banks will collude nor we talking about a dual-poly type of arrangement where nobody tried to undercut one another.. here we are talking about many global banks/insurance companies that can all stick their foot in for a share.

    why ?

    i have no answer. just throwing out a question


  4. #34

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,711
    Quote Originally Posted by freeier:
    actually i find this puzzling.

    1. the overall mpf scheme is open. hk govt invited mpf participants/banks to join and continuously accept participants.
    2. disregard the earlier participants that charged high fees, anyone that thinks this is a lucrative market can easily charge must lower fees and win over market shares. which supposedly is a large pie.

    so, why are the other guys not doing this ?
    this is not a closed market, there are so many people that can join in the foray..
    doubt any of the banks will collude nor we talking about a dual-poly type of arrangement where nobody tried to undercut one another.. here we are talking about many global banks/insurance companies that can all stick their foot in for a share.

    why ?

    i have no answer. just throwing out a question
    Because in typical HK government fashion they have made it only theoretically open and impose 700 conditions before someone can join

    And on top of it, low fees is not an important criteria for those who chose the MPF provider, ie the companies not the individuals.

    As a company, convenience, access to loans and other bank products, etc etc are all more important than fees.

    This is why Webb always says that individuals should be able to chose their mpf provider, not companies. I think the market would adjust rapidly in such a scenario

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4