Dear Anonymous and John
Thank you for the question. Just to clarify on what Samuel from Endowus have shared regarding the use of 2 equity funds that MoneyOwl uses versus the 1 fund that Endowus uses.
The 2 funds MoneyOwl uses (the Global Core Equity Fund and the EM Large Cap Core Equity Fund) has a combined total expense ratio (TER) of 0.37-0.38%, as compared to the 0.43% of the World Equity Fund used by Endowus. Also, the 2 funds that MoneyOwl uses track the MSCI World and the MSCI EM respectively, and are a cost effective way of getting diversified equity exposure. Our 88%12% Global/EM split reflects the MSCI All Country World Index, which is typically used to represent World Equity exposure.
This is not to say that the DFA World Equity Fund used by Endowus is of lesser quality than the one that MoneyOwl uses. We believe that all 3 funds can give investors a good investment experience at a cost that is efficient. We just wanted to clarify that it is not true that the World Equity Fund used by Endowus relative to the 2 funds MoneyOwl uses is the most cost effective way in implementation from Dimensional. At the end of the day, it is how each company wants to execute the asset allocation for their clients in the best way where they think it will give them the best investment outcome after taking cost into consideration. In this regard, both Endowus and MoneyOwl use funds that are considerably lower than what is offered elsewhere.
With regard to Fixed Income, MoneyOwl’s philosophy is that the fixed income portion of the portfolio is used for diversification across asset classes and for its negative correlation to equities, effectively acting as a buffer to the equity component in a portfolio during times of volatility. As such, we focus on high investment grade (A and above) bonds that are stable and are fully hedged to SGD so that the returns are not eroded by unfavourable currency movements. The fund has a TER of 0.29% and does not have emerging market bond exposure, but instead has a well-diversified portfolio of about 180 issues (bonds) across 16 countries that make up a large part of the global bond market. It is designed to be part of a total return portfolio to capture and improve expected returns from both yields and capital gains based on information readily observable in bond prices today, without having to forecast what may happen to yield curves around the world in the future. Our goal is for fixed income to provide a high level of portfolio stability during times of market stress to allow our clients to remain invested in their portfolios to capture long term equity returns.
In addition, I would like to clarify that iFAST does not own Providend contrary to what was mentioned by Samuel from Endowus. While it is true that iFAST is a corporate shareholder of Providend, Providend is majority owned by individual shareholders and most of them are employee shareholders of which I am the biggest individual shareholder of Providend. And although iFAST is a corporate shareholder of Providend we are not obliged to use them. Our corporate governance would not allow that. In fact, we had relationship with Navigator and also currently have a relationship with another platform, FAME by Philip Securities. We are also free to use other platforms such as Havenport, Saxo and the like. Some of these platforms have approached us and we have also approached some of them before. But having spend the last 2 decades working with various platforms, and having managed end consumers' money through various crises especially the GFC in 2008, we have come to realise that besides cost, factors such as quality of platform, especially in terms of client service, accuracy in reporting and experience serving large number of advisory clients are very important, especially when markets become difficult. While we try to keep cost efficient. We are mindful that we need to balance it with having a safe, secure and experienced platform/custodian as that is the place where we "store" our clients' hard earned money. As MoneyOwl's asset under management becomes bigger, we will always try to bring this custodian and platform cost down for our clients.
In my personal opinion, both MoneyOwl and Endowus are good companies that investors can trust. Both companies serve clients with different needs and preferences. Both companies try to be as cost efficient as possible for our clients and to do the right thing. Ultimately, investors should decide who to use to build wealth based on which company can better serve their needs. I would be happy if Singaporeans use either Endowus or MoneyOwl to build their wealth. I think their money is in good hands.
Dear Anonymous and John
Thank you for the question. Just to clarify on what Samuel from Endowus have shared regarding the use of 2 equity funds that MoneyOwl uses versus the 1 fund that Endowus uses.
The 2 funds MoneyOwl uses (the Global Core Equity Fund and the EM Large Cap Core Equity Fund) has a combined total expense ratio (TER) of 0.37-0.38%, as compared to the 0.43% of the World Equity Fund used by Endowus. Also, the 2 funds that MoneyOwl uses track the MSCI World and the MSCI EM respectively, and are a cost effective way of getting diversified equity exposure. Our 88%12% Global/EM split reflects the MSCI All Country World Index, which is typically used to represent World Equity exposure.
This is not to say that the DFA World Equity Fund used by Endowus is of lesser quality than the one that MoneyOwl uses. We believe that all 3 funds can give investors a good investment experience at a cost that is efficient. We just wanted to clarify that it is not true that the World Equity Fund used by Endowus relative to the 2 funds MoneyOwl uses is the most cost effective way in implementation from Dimensional. At the end of the day, it is how each company wants to execute the asset allocation for their clients in the best way where they think it will give them the best investment outcome after taking cost into consideration. In this regard, both Endowus and MoneyOwl use funds that are considerably lower than what is offered elsewhere.
With regard to Fixed Income, MoneyOwl’s philosophy is that the fixed income portion of the portfolio is used for diversification across asset classes and for its negative correlation to equities, effectively acting as a buffer to the equity component in a portfolio during times of volatility. As such, we focus on high investment grade (A and above) bonds that are stable and are fully hedged to SGD so that the returns are not eroded by unfavourable currency movements. The fund has a TER of 0.29% and does not have emerging market bond exposure, but instead has a well-diversified portfolio of about 180 issues (bonds) across 16 countries that make up a large part of the global bond market. It is designed to be part of a total return portfolio to capture and improve expected returns from both yields and capital gains based on information readily observable in bond prices today, without having to forecast what may happen to yield curves around the world in the future. Our goal is for fixed income to provide a high level of portfolio stability during times of market stress to allow our clients to remain invested in their portfolios to capture long term equity returns.
In addition, I would like to clarify that iFAST does not own Providend contrary to what was mentioned by Samuel from Endowus. While it is true that iFAST is a corporate shareholder of Providend, Providend is majority owned by individual shareholders and most of them are employee shareholders of which I am the biggest individual shareholder of Providend. And although iFAST is a corporate shareholder of Providend we are not obliged to use them. Our corporate governance would not allow that. In fact, we had relationship with Navigator and also currently have a relationship with another platform, FAME by Philip Securities. We are also free to use other platforms such as Havenport, Saxo and the like. Some of these platforms have approached us and we have also approached some of them before. But having spend the last 2 decades working with various platforms, and having managed end consumers' money through various crises especially the GFC in 2008, we have come to realise that besides cost, factors such as quality of platform, especially in terms of client service, accuracy in reporting and experience serving large number of advisory clients are very important, especially when markets become difficult. While we try to keep cost efficient. We are mindful that we need to balance it with having a safe, secure and experienced platform/custodian as that is the place where we "store" our clients' hard earned money. As MoneyOwl's asset under management becomes bigger, we will always try to bring this custodian and platform cost down for our clients.
In my personal opinion, both MoneyOwl and Endowus are good companies that investors can trust. Both companies serve clients with different needs and preferences. Both companies try to be as cost efficient as possible for our clients and to do the right thing. Ultimately, investors should decide who to use to build wealth based on which company can better serve their needs. I would be happy if Singaporeans use either Endowus or MoneyOwl to build their wealth. I think their money is in good hands.