@@projectumbrellahk “因為儲蓄保險背後牽涉嘅概念遠多於純粹既單一產品投資,而更多同整體資產配置有關。呢度篇幅有限,不多講了。有機會我可以分享保單明細比呢位同行睇。” 一睇就知已經狡辯到冇得再解釋,所以就話 “篇幅有限,不多講”。 有少許金融同投資知識嘅都知道,過往有海量嘅研究同數據顯示,主動型投資基金整體回報長遠輸俾低成本被動型基金,因為前者成本太高,同時間,Wall Street所謂嘅專業投資者好難長遠嚟講(強調係長遠)準確預測市場走向,然後因應預測有效選擇投資項目。被動型投資根本唔需要識選股選債,唔好講到專業投資者有咩優勢,因為數據事實上根本上係冇。 有關嘅學術研究、數據同分析,Professor Damodaran嘅lecture有全面解釋:kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5_NqoOQg9WCpNk 就如Charlie Munger所述,"How many managers are going to beat the indexes? All costs considered, I would say maybe 5% could consistently meet the averages... Everybody else is living in a state of extreme denial. They're used to charging big fees and so forth for stuff that isn't doing their clients any good. It's a deep moral depravity." 因此,Warren Buffett一直提倡散戶購買低成本指數基金:“When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients.... Both large and small investors should stick with low-cost index funds." 第一年嘅保費全部去咗保險公司同垃圾agent,重點樣low cost?收完錢保險公司有好多年都只係追番之前喪失嘅錢,重要有絕對且嚴重嘅liquidity risk,但冇任何liquidity risk premium。 如果你哋保險公司份portfolio例如equity 果part可以after fees打贏指數,例如MSCI World Index,真係可以切個頭落嚟俾你坐。 唔好講咩 “分散投資” - 你哋都未開始解釋保單下面嘅list of holdings,有咩股票,有咩債權(但事實上唔難估大約有咩)。 "至於我所謂又政治歷史政策哲學層面來講點解應該買儲蓄保險,背後既邏輯就太多了。"