Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-05-2019, 12:50 AM.
Post: #51
Felt iFast is doing high stake gambit in China. Quite a number SG companies tried and failed. Hope iFast management knows what they are doing

Find Reply
04-05-2019, 11:12 AM.
Post: #52
The good days for fund distributors is over.

There is plenty of competition for fund management services at never before seen low cost to consumers. There are the traditional distributors, and then the Super Apps (and other still growing wanna-bes), and then the start-ups offering 'auto asset allocation.'

To the consumer, what is particularly attractive of FSM over these competitors?

As for its securities brokerage business, why not go for the many pure-brokerage players already available in the SG/HK market?

If iFAST's profitability is a function of stock market prices/sentiment, why not consider buying a market index instead, where there is no exposure to the competitive industry of iFAST's business?

And finally, are prospects reasonably good for iFAST to be trading at 30x FY18 earnings?

Find Reply
04-05-2019, 12:33 PM. (This post was last modified: 04-05-2019, 12:34 PM by gzbkel.)
Post: #53
>As for its securities brokerage business, why not go for the many pure-brokerage players already available in the SG/HK market?

iFast is not bad for purchasing HK shares. Compared to other brokers:
- They don't charge dividend handling fees
- No recurring custodian fees
- Lower trading cost
- For conversion between HKD and SGD, price is about 0.5% more than that quoted by XE, compared to about 1%+ more for lets say DBS vickers (Biggest difference IMO)

I plan to gradually sell my HK stocks held by DBS vickers, and buy using iFast.

Just commenting as a user of iFast. (No idea about the business prospects)

Find Reply
05-05-2019, 08:44 AM. (This post was last modified: 05-05-2019, 08:45 AM by karlmarx.)
Post: #54
Thanks for sharing.

I have yet to make any offshore purchases, so I am not familiar with such details. But at some later time, when there is something that catches my eye, I expect to do so.

I do acknowledge that the savings from using less established brokers to transact can be attractive. But with regards to offshore purchases, counter party risk is still my main concern. And to mitigate this risk, I will be willing to pay slightly higher transaction costs, to say, DBS, or whoever is 1) financially strong, and 2) uses similarly strong counter parties to perform transactions. If DBS does not have a local office in Hong Kong, and instead uses some small broker in Hong Kong to perform transactions sent from Singapore, then perhaps I may as well use iFAST.

Find Reply
07-10-2019, 11:30 AM.
Post: #55
It seems like the world is shifting to a model with zero fees for trading, can IFast survive in such an environment, i seriously doubt so. It feels to me that Ifast doesnt have enough scale to compete with the larger players, yet ifast is trading at a premium that seems to show good growth. I would get out at today's high price, not a stock to be held for short term or long term in my opinion

Find Reply
14-10-2019, 01:00 PM. (This post was last modified: 14-10-2019, 01:01 PM by vingaard.)
Post: #56
The bulk of iFast's earnings are not from retail investors. The impact is unlikely to be big unless the wholesale segment also moves into zero fees.

Sent from my CPH1917 using Tapatalk

Find Reply

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s) | Return to Top | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication | CONTACT US: |