Never try and time the market. You may get it right a few times, but more often than not you will be wrong.
Be a regular and disciplined investor. Even the wisest cannot predict the market. Warren Buffet lost billions in the crash of 2008. Ratan Tata went on record saying that if he had known of the coming slump in global markets, he would not have gone ahead with the Corus and JLR deals, at least not at the prices that he paid. In 2008, when the Sensex slumped from 22000 to 8000 every equity fund slipped by at least 50%. When the markets rose by 50%, from 8000 to 12000 most funds managed only a 15-20% upside.
What I am trying to get to is that even the best of the best in the business find it impossible to predict such movements. As a retail investor you don’t stand much of a chance of being correct. Even if you manage to catch the downside or the upside, it is more a question of luck than any skill.
Friday 26 June 2009
Friday 19 June 2009
SEBI’s latest ruling on mutual funds - its impact and after-effects
SEBI’s recent announcement on mutual funds has two important bearings:
1. There would be no entry load on any mutual fund investment
2. Distributors would have to negotiate their commission with their investors
No arguments about the first point, it is of immense benefit to the investor. This will probably lead to a higher exit load which is good for investors since they would be incentivized to hold their investments long-term. A couple of years back when there was no entry load for SIPs, but was later withdrawn.
As far as the second point is concerned, I think it is a good move, but ahead of its time. The Indian investor is still not well informed in matters relating to investments and mutual funds. Besides, the penetration of mutual funds is rather low. Insofar as investor education is concerned, we have a long way to go before we can bring ourselves at par with the developed markets (whose systems and methods we are keen to emulate).
Though in the long-term the move will prove to be good for the financial planning industry and for the investor, it will have several short-term impacts that may be deterrent to the interests of the small investors, distributors as well as the mutual fund industry.
1. INVESTORS MAY END UP PAYING A HIGHER COMMISSION: On the commission issue, I foresee a lot of unnecessary bargaining happening between the distributor and the investor. In fact, distributors maybe charging a higher rate now -- say Rs 500 on Rs 5000 investment. Even if the investor bargains and brings it down by 50%, he would still be paying a much higher fee / load than was applicable earlier. Since a fair percentage of investors today are not even aware of the kind of commission the distributors get or that there is anything called an entry load, they might feel happy about the bargain. However, they could be paying a much higher percentage as commission.
2. COMMISSIONS MAY BE PAID IN CASH: Distributors may also charge commission in cash, leading to loss of both service tax (that the distributor would now be liable to pay) and as well as income tax to the government. Small amounts of commission – perhaps in the region of Rs 1000 or more may be passed on in cash to the distributor.
3. SIPs MAY SUFFER: SIPs or systematic investment plans may suffer since the investor may not be open to paying commission each month, or paying a lump sum at the beginning of the SIP term. So the distributor would probably stay away from recommending SIPs as lump sum investments are good and less hassle for him/her.
4. DISTRIBUTORS WILL FOCUS ON ULIPs: Distributors may start focusing more on ULIPs where there is low transparency regarding the commission going out to the agent. Since commissions are much higher in ULIPs, the obvious tendency for ‘sellers’ of both would be to maximize their revenue by proposing ULIPs and presenting them as mutual funds. Again, the small retail investor will lose out. As it is there is enough talk of ‘mis-selling’ of ULIPs.
5. EXPENSES TO INCREASE AFFECTING NAVs OF MUTUAL FUNDS: To get into more nitty-gritty of things, the charges are going to go up. One reason for this would be that mutual fund houses would probably work on higher trails and various marketing schemes to keep distributors happy (incidentally 90% of all business of mutual funds comes from distributors). Where would money for all this come from? From charges, which result in reduction of the NAV. Again who will suffer more? The small retail investor.
There is immense amount that SEBI and mutual fund houses can and need to do to increase investor awareness and grow the market. Ad hoc measures like this and an uneven playing field among various financial products would only lead to more confusion initially and consequent mis-selling by distributors. Unless tackled at a much broader level, the small and uninformed investor will continue to pay the price and will remain a small participant.
1. There would be no entry load on any mutual fund investment
2. Distributors would have to negotiate their commission with their investors
No arguments about the first point, it is of immense benefit to the investor. This will probably lead to a higher exit load which is good for investors since they would be incentivized to hold their investments long-term. A couple of years back when there was no entry load for SIPs, but was later withdrawn.
As far as the second point is concerned, I think it is a good move, but ahead of its time. The Indian investor is still not well informed in matters relating to investments and mutual funds. Besides, the penetration of mutual funds is rather low. Insofar as investor education is concerned, we have a long way to go before we can bring ourselves at par with the developed markets (whose systems and methods we are keen to emulate).
Though in the long-term the move will prove to be good for the financial planning industry and for the investor, it will have several short-term impacts that may be deterrent to the interests of the small investors, distributors as well as the mutual fund industry.
1. INVESTORS MAY END UP PAYING A HIGHER COMMISSION: On the commission issue, I foresee a lot of unnecessary bargaining happening between the distributor and the investor. In fact, distributors maybe charging a higher rate now -- say Rs 500 on Rs 5000 investment. Even if the investor bargains and brings it down by 50%, he would still be paying a much higher fee / load than was applicable earlier. Since a fair percentage of investors today are not even aware of the kind of commission the distributors get or that there is anything called an entry load, they might feel happy about the bargain. However, they could be paying a much higher percentage as commission.
2. COMMISSIONS MAY BE PAID IN CASH: Distributors may also charge commission in cash, leading to loss of both service tax (that the distributor would now be liable to pay) and as well as income tax to the government. Small amounts of commission – perhaps in the region of Rs 1000 or more may be passed on in cash to the distributor.
3. SIPs MAY SUFFER: SIPs or systematic investment plans may suffer since the investor may not be open to paying commission each month, or paying a lump sum at the beginning of the SIP term. So the distributor would probably stay away from recommending SIPs as lump sum investments are good and less hassle for him/her.
4. DISTRIBUTORS WILL FOCUS ON ULIPs: Distributors may start focusing more on ULIPs where there is low transparency regarding the commission going out to the agent. Since commissions are much higher in ULIPs, the obvious tendency for ‘sellers’ of both would be to maximize their revenue by proposing ULIPs and presenting them as mutual funds. Again, the small retail investor will lose out. As it is there is enough talk of ‘mis-selling’ of ULIPs.
5. EXPENSES TO INCREASE AFFECTING NAVs OF MUTUAL FUNDS: To get into more nitty-gritty of things, the charges are going to go up. One reason for this would be that mutual fund houses would probably work on higher trails and various marketing schemes to keep distributors happy (incidentally 90% of all business of mutual funds comes from distributors). Where would money for all this come from? From charges, which result in reduction of the NAV. Again who will suffer more? The small retail investor.
There is immense amount that SEBI and mutual fund houses can and need to do to increase investor awareness and grow the market. Ad hoc measures like this and an uneven playing field among various financial products would only lead to more confusion initially and consequent mis-selling by distributors. Unless tackled at a much broader level, the small and uninformed investor will continue to pay the price and will remain a small participant.
Tuesday 16 June 2009
Financial Planning mantra #7
When is a good time to start investing? Simple answer - NOW!
Should I start now or wait till I get my bonus next month. Many people drag their feet when it comes to saving money. It is always NEXT week, NEXT month, NEXT year, NEXT increment, NEXT bonus. It is a never ending NEXT cycle. Time flies by and before you get down to it in a serious manner, maybe even 5 or 10 years have gone by. The cost of a 10-year delay (in starting) can be as huge as 50%. In other words, if you start at age 40 instead of age 30, the difference in the end corpus can be as much as 50% plus.
The longer you are able to grow your investments, the better returns you are bound to see. The ‘power of compounding’ kicks in only when you have given your investments a long time to grow. Hence, the earlier you start, the better it is for you.
Mark Twain has rightly put it - October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August and February. Simply put, there is no ‘safe’ month (which you should wait for) to start your investments.
Should I start now or wait till I get my bonus next month. Many people drag their feet when it comes to saving money. It is always NEXT week, NEXT month, NEXT year, NEXT increment, NEXT bonus. It is a never ending NEXT cycle. Time flies by and before you get down to it in a serious manner, maybe even 5 or 10 years have gone by. The cost of a 10-year delay (in starting) can be as huge as 50%. In other words, if you start at age 40 instead of age 30, the difference in the end corpus can be as much as 50% plus.
The longer you are able to grow your investments, the better returns you are bound to see. The ‘power of compounding’ kicks in only when you have given your investments a long time to grow. Hence, the earlier you start, the better it is for you.
Mark Twain has rightly put it - October: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August and February. Simply put, there is no ‘safe’ month (which you should wait for) to start your investments.
Tuesday 9 June 2009
Financial Planning mantra #6
Investment in ULIPs should be for a period of 10 years (minimum) or more, since it is a long term investment product and not an option for insurance cover.
Investors seeking insurance often end up investing in ULIPs, not realizing that ULIPs are market-linked and focus more on returns than on providing sufficient insurance cover.
ULIPs are investment products with very heavy costs (entry loads) in the initial 3 years, the highest being in Year 1. Broadly speaking, it can range from 10% to as high as 60% in Year 1. In short, if you are paying a premium of Rs 1 lakh annually, only Rs 40,000 is invested. Rs 60,000 is a sunk cost. So before investing in any ULIP, always check on the initial costs. The costs in the next two years are additional.
I have come across a number of people who buy ‘insurance’ in the form of ULIPs which are of 3-5 years of duration. There are three vital mismatches here:
- ULIPs are primarily investment products with little focus on the quantum of insurance
- In order to get good returns on short-term ULIPs (of 3-5 years maturity), one has to be very lucky, since the costs are prohibitive in the first 3 years, especially.
- If you pay the premium for the first 3 years only (when the costs are at their peak), then you tend to lose out. In the later years larger sums of your premium get invested (since costs are lower), so the chances of getting much better returns is more in the long run (10-20 years).
If the investor has a horizon of 3-5 years only, ULIPs are not ideal products to invest in. ULIPs are good products provided your time horizon is 10 years or more and you purchase it as another asset class of investment and not as insurance.
Investors seeking insurance often end up investing in ULIPs, not realizing that ULIPs are market-linked and focus more on returns than on providing sufficient insurance cover.
ULIPs are investment products with very heavy costs (entry loads) in the initial 3 years, the highest being in Year 1. Broadly speaking, it can range from 10% to as high as 60% in Year 1. In short, if you are paying a premium of Rs 1 lakh annually, only Rs 40,000 is invested. Rs 60,000 is a sunk cost. So before investing in any ULIP, always check on the initial costs. The costs in the next two years are additional.
I have come across a number of people who buy ‘insurance’ in the form of ULIPs which are of 3-5 years of duration. There are three vital mismatches here:
- ULIPs are primarily investment products with little focus on the quantum of insurance
- In order to get good returns on short-term ULIPs (of 3-5 years maturity), one has to be very lucky, since the costs are prohibitive in the first 3 years, especially.
- If you pay the premium for the first 3 years only (when the costs are at their peak), then you tend to lose out. In the later years larger sums of your premium get invested (since costs are lower), so the chances of getting much better returns is more in the long run (10-20 years).
If the investor has a horizon of 3-5 years only, ULIPs are not ideal products to invest in. ULIPs are good products provided your time horizon is 10 years or more and you purchase it as another asset class of investment and not as insurance.
Tuesday 2 June 2009
Financial Planning mantra #5
Invest in New Fund Offers (NFOs) of mutual funds ONLY if there is something really very unique about them or it is the first of its kind. Even then, evaluate before you invest.
Each time a NFO hits the market you are bombarded with great flyers, posters, ads and presentations to convince you that this is the right time to invest. As an advisor, I have kept away from most ‘me-too’ NFOs. But I must humbly admit, in my initial days, I too failed to realize the ‘disguise’ in a few NFOs. Thankfully, I could not muster more than a handful of clients (some of whom themselves came forward) to invest in them, probably because somewhere in my mind I was not fully convinced. Today, three-and-a-half years and over 100 NFOs later I am a much wiser man. At all NFO-distributor meets, I pull out all stops to ask all wise and foolish questions. Because till the time I am fully convinced, I should not be taking it to my clients.
The only ‘plus’ point in any NFO is that ‘they do not carry any deadwood’ (as a friend of mine puts it).
Two major why investors fall for NFOs are:
- Most people equate a mutual fund ‘unit’ with that of a ‘share’ and consequently believe that a fund with a Rs 10 NAV is cheaper than that with a NAV of Rs 50. In mutual funds, there is no difference. In fact, a fund with a higher NAV is better, in the sense, it is more ‘experienced’. Of course, this cannot be applied as a blanket rule while choosing funds.
- Aggressive ‘selling’ (because of higher commission rates) by the banks (through ‘financial advisors’ and ‘relationship managers’) and individual distributors
Of late, I have noticed fund houses coming out with NFOs to shore up their AUMs (assets under management). Incoming money into equity funds had almost dried up from mid-2008 through the first few months of this year. With huge drop in share prices, the AUMs of all funds came down drastically. With sentiment improving, the last two months has seen fund houses ‘putting old wine in new bottle’ so that they can collect a few hundred or thousand crore (which would not happen under normal conditions).
The fund houses claim that the one of the purposes of a NFO is to grow the low base of retail investors (from 2%). But this logic is beyond my realm of understanding. If they really wanted more investors, they should focus more on their existing funds and show higher returns rather than just trying to mop up money in the name of growing the market. Look at it logically:
- Any one putting in money into an NFO would in all probability be an existing investor in mutual funds.
- A new investor (with no past experience in mutual funds) would come in only if he is made to believe that a Rs 10 NFO is cheaper. So he is made to start off on a false premise. It is not going to be long before he feels ‘cheated’ and vanishes forever.
Today NFOs have become a money mopping up exercise. Almost all kinds of permutation and combinations of funds are already there in the market (the only thing that is still not there is a ‘Silver ETF’).
A fund manager recently lamented that the size of the entire MF industry is less than one month’s of domestic savings. It is bound to be till fund managers and AMCs realize that the way to grow the size of this industry is to record higher and better performances of existing funds (thereby attracting fresh and new retail investors) and not by bringing out NFOs.
Each time a NFO hits the market you are bombarded with great flyers, posters, ads and presentations to convince you that this is the right time to invest. As an advisor, I have kept away from most ‘me-too’ NFOs. But I must humbly admit, in my initial days, I too failed to realize the ‘disguise’ in a few NFOs. Thankfully, I could not muster more than a handful of clients (some of whom themselves came forward) to invest in them, probably because somewhere in my mind I was not fully convinced. Today, three-and-a-half years and over 100 NFOs later I am a much wiser man. At all NFO-distributor meets, I pull out all stops to ask all wise and foolish questions. Because till the time I am fully convinced, I should not be taking it to my clients.
The only ‘plus’ point in any NFO is that ‘they do not carry any deadwood’ (as a friend of mine puts it).
Two major why investors fall for NFOs are:
- Most people equate a mutual fund ‘unit’ with that of a ‘share’ and consequently believe that a fund with a Rs 10 NAV is cheaper than that with a NAV of Rs 50. In mutual funds, there is no difference. In fact, a fund with a higher NAV is better, in the sense, it is more ‘experienced’. Of course, this cannot be applied as a blanket rule while choosing funds.
- Aggressive ‘selling’ (because of higher commission rates) by the banks (through ‘financial advisors’ and ‘relationship managers’) and individual distributors
Of late, I have noticed fund houses coming out with NFOs to shore up their AUMs (assets under management). Incoming money into equity funds had almost dried up from mid-2008 through the first few months of this year. With huge drop in share prices, the AUMs of all funds came down drastically. With sentiment improving, the last two months has seen fund houses ‘putting old wine in new bottle’ so that they can collect a few hundred or thousand crore (which would not happen under normal conditions).
The fund houses claim that the one of the purposes of a NFO is to grow the low base of retail investors (from 2%). But this logic is beyond my realm of understanding. If they really wanted more investors, they should focus more on their existing funds and show higher returns rather than just trying to mop up money in the name of growing the market. Look at it logically:
- Any one putting in money into an NFO would in all probability be an existing investor in mutual funds.
- A new investor (with no past experience in mutual funds) would come in only if he is made to believe that a Rs 10 NFO is cheaper. So he is made to start off on a false premise. It is not going to be long before he feels ‘cheated’ and vanishes forever.
Today NFOs have become a money mopping up exercise. Almost all kinds of permutation and combinations of funds are already there in the market (the only thing that is still not there is a ‘Silver ETF’).
A fund manager recently lamented that the size of the entire MF industry is less than one month’s of domestic savings. It is bound to be till fund managers and AMCs realize that the way to grow the size of this industry is to record higher and better performances of existing funds (thereby attracting fresh and new retail investors) and not by bringing out NFOs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)