It's now getting close to a year since the SEBI's abolition of entry load on mutual fund loads. Over this year, much has been said and written about how an old business model will have to change and how people will transition to a new one and so on.
But looking at what has happened, one negative impact of SEBI's directive is very clear. It is now utterly uneconomic for anyone in the mutual fund industry to serve smaller retail investors. Unless some unforeseen miracle happens, from now on, mutual fund investment is an activity that will be entirely limited to wealthy individuals.
Let's see why this is so. Consider an investor who is a typical starting small saver in my experience. He would probably invest something in the range of Rs 10,000. If he's figured things out a bit better, he would also start an SIP (systematic investment plan), probably about Rs 2,000 a month for a period of one year, to begin with. As things stand now, the advisor who has done the job of convincing this investor to invest stands to get about remunerated with about Rs 75, to begin with. Later, after a year, he starts getting a continuous commission of about Rs 25 a month, likely paid quarterly.
This is the trail commission for the total accumulated investment of Rs 34,000 as well as an estimated gain of 10% a year. Eventually, the customer might invest more and the money will accumulate. However, that requires a certain period of customer support and hand-holding and contact. The question is, is there money in the system to pay for these services?
If you multiply the above numbers by five or ten, then there is. A rich investor — the word rich is now taboo, so, we now use the awkward euphemism high net worth individual — who puts in Rs 1 lakh and then Rs 10,000 or 20,000 a month would be a customer who would not find any problem in being serviced well. However, at the basic level, there isn't.
Is there no way that a customer can be serviced at lower investment levels? There is, but only if that customer already has some other financial connection with the service provider and the cost of customer contact and acquisition can be amortised over a larger business. In practice, this means banks. It's only your bank that could find it economic to sell you a mutual fund for a small amount. Unfortunately, that's not a great solution for the customer. Of all the various kinds of entities that distribute mutual funds, banks have the worst track record of systematic mis-selling. In any case, banks are far more interested in guiding all possible customers towards products with the highest possible commissions.
In effect, that's the situation now. Simple business economics, combined with the way mutual fund regulations have evolved, has ensured that the small investor is unlikely to become a mutual fund customer.
Mind you, this is not an argument for creating upfront incentives. No matter what today's problems are, it must not be forgotten that the root of all mis-selling in all financial products is distorted incentives.
Therefore, higher upfront commissions — or any upfront commissions at all — are certainly not a solution. From the investor's point of view, the best outcome is a long period of good returns and the only solution is a compensation system that rewards the intermediary for that.
--
___________________________________________________________________________________
'I made my money by selling too soon.'
Website: http://indianmutualfund.co.cc/
Blog:http://indianmutualfund.wordpress.com/
___________________________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment