When Fund manager changes, Monitor the fund carefully

One of the things that worry the slightly evolved mutual fund investors is change in fund managers. By the time you figure out that some of the equity funds you have chosen are actually making good money, and that this was because of the actions of someone called a fund manager, you could be hit with the news that the fund manager is changing.

This is a bit of a problem. You see, unlike some funds in the more mature markets, the fund manager is not really a brand in India. People generally invest in a particular fund because it has done well. Or, if they are beginners, they are likely to invest because the fund company is a big brand like ICICI or HDFC or Reliance. At some point, those investors interested in learning how mutual funds work come to know that investment decisions for each fund are taken by a fund manager.

And then they hear a fund manager has changed. This happens a lot. Over the last 24 months alone, there have been 187 fund manager changes for equity funds. The total equity assets managed by the Indian fund industry is Rs2 lakh crore. Over the last 24 months, there has been a change in fund managers handling about Rs98,000 crore - almost half of the total industry.

Is this a problem? Is this something that investors should worry about? Unfortunately, the only reasonable answer is that it depends. It's actually quite hard to figure out quantitatively how much of an impact a change in a fund manager has had on a fund. All equity funds are managed within a context of their investment mandate, their institutional parentage and, obviously, the market conditions. Pin-pointing the exact impact of these factors and that of a fund manager is impossible.

There have been a few cases when a fund manager's exit has led to a slump in funds' performance. However, there have been some cases when a new fund manager has proven to be better than the old one. At the end of the day, there is little in it except to say that when a fund manager changes, investors have to be extra vigilant in monitoring their fund for any changes in performance.

That still leaves investors with the question of why is there such a flux. Why are there so many changes in the management of funds? One reason is that there is generally a lot of flux in all sort of skill based jobs in India. Like any other white-collar job in a growing industry (and especially in financial services), changing jobs is a major way of moving up in one's profession. It's unfortunate that the managements of fund companies are unable to create conditions in which this is not the case, but that's the way it happens.

The other issue is of good fund managers themselves moving up the ladder into marketing and general management jobs to move up in their professions. I've seen this happen time and time again in the fund industry. Once a fund manager gets a good track record, he seems to spend more and more time talking to investors (at least the bigger ones) than on proper fund management.

This is basically a selling job. Or, he's expected to start managing and mentoring junior fund managers, regardless of whether the junior is actually any good at it.

Eventually, he gets out of fund management altogether and becomes CXO, for some value of X. This is great for his career and the way most corporate careers work. However, perhaps fund management jobs should follow a different model, like that of surgeons may be. You don't hear of a good surgeon moving forward in his career by abandoning surgery and becoming a hospital administrator, do you?

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/personal-finance/mutual-funds/analysis/when-fund-manager-changes-monitor-the-fund-carefully/articleshow/9351703.cms?curpg=2

Benefit from flexibility of multi-cap funds

When you put your money in an equity mutual fund, do you also tell the fund manager which stocks to buy? No, and yes. While investors don't give any instructions, a fund with a fixed investment mandate picks only those type of stocks.

For instance, a large-cap fund will invest only in index-based heavyweights and other blue chips. You won't find a small-cap company in its portfolio. This is why large-cap funds tend to move slowly and surely compared with other categories. Similarly, a small-cap fund will focus on smaller companies, forever hoping to zero in on the next Infosys that will turn it into a multibagger.

Multi-cap diversified equity funds have given higher returns

On the other hand, multi-cap funds invest across the entire spectrum of stocks, starting from large-caps all the way down to small-caps. They have a flexible mandate, which helps them pick winners from across market capitalisations.

"Wealth creation happens when the fund management process has flexibility. Multi-cap funds have an in-built mandate to capture the upside across the market spectrum," says Om Ahuja, head of private wealth management and strategy at Emkay Global Financial Services.

The performance of multi-cap diversified equity funds bears this out. In the past three and five years, this category has given higher returns than those from other categories of diversified funds.

Multi-cap funds are the best long term investment option for creating wealth

As companies belonging to different market segments demonstrate different levels of volatility and returns, it is best for investors to hold stocks of varying market capitalisations.

"Multi-cap funds provide the investors with the offer to build a diversified portfolio by giving them access to all kinds of equities," says KN Sivasubramanian, chief investment officer, Franklin Templeton Investments.

For instance, in the past one year, mid- and small-cap funds have done exceedingly well, but in the long-term, multi-cap funds have consistently outperformed the other categories. "Multi-cap funds are the best investment option for creating wealth in the long term," points out Ahuja.

Work in all market conditions

The flexible mandate of multi-cap funds gives them access to greener pastures in all market conditions. At the beginning of a bullish phase, it is usually the large-cap bellwether stocks that do well. Midway through the bull run, these large-cap stocks reach high valuations and the focus of the investing community shifts to mid-cap and then finally small-cap stocks.

"Retail investors cannot gauge which part of the market will perform well-large-caps, mid-cap or small caps. By investing in multi-cap funds, they can gain in all market conditions," says Saurabh Jain, associate vice-president, retail equities research, SMC Global Securities.

In financial crisis, a multi-cap fund will be able to bear redemption pressures The 'go anywhere' strategy works well during downturns as well. "While a given set of conditions may not benefit one part of the multi-cap fund portfolio, it could benefit the other, thereby creating a counter-balance effect that generates long-term results," says Maneesh Kumar, managing director, Burgeon Wealth Advisors. When the bears are on the prowl, small-cap and mid-cap stocks fall harder than large-caps. Multi-cap funds are able to cushion themselves better than funds which are focused only on these vulnerable segments.

A deft fund manager can realign the fund's portfolio rapidly and thus benefit from the changing market mood. "Besides, in a black swan kind of a scenario, such as the financial crisis that we experienced in 2008, a multi-cap fund will be able to bear redemption pressures better compared with a mid- and small-cap fund as it is likely to be more liquid," adds Kumar.

Consistent outperformers

We looked at the performance of the top 15 multi-cap funds during a bull phase and a bearish phase. Except for three instances out of the 30 observations, the multi-cap funds outperformed their benchmarks. Most of the funds outperformed their benchmarks in both the bear and bull phases.

"Multi-cap funds have delivered in all kinds of environments and market sentiments. It is true especially for the top performing ones in the category," says Vinod Sharma, head of private broking and wealth management at HDFC Securities. Apart from the freedom to invest in stocks of any market capitalisation, multi cap funds are also not shackled by any particular investing style.

Benefit from both value and growth investing

These funds can benefit from both value and growth investing, depending on their objectives. "This is because the fund manager can pick from a much larger population of stocks," says Sharma. For instance, Franklin India Flexi Cap Fund is a multi-cap fund and follows a bottom-up approach to stock selection.

The fund's investment objective is to provide investors with a blend of growth and value investment options. The focus is more on individual companies and their potential to create wealth over the long term.

Betting on the fund manager's ability

The fund manager's ability to select stocks is crucial to the success of a mutual fund. However, this becomes even more critical in case of a multi-cap fund. "Investing in a multi-cap fund is akin to investing on the fund manager's capabilities," says Jain.

This is because the risk levels of a multi-cap fund can rapidly change, which requires deft handling by the manager.

The multi-cap fund manager must also manage sectoral allocations

Not only does he have to monitor a larger universe of stocks, but the possibility of making the wrong choice widens due to the freedom granted to him.

If he fails to read the market conditions correctly or is not able to change the allocation of the fund's portfolio, the returns are likely to fall behind. The multi-cap fund manager must also manage his sectoral allocations well. Sectors tend to move in cycles and he should be able to change his allocations depending on the economic cycle. This is why multi-cap funds carry a higher risk than index funds or large-cap funds. Look up the fund manager's track record carefully before you invest in one.

Higher churn, higher costs

Since multi-cap funds have a larger universe of stocks to buy from, their churn also tends to be higher than that of other fund categories. The average portfolio turnover of the multi-cap funds is 79%, while that of large-cap and mid- and small-cap funds are 73% and 64%, respectively. Portfolio turnover is a measure of how frequently assets were bought and sold in a fund by the manager during the course of a year.

The higher the turnover rate, the higher will be the transaction or trading costs for the fund. Although these costs are not included in the fund's expense ratio, they are paid for by the investors' money, not the fund manager's salary. Thus, funds with higher portfolio turnover eat away into the returns. Over the long term, this can affect the returns from the fund significantly.

The churn does not seem to be so abnormal

However, experts don't see this as a significant drawback as long as the fund is able to generate the returns that justify the higher costs. "The churn does not seem to be so abnormal," says Sharma.

Besides, churning depends on the style of investing as well. Both the DSPBR Equity and the Templeton India Equity Income funds are multi-cap schemes. While the former has a portfolio turnover of 216%, the latter's measurement is only 3.49% as it functions on value investing.

"Churning depends on the style of investment. Also, a higher portfolio-turnover need not always lead to higher costs. If the individual bets work, the gains can easily more than cover the trading costs," says Sivasubramanian.

Not taking enough risks

Another drawback of multi-cap funds is that fund managers are somewhat reluctant to allocate a higher percentage of corpus to small- and mid-cap companies. Hence, they are not able to effectively capitalise on the USP of the category. "At the time of redemption pressure, it is difficult to exit mid- and small-cap stocks. Due to liquidity concerns, a multi-cap fund manager may exhibit a large-cap bias to be on the safe side," says Kumar. The non-availability of information could be another reason why the exposure to small-cap and mid-cap stocks is restricted.

However, die-hard fans of multi-cap funds defend the category. "Although one can contend that they could have been more aggressive, the superior returns generated by multi-cap funds belie these allegations. Besides, a rise in the ratio of small-caps in the overall allocation can augment the fund's inherent risk," says Sharma. Experts believe that it is too early to draw any inference about multi-cap funds. "Pure multi-cap funds are rather new in the Indian market. Hence, any evaluation would be unfair as the funds have essentially been around for one market cycle," says Sivasubramanian.

Should you invest?

Multi-cap funds are not of much utility for investors who understand asset allocation and base their investment decisions on it.

"It becomes difficult for investors who follow asset allocation principles to ascertain as to how these funds will fit in their portfolios as these virtually buy anything irrespective of capitalisation or sector," says Kumar. Asset allocation is the most important factor determining a portfolio's performance.

Multi-cap funds make an excellent investment option

Studies show that 94% of the portfolio's returns variance is determined by how funds are spread across asset classes. Only a small portion is determined by market timing and security selection.

Rakesh Rawal, head of private wealth management at Anand Rathi Financial Services, says that if you have a large portfolio, the asset allocation call is best taken between the investor and the financial adviser. In such cases, multi-cap funds lose their relevance. "However, if you have a small portfolio, then multi-cap funds make an excellent investment option," he adds.

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/quickiearticleshow/9258055.cms

Growth or dividend option? Let cash flow needs, tax outgo help you decide

While investing in mutual fund schemes, investors can choose from the dividend or growth option. When it comes to fixed income funds, both the options have certain advantages. But there are some factors to be considered before you make your choice.

CASH FLOW NEEDS

The primary criterion for choosing an option is cash flow requirements .

If there is no interim cash flow requirement, the growth option is better; in this option, the returns are reflected in the movement of the NAV. There are also no hassles in investing the interim cash flows. If there is requirement for interim cash flows from the investment , then the dividend option is better. The frequency of the dividends would be as per the requirements of the investor and the availability of the dividend frequency options (monthly, quarterly, etc) in the fund.

The asset management company (AMC) endeavours to maintain the stated dividend frequency, subject to availability of distributable surplus.

TAX TREATMENT

The other relevant parameter is the tax efficiency of the returns being taken home through the dividend and growth options. Dividends are tax-free in the hands of the investor, but there is a dividend distribution tax (DDT) that is deducted by the AMC on behalf of the investor and passed on to the government.

The rate of the DDT in case of liquid funds is 25% (plus surcharge/cess). For non-liquid fixed income funds, there are two rates of DDT: for individual /HUF investors, it is 12.5% (plus surcharge/cess) and for corporate investors, the rate is 20% (plus surcharge/cess). From June 1, the DDT rate for corporate investors has gone up to 30% for all categories of fixed income funds. In the growth option, the gains are taxable in the hands of the investor, ie, there is no distribution tax. As per the current tax laws, the growth option taxation depends on the holding period: returns from mutual fund units held for a period of less than a year are called short-term capital gains (STCG), and from holdings of more than a year are long-term capital gains (LTCG).

STCG is taxable at the slab rates for individuals; most investors nowadays are in the highest tax bracket of 30% (plus cess). In case of LTCG, the investor has the choice of paying the incometax either at 10% (plus cess) without taking the benefit of cost inflation index or at 20% (plus cess) after taking the benefit of cost indexation. As we see from the tax structure , as per the current tax laws, the choice of dividend/growth option should be based on the intended holding period.

For a horizon of less than a year, the dividend option is better as the individual DDT rate of 12.5% (plus surcharge/cess) is lower than the STCG rate of 30% (plus cess). The only exception to this would be an individual who is in the 10% tax slab, for whom the STCG tax rate would be lower, but that would be a rare case. For a horizon of more than a year, the growth option is preferable , as the 10% (without indexation ) rate is lower than the current DDT rates. The investor should opt for the 20% rate only if the net tax incidence (with indexation benefit) is lower than the 10% rate.

EFFECTS OF DTC

So far so good, in that the choice between dividend and growth options is based on cash flow requirements and tax efficiency.

The grey area comes with the proposed Direct Tax Code (DTC), scheduled to be implemented from April 1, 2012. It is a grey area because at this point of time, it is aproposalwhichisyettobemade into law and may undergo changes by the time it is implemented. As per the proposals, the returns from the dividend option will be clubbed with the income of the investor (ie, there would be no distribution tax) and would be taxable at the slab rates.

In the growth option, there would be no distinction between short-term and long-term holdings as such, but the benefit of indexation would be applicable for a holding period of one year from the end of the financial year in which the asset is acquired . The taxation on the growth option would be as per the slab rates, which means 30% for most investors. Since both dividend and growth options would be taxable at the hands of the investor, there would not be much of a difference in terms of taxation except where the intended holding period would be enough to be eligible for indexation benefit. In that case, the growth option would be more tax efficient.

Joydeep Sen

(CFP, Sr Vice-President – Advisory Desk BNP Paribas Wealth Management)

Source: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-07-06/news/29743785_1_dividend-distribution-tax-dividend-option-growth-option/2

'Living too long a serious threat to Indians'

Banks and other intermediaries who provide access to the National Pension System may now be a bit more forthcoming in opening pension accounts.

The panel, headed by GN Bajpai, looking into revitalizing the National Pension System has recommended that these entities be paid a commission of up to 0.5% of the investment. In an interview with TOI, Bajpai speaks on why the product, despite being the best for retirement savings, needs to be pushed.

The panel has said that financial products have to be pushed.

Any financial product in India has to be sold as nobody queues up for buying any financial insurance product. Have you seen anybody queuing up to buy insurance or mutual funds? That is the ethos of this country. The NPS is a wonderful product, it is the equivalent of pure desi ghee and we have not tampered with the product at all. But it still has to be pushed. Pension is a time bomb which is ticking in Indian society. Without protection, retirees will ultimately become dependent on society.

Your recommendation for ad valorem charges comes at a time when markets like UK are moving away from commissions.

In UK and the West, pension has become a pull product because of the level of financial literacy. But the mindset of Indian society is different and people do not want to think about these requirements. I am talking about the mindset today which may change tomorrow.

What will be the impact of revised charges on investors' savings?

The impact would be that those who make low contribution will be better off. Even for those who pay more it is not that the sky is the limit in respect of charges - there is a limit in absolute terms. Today, there are some commentators who feel that system is loaded in favour of the rich because in percentage terms the smaller investors are paying more in terms of charges.

When you talk about financial inclusion, do you mean to say that a pension plan should be opened with every bank account?

On financial inclusion there is a lot of publicity going around. But when they talk about banking products, they should also be taking about pension and insurance. Living too long is a serious threat to Indians because we have not made adequate provisions. We have always worried about dying too soon but have not made preparations for living too long. Ultimately, why do you want a bank account? It is to park your surplus funds.

Will extending the government scheme to contribute Rs 1,000 into every small investors account not put pressure on the Centre's finances?

If you start expenditure for this, it is actually an investment because money goes straight into the account of the pensioner. Secondly, there is zero leakage because the money cannot be spent and it goes into investment which, in turn, will have a spill over effects. We are not saying that it should go on for ever. It can be reviewed later.

What changes have you proposed for the PFRDA?

Basically, PFRDA will have to build more regulatory capacity. When you have eight or nine fund managers with Rs 10,000 crore it may not matter. But tomorrow when this goes to Rs 1 lakh crore with many more fund managers, a different regulatory capacity would be required.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Living-too-long-a-serious-threat-to-Indians/articleshow/9117883.cms