Regulations
Much-maligned entry load was a cheaper option!

Cold calculations show that such is the draconian charges SEBI plans to introduce for fund investors, that even the horrible practice of entry load would have been a cheaper option for investors. The new charges also perversely penalise committed investors

Exactly three years ago the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) abolished entry load in order to reduce costs for the investors and induce investments. However, investors didn’t seem too keen and instead of inflows, we have seen a total net outflow of nearly Rs20,000 crore from equity funds till July 2012. Sometime later the regulator also brought in a transaction charge for investments above Rs10,000 to incentivise distributors. However, a majority of distributors opted out from the transaction charge. Now, in order to increase penetration into cities other than the top 15, SEBI has allowed the asset management companies (AMCs) to charge up to a maximum 30 basis points (bps) extra in the total expense ratio (TER) on the total corpus of the scheme.
 

Here is the strange fallout that bureaucrats in SEBI either overlooked or knew about. The proposed regulation will actually be more expensive than the highly controversial entry load that was abolished! This move may help increase penetration (we feel will it will only encourage unethical practices) but at whose cost? The additional TER will be charged to the entire corpus and investors would have to forego a part of their returns for the benefit of the AMCs. And SEBI not only is asking existing fund investors to subsidise the marketing efforts of fund companies but is hitting where it hurts most—long-term holding.
 

Let us analyse how the additional TER will affect the performance of a scheme which most analysts have kept quiet about, possibly because of vested interests.
 

We will look at three different scenarios, one is the present scenario where there is no entry load charged, the second is where an entry load of 2% is charged and the third is where there is an additional TER of 30 bps is charged. We have assumed the schemes deliver a return of 10% in all scenarios before deducting costs.
 

In the present scenario, ignoring the transaction fee (as it is not applicable to all distributors), if one invests say Rs1 lakh in an equity mutual fund scheme which charges the maximum TER of 2.50% and makes a return of 10% pre-expenses, the investor would have a corpus of Rs4.06 lakh after 20 years. This would mean that post expenses the investor earns a return of just 7.25% compounded annually. Not at all attractive for investors to give up the safety of bank deposits.
 

In the earlier regime, when entry load was applicable, the invested corpus would get reduced by 2% at the start. Therefore if an investor puts in Rs1 lakh, the amount invested would be Rs98,000. If this grows by 10% and if the expense ratio is 2.5%, the investor would be left with Rs3.97 lakhs after 20 years, working out to an annual compounded rate of 7.14% post-expenses. Note that the entry load made a dent on the return, but a small one.

 

Now if SEBI goes ahead and allows fund companies to charge the additional TER, the TER would go up to 2.80%. At that expense ratio, after 20 years, Rs1 lakh at 10% return before expenses would grow to Rs3.81 lakhs at a compounded rate of 6.92%. This is lower than 7.14% return that comes from 2.5% expense ratio and 2% entry load. Returns work out better when entry load is charged! In fact, with a 2.8% expense ratio, approximately just after six years, the total returns post-expenses, starts falling behind scenario 2 (2% entry load plus 2.5% expense ratio). The lesson: if you are a long-term investor, you will be penalised, even as SEBI and fund companies preach at every breath the benefits of long-term investing.

In order to negate the additional TER, SEBI has asked AMCs to create a separate plan for direct investors with a lower expense ratio. Seeing the practices of AMCs in the past, they may just reduce the TER by 30 bps which they would be charging to reach smaller cities.

Clearly, the great mutual fund experts, who are in the SEBI board and SEBI’s mutual advisory committee, have either not applied their mind or decided to be the mouthpiece of the fund industry to the detriment of investors’ interests. Some critics have said that SEBI has just managed to complicate the industry even further. Why is there a need to charge an additional TER to the entire corpus? In order to compensate the AMCs for reaching smaller towns and cities, SEBI could have just reverted back to the “entry load” for just these cities. It would have benefited the investors of these cities in the long run, as well. The AMCs too would have made their cut for reaching smaller investors. This would reduce costs for the AMCs as well as they would not have to put in resources for creating a separate plan for the direct mode. But the fact that these simple and commonsensical ideas are not in the proposal indicates mal-intent and not incompetence.
 


User

COMMENTS

Narain Jagirdar

4 years ago

This shows there are few regulators in India who work for the common man for whom they are there in the first place. Leads me to suspect SEBI is sleeping, in which case it is time to wake them up, or it is trying to hoodwink the public but stealthily working for the funds. If the latter be true, time for the public to regulate the regulator by asking the government to pull up the regulator.

NAYAN

4 years ago

Now, it is time to draw attention of Finance Ministry. It seems that in the month of June, Finance ministry spoke publically to do something regarding Mutual Fund Industry and SEBI did the thing in hurry.

NAYAN

4 years ago

Now, it is time to draw attention of Finance Ministry. It seems that in the month of June, Finance ministry spoke publically to do something regarding Mutual Fund Industry and SEBI did the thing in hurry.

REPLY

Sabapathy Narayanan

In Reply to NAYAN 4 years ago

U R RIGHT.
We will have to bring it to the notice of Finance Ministry & office of PMO about the pros & cons of latest circular of SEBI. Their intervention is must to revitalize the industry. Only God has to help and save!
Sabapathy Narayanan

Vaibhav Dhoka

4 years ago

SEBI is moving away from its PREAMBLE To protect investors intrest to Protect:-AMC'c Brokers and other intermediarias.GOD SAVE US FROM SEBI's Clutches.Instead of being SAVIOURS They arebecome KILLERS.

Sanjay Tiwari

4 years ago

Hi. Great analysys.

I wish this article reaches the concerned like SEBI, FM and others.

Simple Entry load is Win Win for the Long Term investor, Distributor, and Amc's. It means, investor who stays for long periods pays less.

SEBI should open a Tutorial for - HOW TO MESS UP THINGS, AND KILL A INDUSTRY.

God bless us all.

Sanjay Tiwari - Bangalore

Vikas Gupta

4 years ago

You had written & analysed correctly. SEBI is not doing the right things to curb the misselling at all. I am quoting an example:-
Indusind Bank, Rohtak is forcing its Bank Customers to apply MF only through their Broking. If an Customer invests through any other intermediatory, The Customer receives a call from the Home Bank Branch forcing him/her to invest only through them. If The Customer submits the application at any office situated beyond Home Bank Branch,HE/She is forced back to redeem/Switch over his/her purchase though any other intermediatory but SEBI/AMFI is unable to stop this unethical practices of Indusind Bank at all.

PPM

4 years ago

It will be better if SEBI will take care only the stock market and leave the MF space altogether. The big bosses in SEBI seems to be idiotic in common terms.

Nandan Gumaste

4 years ago

Hi Jason,

You call entry load highly controversial, a horrible practice, and still advocate it for small city investors.Why?If entry load is bad, it is bad for large as well as small city investors.It seems you are as confused as SEBI.If Rs 20000 crores have been withdrawn from Equity MFs, AMCs need to reach out to large city investors as well.Everybody, SEBI, AMFI, the media and the distributors should focus on this aspect, rather than shooting in the dark

REPLY

Rakesh

In Reply to Nandan Gumaste 4 years ago

This is all you understood of this analysis? Great

vijai pratap

4 years ago

sir,
thx for your well-analysed and very informative article. may i humbly submit that even with this enlightening message from you, the fact of enhancing the ER was good enough for any one to judge that 'entry-load' was a better option.

well, hats off to the wise sebi!

i hv been investing directly, 'load-free' since the beginning but now will be paying extra.

instead, a lower entry-load should have been introduced.

its just like the quixotic 'rajiv-gandhi-new-stockmarket' investment scheme, which is bound to fail.

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MSSN: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)