Thursday, September 30, 2010

MFs hardsell SIPs to investors

With equity investors increasingly booking profits, mutual fund distributors are pushing SIPs or systematic investment plans to them. A sales head of leading fund house said, “After we saw markets touching the 20,000-levels, several investors booked profits. Some of that money is coming back in the form of SIPs.

He added that distributors are once again being given good commissions from the pocket of fund house to lure such investors back.

R. S Srinivas Jain, CMO of SBI Mutual Fund, said, “We are witnessing sudden rise in SIP and in the last one month we have added 1.5 lakh new SIP accounts.”

SIP is a mode of investing into equity funds, in which instead of lumpsum investments, an investor buys units each month, thereby averaging his cost of units. This is either done by regular transfer from a liquid fund or from the bank account.

However, the mutual funds houses are not giving upfront commission this time, instead they have increased trail commissions to push SIPs. B Sarath Sarma, ED of IDBI Mutual Fund said, “When equity markets go up, interest of investors as well as of distributors increases (for equity funds). We are witnessing distributors selling equity funds once again with some upfront commission. Also the trail commission has been increasing as it gives portfolio advisors an incentive to encourage investors to hold for a longer period.”

Trail commission, as opposed to upfront commissions, are paid either yearly or semi-annually to the distributor as long as the investor stay invested in the scheme.

Now fund houses pay anywhere between 25-50 basis points as upfront commission, while trail has been increased to 50-75 basis points. Before the market regulator bought ban on entry load from August last year, distributors were paid a upfront commission of over 1%.

According to IDBI MF, new SIPs account are coming not only from top metro cities but also from the Tier-II and Tier-III cities like Indore, Vijayawada and Nagpur, where there is renewed interest in equity market. According to a report published by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), SIP inflows have been the saving grace for mutual fund houses especially during tough times. Also, SIP inflows as a percentage of overall inflows have increased over the years. The report stated that, SIPs accounted for about 19 % of inflows in the first quarter of 2010 while it was 15% in 2009 and 11% in 2008.

Source: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/mfs-hardsell-sips-to-investors/690204/0

Redeeming your mutual fund? Get the signature right

With stock markets near their all-time highs, several investors have been looking forward to cashing in on their tax-saving mutual fund investments made in 2004-2006. But some investors who tried redeeming units have faced rejection of their redemption requests.

“Looking at the market, I sent out a redemption form for my tax-saving mutual fund that was made in 2006-07. I got back a letter saying ‘Your signature is not matching and hence, we cannot process the redemption’,” a Mumbai-based mutual fund investor told DNA.

It is not this individual alone. Several distributors have confirmed that their clients who put in redemption forms have got similar letters.

Paul D’Souza, who runs Cuzinns Investment Services, said, “There have been three-four of cases with my customers where the redemption requests were rejected. One of them is an investment made in 2006. The reason being cited is that there is a signature mismatch.”

“Some asset management companies (AMCs) are not telling investors the reason for rejecting. They are asking customers to get the signature attested by the bank,” D’Souza added.

Another mutual fund distributor — Rajendra Dhulla, a financial planner who runs advisory firm Pratham Services, said: “There have been 7 cases last week, where redemption requests were rejected as the signature didn’t match.”

Though the numbers are small, even these occurrences were earlier rare, say distributors.

“It is not a major or substantial part of the total redemptions. It is around 1-2%. But in the past, we have never seen even this small percentage of cases in redemptions happening. Most of them are in September 2010. I have had 6 customers whose redemption requests got rejected and they were asked to go to the bank and get the signature attested,” says a financial advisor who requested anonymity.

“In one case, the investor was a minor and two guardians had signed on his behalf. So the request was rejected. Upon prodding, we found that the problem was because the guardians had signed at the wrong place. One of them should have signed as the first applicant, but the two guardians had instead signed as second and third applicant,” the advisor added.

When we questioned AMCs about the issue, they said there were not too many cases of rejection due to signature.

“Signatures change over a period of time. It is our fiduciary responsibility to make sure it is matched because we have seen mind-boggling frauds happening in the financial services industry.

We need to be guarded or somebody can take us to court,” said a mutual fund official, explaining the reason for the rejection.

Asked how they distinguish and determine whether the signature is not matching, the official said, “Handwriting is a science. There are strokes and the flow that you look at.”

But actually, it is the mutual fund registrars who determine whether the signatures are matching or not, as they store the data and the application forms.

A senior official at one of the two mutual fund registrars told DNA Money, “There is no significant increase in terms of rejection of number of redemption requests. Largely, signatures match. But in case of an old-time investor, there is a possibility that the signature has changed. We reject only if the strokes are drastically different.”

Some cases are surprising. Dhulla, of Pratham Services, recounted this case of investments made in 2004-05: “In September, we sent two redemption requests by a single investor to the same asset management firm. One request got through the other did not. Coincidently, the markets went up after that day, but it could have been the other way round.”

When DNA Money asked an MF registrar about this case, the official responded, “The specific case has to be analysed, but that may be either because people use regular signatures or short signatures. You may have entered into one scheme with a regular signature and another scheme after two months with a short signature. If you redeem after six months, signatures in both master applications may not match and hence, the signature submitted at the time of redemption may not match.”

Getting a bank attestation of the signature is the only way out. “The compliance is difficult after the signature mismatch. One needs to get a bank verification and PAN card. The bank verification of signature is costly. Banks charge as much as Rs 100 per signature attestation. For each request they will ask for Rs 100, so if you have four requests, then you have to pay Rs 400 just for signature attestation. Some AMCs also ask for the bank official’s name and employee code to be mentioned on the signature attestation. But banks are hesitant to give it,” said Dhulla.

The problem with rejection is that the investor does not get the net asset value (NAV) of the day he put in the redemption request. And the NAV on the day the bank attestation comes in may be lower or higher, depending on the market’s movement.

“There should be a facility to lock in the day’s NAV when the investor put in the redemption request. In case of signature mismatch, MFs should ask the customer to get the verification letter and then process the redemption,” suggested Dhulla.

The registrar official said this is not feasible. “I may submit a request today, and if it is rejected by the system, at the time the intimation comes in I may choose to hold it back. I may not submit the redemption request later it all. It can be either way.”

So when sending in a redemption request for your mutual fund, make sure you sign the way you had in the original application form. That way, you can capitalise on the market rally at the right time.

Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report_redeeming-your-mutual-fund-get-the-signature-right_1444896

U K Sinha is New AMFI Chairman

UTI Asset Management Company chairman and managing director U K Sinha has been appointed as the chairman of the Association of Mutual Funds in India (AMFI), an industry body of the mutual funds. Sinha will replace present chairman A P Kurian.
The board of AMFI has also appointed HDFC Mutual Fund managing director Milind Barve as the vice-chairman of AMFI.
In a press statement released on Tuesday, AMFI said that U K Sinha, Milind Barve would bring with them vast experience in the financial services sector in general and mutual fund Industry in particular.
On his appointment, Sinha said “The mutual fund industry is at the cusp of transformation and we have challenging times ahead. My priority will however, centre around investors and investor servicing”.
Milind Barve, the newly appointed vice-chairman of AMFI, said, “Mutual funds as an asset class are genuine wealth creators for a large number of retail investors. On a long-term basis, mutual funds give investors much better returns than other investment products”.
In February, AMFI appointed H N Sinor as its chief executive officer.

Source: http://www.valueresearchonline.com/story/h2_storyView.asp?str=101408

It's biz as usual for MFs despite load ban

Indian fund houses, reeling under the impact of a ban on entry load or an upfront fee that they collected from investors to pay distributors, may have something to cheer about, with a majority of these intermediaries saying that they expect the ban to either have a positive or no impact on the future of the industry. A survey of 622 distributors in Mumbai and Delhi by Cafemutual, a Mumbai-based mutual fund industry tracker, shows that 57% of the participants expect the ban on entry load to have positive or no impact on the future of the mutual fund industry.

The , imposed by capital market regulator the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) and that came into force in August 2009 to prevent distributors from pushing clients to switch across products in shorter durations for fees, has prompted 31% of the IFAs or distributors surveyed to ‘try charging’ fees to their clients, Cafemutual said. Significantly, 79% of those who tried were successful, the survey said.

Prior to this ban, distributors of mutual fund products got their upfront fee of 2.25% money they brought in from the AMCs, which deducted the commission from the investments.. Sebi felt the routing of commissions through AMCs resulted in distributors pitching for products that were not in the best interests of investors.

The regulator said that investors needed to pay distributors directly for selling a product rather than obtain the fee through AMCs. According to wealth managers, most investors, who put money in mutual funds, refuse to pay fees for advice, leading to many distributors shifting to selling other products, including insurance. But even distributors are getting more comfortable with the role of advisors, they said.

“There are fewer distributors and IFAs which are selling mutual funds after the ban on entry loads, but some, including us, are focusing on the advisory business. As long as the investor is ready to pay us for our advice, we will give advice and this can be a product that suits his needs...not necessarily a mutual fund or insurance product,” said Om Ahuja, head-wealth management, Emkay Global Financial Services.

The Cafemutual survey said that according to 63% of the IFAs, Ulip sales rose due to the entry load ban, while 15% said sales of structured products to the wealthy went up.

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/personal-finance/mutual-funds/mf-news/Its-biz-as-usual-for-MFs-despite-load-ban/articleshow/6648205.cms

Just click away from joining most active Mutual Fund India google group

Google Groups
Subscribe to Mutual Fund india
Email:
Visit this group

Aggrasive Portfolio

  • Principal Emerging Bluechip fund (Stock picker Fund) 11%
  • Reliance Growth Fund (Stock Picker Fund) 11%
  • IDFC Premier Equity Fund (Stock picker Fund) (STP) 11%
  • HDFC Equity Fund (Mid cap Fund) 11%
  • Birla Sun Life Front Line Equity Fund (Large Cap Fund) 10%
  • HDFC TOP 200 Fund (Large Cap Fund) 8%
  • Sundram BNP Paribas Select Midcap Fund (Midcap Fund) 8%
  • Fidelity Special Situation Fund (Stock picker Fund) 8%
  • Principal MIP Fund (15% Equity oriented) 10%
  • IDFC Savings Advantage Fund (Liquid Fund) 6%
  • Kotak Flexi Fund (Liquid Fund) 6%

Moderate Portfolio

  • HDFC TOP 200 Fund (Large Cap Fund) 11%
  • Principal Large Cap Fund (Largecap Equity Fund) 10%
  • Reliance Vision Fund (Large Cap Fund) 10%
  • IDFC Imperial Equity Fund (Large Cap Fund) 10%
  • Reliance Regular Saving Fund (Stock Picker Fund) 10%
  • Birla Sun Life Front Line Equity Fund (Large Cap Fund) 9%
  • HDFC Prudence Fund (Balance Fund) 9%
  • ICICI Prudential Dynamic Plan (Dynamic Fund) 9%
  • Principal MIP Fund (15% Equity oriented) 10%
  • IDFC Savings Advantage Fund (Liquid Fund) 6%
  • Kotak Flexi Fund (Liquid Fund) 6%

Conservative Portfolio

  • ICICI Prudential Index Fund (Index Fund) 16%
  • HDFC Prudence Fund (Balance Fund) 16%
  • Reliance Regular Savings Fund - Balanced Option (Balance Fund) 16%
  • Principal Monthly Income Plan (MIP Fund) 16%
  • HDFC TOP 200 Fund (Large Cap Fund) 8%
  • Principal Large Cap Fund (Largecap Equity Fund) 8%
  • JM Arbitrage Advantage Fund (Arbitrage Fund) 16%
  • IDFC Savings Advantage Fund (Liquid Fund) 14%

Best SIP Fund For 10 Years

  • IDFC Premier Equity Fund (Stock Picker Fund)
  • Principal Emerging Bluechip Fund (Stock Picker Fund)
  • Sundram BNP Paribas Select Midcap Fund (Midcap Fund)
  • JM Emerging Leader Fund (Multicap Fund)
  • Reliance Regular Saving Scheme (Equity Stock Picker)
  • Biral Mid cap Fund (Mid cap Fund)
  • Fidility Special Situation Fund (Stock Picker)
  • DSP Gold Fund (Equity oriented Gold Sector Fund)