Good for industry, good for investors

Investors would be a tad disappointed with the Securities and Exchange Board of India’s (Sebi) latest measures to ‘re-energise’ the mutual fund industry. The market regulator has put the onus on them – by increasing some costs marginally– to provide more funds for the industry and distributors.

So, the expense fee is up 20 basis points. Then, there is another 30 basis points if the fund house collects 30 per cent of its money from smaller cities and the service tax incidence will be on the investors – all these will increase the costs for the investor.

While Sebi’s changes have received both bouquets and brickbrats, the exact manner in which they will play out, will only be known over a period of time.

On the face of it, the increase in the permissible total expense ration (TER) is a negative measure for investors and a positive one for the asset management companies (AMCs). However, it is not as bad as it seems. First of all it is not applicable on the entire corpus of the scheme. Only that portion which is procured from the smaller centres will be eligible. Hence, the TER will not rise by a uniform 30 basis points for everyone.

The weighted average will be much lower. This is a small price to pay if it achieves the objective of increasing penetration.

The introduction of a new plan for self directed investors plugs a gap which has been existing since January 1, 2008. Self-directed investors (such as ones who invest through a mutual fund’s website) have often asked why they should bear the trail commission component in their Net Asset Values when they are investing on their own, This change will remedy that unintended consequence. This will spur more investors in the top 15 cities to invest on their own. After all, they are the ones supposed to be more enlightened and more at ease with technology.

Easing the process for enrolling distributors should have a positive effect in terms of enrollment in the case of smaller centres in the long term. However, increasing the number of educated but ‘mutual-fund illiterate’ agents will actually increase the training costs for funds. After all, selling a relatively complex product like a mutual fund is different from selling Government guaranteed savings products such as National Savings Certificates.

Again, different levels of certifications will not be of much help if the consumers / investors are unable to discern one from another. This is only going to help the cause of educational institutes who provide coaching for such certifications. A reduction in the fees for the exams and registration, is a good, albeit, not critical proposal. After all, serious distributors will keep their registration alive, despite the fees and the ones who are not serious will not continue even if there are no charges.

The service tax and brokerage aspect is not such a big issue as it is being made out to be. Across industries providers are passing on the service tax to consumers, who are paying up without a murmur. To top that, here the tax is levied only on the fund management charges and not on the entire expense ratio. Hence, the final impact on the investor should not be significant. To offset this, the cap on brokerage that a scheme pays, is bound to help the cause of investors.

The relaxation in the requirement for PAN card for applying for mutual funds, appears to be a cosmetic move. It is unlikely to result in hordes of farmers queuing up to purchase units by paying in cash. But more pertinent, there is no clarity on how the redemption proceeds will be processed. It is highly unlikely that it will be in cash. This may be a bigger impediment than the PAN Card for such prospective investors.

Mis-selling and churning are widespread evils. However, as in the case of insider trading, it is difficult to pin down offenders who mis-sell. Usually, agents make clients sign on undertakings that they have understood the features and are cognisance of the various risks involved. If at all, push-comes-to-shove, agents could always hold up that document as evidence that they were in compliance.

The additional 20 basis points towards penalty for early redemptions may not really deter inveterate traders, as the figure is fairly insignificant. However, it is a non-event for investors who remain invested.

A slew of measures have been proposed, aimed at safeguarding the investor against wolves in sheep’s clothing. Unfortunately, there are so many stratifications available within the proposals, that virtually everyone will be eligible to serve as an advisor. Ultimately, investors will go to the ones they trust, irrespective of whether the Regulator believes they are eligible or not. The only puzzling thing is the point which states that people who give advice in good faith are exempt. This could be the Achilles heel of this section.

In a nutshell, the proposals are a step forward. However, revival of the industry may depend as much on market sentiment, as on regulatory forbearance. I only hope retail investors do not flock to mutual funds after the stock market has already enjoyed a stellar run. In that case, no amount of regulation could prevent them from suffering loses whenever the markets undergo the next bout of correction.

But given the thrust of Sebi, it proves that the low retail penetration is the effect of the apathy of funds and distributors and not the effect of the ban on entry loads.

As mutual funds had limited personnel, there was an over-reliance on distributors to garner retail and High Net Worth (HNI) monies. The distributors, in turn, concentrated on the easier pickings (read top cities) which in turn led to sub-optimal nationwide penetration. These moves will hopefully make things simpler.

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/good-for-industry-good-for-investors/483643/

All you need to know about Sebi's market reforms

In a move to boost the capital market and the mutual fund industry, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has come up with a slew of measures to increase retail participation, give more flexibility to mutual funds and companies issuing initial public offers and encourage distributors.

After days of speculation, the regulator finally announced steps to get the mutual fund industry out of the woods by allowing higher charges towards expenses and better cost management. Some of these steps may, however, result in higher cost for mutual fund investors.

Fund houses can now charge a 0.20 percentage point higher fee (also called expense ratio) towards different expenses. This is to compensate them for forgoing the exit load, which was earlier used to pay for distribution and other costs.

The entire exit load will now be ploughed back into the scheme. Exit load is usually charged for redemptions within a year of investment. But some funds charge it for a longer period.

Mutual funds can also charge an additional 0.30 percentage point expense ratio for new inflows from Tier II and Tier III cities (other than top 15 cities) if 30 per cent new inflows come from these cities.  This is aimed at promoting mutual fund penetration in smaller towns and cities.

At present, mutual funds can charge up to 2.5 per cent expense ratio.

Sebi has also removed the sub-limits on expenses under different heads. At present, mutual funds can allocate a maximum of 1.25 per cent as fund management charge, 0.5 per cent as distribution charge, etc. However, with no sub-limits, they will be free to allocate the 2.5 per cent expense ratio the way they want to.

This is a pragmatic move, says Waqar Naqvi, chief executive officer, Taurus Mutual Fund.

The regulator has also exempted mutual funds from paying service tax. Now, the service tax (12.36 per cent) will be borne by investors.

However, to encourage direct investments, a lower expense ratio is proposed for direct investors.

In another important move, Sebi has proposed that units will be allotted at the net asset value of the day on which the payment is realised. This is for investments above Rs 2 lakh.

"Corporate investors usually make pay through cheques, which take at least a day to be encashed. However, they are allotted units at the NAV of the day on which the request is made, thus allowing them an extra day's benefit, at the cost of existing investors," explains Surjit Mishra, executive vice-president and national head, mutual funds, Bajaj Capital.

RETAIL PARTICIPATION IN IPOs
The capital market regulator has also announced measures to increase retail participation in the primary/IPO market.

Now, investors can apply for initial public offers (IPOs) through electronic mode as well. Stock exchanges have been asked to make application forms available on their websites. Brokers uploading the electronic applications form will be compensated by the companies.

To ensure allotment to more investors , it has been proposed that retail investors get a minimum number of shares irrespective of their application size. The minimum application size for all investors has also been increased to Rs 10,000-15,000 from the existing Rs 5,000-Rs 7,000.

"After the IPO application, retail investors were unsure of the allotment. As the minimum application size has been increased along with assurance that allotment will happen to the extent possible for all investors, interest in the primary market may be rekindled as many investors had turned cynical towards applying for good issues," says P Phani Sekhar, fund manager, PMS, Angel Broking.

To allow investors take more informed decisions, the regulator has said that the company issuing IPOs must announce the price band of the issue at least five working days before the issue opens as against two working days at present.

Easing the norms for follow-on public offers (FPO), Sebi has reduced the requirement of average free-float market capitalisation from Rs 5,000 crore to Rs 3,000 crore. Besides, to help companies comply with the 25 per cent minimum public shareholding norm, Sebi has allowed companies to do so through rights and bonus issues.

Change in issue size to the extent of 20 per cent of the original issue can be made without the need for re-filing with Sebi. This will save a lot of time and resources in mobilising IPO proceeds.

Source: http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/sebis-mutual-fund-ipo-reforms-all-you-need-to-know/1/187300.html

Garnering 30% assets from smaller cities a tough task, say MFs

The permission to charge an additional 30 basis points (bps) as total expense ratio (TER) on sales beyond the top 15 cities may look attractive, but mutual fund industry executives have taken it with a pinch of salt.

“It’s an uphill task which demands concerted and sustained efforts,” say officials.

In its statement, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) had said: “AMCs (asset management companies) will be able to charge 30 bps if the new inflows from these cities/ towns are minimum 30 per cent of the total inflows. In case of lesser inflows the proportionate amount will be allowed as additional TER.”

Barring a few top fund houses, most others do not enjoy widespread presence outside the top 10 cities. Moreover, according to the latest statistics, close to three-fourths of the overall industry’s assets pour in from the top five cities—Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata and Chennai. And after including the next top 10 cities, the industry gets a whopping 87 per cent of its assets. (see table)

A day after Sebi made its announcements, industry executives said this was no big relief for the industry. Rather, they term measures “half-baked”.

According to Akshay Gupta, chief executive officer, Peerless MF: “Arguably, they (Sebi) could have done better. Present situation warrants well-defined steps to revive the sagging fortunes of the industry.”

Executives told Business Standard it was unlikely that fund houses immediately start opening branches or point of sales across the country to “push” mutual fund products. Potential investors in small towns are still interested in real estate and gold, they say. “What we can do is leverage on our tie-ups with national distributors, mainly banks. Fund houses may go ahead for tie-ups with banks to strengthen their distribution channels,” explained the chief marketing officer of a mid-sized fund house.

Jaideep Bhattacharya, managing director, Baroda Pioneer MF, says: “It’s not going to be easy going beyond the top 15 cities. It will take time as the industry needs to build up infrastructure and distribution networks, which require concerted efforts and continuous investor awareness. To start with, one may not have volumes, but the important factor is money inflow from the hinterland is stickier.”

Source: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/garnering-30-assetssmaller-citiestough-task-say-mfs/483578/