Retail investors, I am afraid, may end up losing more than
they gain.
The introduction of “direct” plan, which will come into
effect from 1 January 2013, in all mutual fund (MF) schemes has started to give
insomnia to distributors. In a circular that the capital markets regulator,
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), issued on 13 September, it said
that all fund houses have to provide a “direct” option in all their schemes,
catering to investors who wish to invest with a fund house directly without any
distributor’s help. The direct plan will, therefore, have a lower expense ratio
and a different net asset value (NAV). Typically, while the asset management
companies pay upfront charges to distributors from their own pockets, they pay
the trail fees (for as long as the investor stays invested in the scheme) out
of the total expense ratio (the current upper limit is 2.5%) that fund houses
charge you, the investor. Sebi thinks that if investors avoid distributors,
they should not pay agent charges.
The first brunt, as I pointed out in one of my earlier
columns (http://tinyurl.com/96svjhn), will be felt by debt funds, especially
liquid funds. Typically, at least 95% of investors in liquid funds are
companies and institutions. So distributors who service these clients—let us
call them institutional distributors—will face a direct threat to their
livelihood and existence.
Assume a liquid fund’s total expense ratio (TER) is 60 basis
points (bps), of which 15 bps is trail fee paid to distributors. Its direct
plan, therefore, will have a TER of 45 bps. If a large company invests Rs.1,000
crore in the normal plan, it gets Rs.1,065.5 crore after a year, assuming the
fund returns 7%, in the direct plan compared with Rs.1,064 crore in its normal
plan (with embedded distributor charges). That’s a saving of Rs.1.50 crore,
straightaway.
Why will institutions then go via distributors? Once the
board of directors come to know of the massive savings, industry sources feel
they will mandate their treasury departments to save these costs, shun the
distributors and invest directly. High net worth individuals and savvy
investors may follow suit.
Institutional distributors, such as Mata Securities India
Pvt. Ltd, SPA Capital Services Ltd, JM Financial Services Ltd and Enam
Securities Pvt. Ltd, are running scared right now. If their clients shift to
the direct option, these distributors stop earning trail fees. Years spent, if
any, in acquiring the client, retaining and servicing them will now lead to the
client opting for a cheaper option, just because there is one.
But will the clients shift? I won’t be surprised if they do.
A former employee in the sales and marketing division of Franklin Templeton
Asset Management (India) Pvt. Ltd tells me that when they had launched an
institutional plan (a first in the MF industry at that time) in one of their
debt funds (whose expense ratio was just 10 bps cheaper than the normal plan,
which later on came to be known as the “retail” plan), almost “the whole
industry” launched a similar plan. “There is zero doubt in my mind that, of the
40-50% of investors that constitute the institutional pie, about 80% will move
to the direct option,” he says, on condition of anonymity. At most, the
companies will hire a person or two to look specifically into its treasury
investments into MFs.
There is a twist. If fund houses feel that they need to go
that extra mile to service institutional clients, they may add a charge to the
direct plan, which would not otherwise apply to the normal (distributor) plan.
As a result, the difference in the TER of the two plans may not be much after
all.
In the meantime, three people associated with the
distribution and MF industry (an MF industry professional-turned-banker, the
head of one of India’s largest national distributors and the head of one of
India’s largest institutional distributor) met a senior Sebi official last week
to suggest an alternative. Their plan: let investors opt for the direct plan if
they wish, but allow them to route their investments through their distributors
who should be allowed to put his agent code on the application form. That way,
distributors can charge a fee to clients and continue to service them since the
investments will be under the distributor’s radar. The Sebi official seems to
have told them that he will look into it.
Is it fair? In theory, a cheaper option for direct
investments is a good idea. If you do not take the distributor’s help, why
should you pay them? But a carte blanche introduction of direct plan may lead
to misuse more than genuine benefit for the right people. Fund houses such as
Quantum Asset Management Co. Ltd, which charge lower fees because they don’t
pay distributor fees have survived so far. If, like in the US where fund houses
are free to adopt either a no-load or a load model, the Indian MF industry is
given a choice, then firms will be free to go the Quantum way if they feel
strongly about agent compensation.
While retail investors may have been in Sebi’s minds when it
thought of the “direct” plan, it is the institution that will reap the
benefits. Retail investors, I am afraid, may end up losing more than they gain.
Operational problems as well as lack of adequate knowledge in selecting the
right fund may come to haunt them at a later date. A good agent can always
guide and help the investor. But once an investor takes the direct route,
there’s little an agent can do later if there’s a problem. Cheaper options may
not be the better option, after all.
Source: http://www.livemint.com/Money/vOG97J9ZSYOddJUa09eb6O/Cheaper-option-may-not-be-better.html?google_editors_picks=true