“State Bank of India will finance 85% of the On Road Price of Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles with tenure of 7 years and low interest rate of 12%:” R N Mehra, CGM, State Bank of India.
Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., a part of the US $14.4 billion Mahindra Group, has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with State Bank of India (SBI), the country’s premier public sector bank. The preferred financier agreement was signed by both parties which will enable both Mahindra Reva and State Bank of India to leverage on the inherent strengths of each other’s vast network.
The MOU was signed by Mr. R N Mehra, chief general manager, personal banking of State Bank of India and Mr. R Chandramouli, chief of operations of Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.
Speaking on the occasion, Mr. R N Mehra, CGM, State Bank of India Mumbai said, “State Bank of India will finance 85% of the On Road Price of Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles with tenure of 7 years and low interest rate of 12% (Rs1765 per lakh of loan for 7 years). There will be no pre payment penalty in case customers choose to pre close the loan. Through this initiative, we are pleased to promote Green Cars as these are environment friendly”.
Mr. R Chandramouli, chief of operations of Mahindra Reva Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. said, “It is a moment of pride for Mahindra Reva to be associated with a bank of the stature, heritage and respect as SBI. With such highly competitive schemes and finance, we are hopeful of getting a good response from our dealers and customers”.
Out of the 134 equity diversified schemes that are aged five or more years, around 16 of them have grossly underperformed the benchmark over all the periods mentioned
Moneylife has conducted a study to analyse which equity diversified mutual funds have constantly underperformed their benchmark over one year, two years, five years and since inception. Five years is a reasonable time for funds to prove their performance. However, out of the 134 equity diversified schemes that are aged five or more years, around 16 of them have grossly underperformed the benchmark over all the periods mentioned.
In various articles in the past and in our financial literacy seminars held by Moneylife Foundation, we have consistently pointed out that one should not go by the names or rather brand name of fund houses but by the performance of that particular scheme. The list of 16 contains a few big names, as well.
Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) would be your first choice while looking for an insurance product but do not make the same judgement when choosing a mutual fund. LIC Nomura MF has been infamous for its poor equity fund management. Moneylife has commented in the past on its meagre performance. In fact all of its equity funds have failed to perform. Three out of their five equity schemes—LIC Nomura Equity, LIC Nomura MF Opportunities and LIC Nomura MF Growth—are on the list of underperformers where the funds were launched five years back. The other two funds—LIC Nomura MF India Vision and LIC Nomura MF Top 100 were launched a few years back and have also underperformed their benchmark in the last one and two years.
HSBC Mutual Fund, part of the HSBC Group which has been managing assets for 25 years globally, has two of its funds on the list. HSBC Midcap Equity and HSBC Progressive Themes have given a return of around 10 percentage points lower than that of its benchmark in the last one year. The HSBC Progressive Themes Fund has given returns of -7% and -2% in the last five years and since inception, respectively, compared to its benchmark which has given a return of 3% and 7% in the respective period.
Tata Mutual Fund has two of its schemes on the list. Tata Capital Builder, launched in September 2006, has underperformed the benchmark by just a percentage point or so in all the periods. The Tata Service Industries Fund has done a bit worse though. It has given a return of -12% in the last ten years compared to its benchmark which has given a return of -5%. There has been a difference of 3-4 percentage points in the other periods as well.
Two schemes from Principal Mutual Fund, part of the Principal Financial Group which manages assets worldwide, have failed to perform, as well. In the last five years it has given a return of -4% whereas the benchmark returned 3%. Principal Services Industries Fund, launched in March 2006 has given a return of 2% since inception compared to its benchmark which returned 7% in the same period. Its mid-cap fund launched in November 2008, has underperformed the benchmark in the last one year and two years, as well.
One fund of SBI Mutual Fund—SBI Magnum Multi Cap—has underperformed its benchmark in all the periods. Whereas two other funds of SBI Magnum—SBI Magnum Sector Funds Umbrella and SBI Magnum COMMA Fund—have underperformed the benchmark in the recent one year and two year period but have outperformed in the five year period.
Reliance Equity Fund has failed to perform in all the periods. Well, this was not the lone underperformer of Reliance Mutual Fund. Older funds like Reliance Growth, Reliance Vision and Reliance RSF Equity have underperformed the benchmark in the last one year and two years as well. Holding a large stake of Reliance Industries in September 2011 may have well hampered their performance.
A fund house well known for their gross performance of equity funds is JM Financial Mutual Fund. This is one name you should certainly beware of. All of its equity funds have seen poor performance. The fund which has underperformed on all occasions is JM Equity. For the five-year period it has returned -6%, the lowest on the list, whereas its benchmark has returned 3%. The funds which have been launched within the five year period—JM Core 11 Fund and JM Multi Strategy Fund has given a return of 18 percentage points and 9 percentage points below their benchmark Return in the last one year. They have under performed the benchmark in the two-year period, as well. JM Basic Fund, too, underperformed the benchmark in the one-year, two-year and five-year period and somehow managed to beat the benchmark performance since inception.
Other funds which are a part of the list are IDFC Classic Equity Fund Plan A, UTI Contra Fund, Taurus Discovery Fund and ICICI Prudential Midcap Fund.
The airline has refused to provide information, asks for review of CIC order in view of ‘severe competitive market’
Moneylife has written about Central Information Commission (CIC) order on Air India for disclosing information about rolling out bigger jets for VIPs. Read http://www.moneylife.in/article/air-india-must-disclose-details-of-planes-rolled-out-for-vips/22766.html Air India, however, looks reluctant to provide details of travels of former civil aviation minister Praful Patel’s family. It has asked for a review by the decision by the same CIC, something that is not possible under the RTI Act.
While a review cannot be sought under RTI Act after a CIC hearing, a court stay order can be obtained. But neither did Air India give the information within the stipulated days, nor did it get a stay order from any court. In the review petition, CPIO at Air India has avoided mentioning the CIC dictat of revealing names of person(s) responsible for the decision of rolling our bigger jets on 25 April 2010 and 28 April 2010 to accommodate the in-laws of Mr Patel’s daughter for their trip to the Maldives.
The review petition reads, “The company, keeping in view its commercial interests, follows the practice of not disclosing the travel particulars of its valued passengers. Such information available to us not only in a fiduciary relationship But also amounts to invasion of privacy of an individual. The information therefore is denied in terms of Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. In the view of the severe competitive market, we request the Honourable Commission to review the decision on this particular point.”
RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal has complained to the Central Information Commissioner Ms Sushma Singh, who had delivered the order to Air India about disclosing all information related to the matter. “Air India has now sought review of your verdict on this point. But firstly the RTI Act does not have any provision of review of verdicts by Honourable Central Information Commission itself. Secondly exemptions under section 8(1)(d) and (j) of RTI Act tried to be again claimed in review, were discussed in length at time of hearing of the petition,” he wrote to the CIC.
Mr Agrawal has asked the CIC to reject the Air India review petition, and asked for penal action against the CPIO. “It is unfair that Air India may hide serious irregularities of its Union minister by openly defying CIC verdict. Strict-most action should be taken against concerned ones at Air India especially at a time when the national carrier has been made a loss-creating a ‘white elephant’ by political rulers and officers dancing to their tune even after orders of the transparency watchdog,” says Mr Agrawal.