Fidelity’s exit, a slap on SEBI’s face

Fidelity Mutual Fund is reportedly looking for a suitor for its mutual fund business. The blame for forcing out a solid long-term investor lies with two successive SEBI chairmen

Fidelity Mutual Fund, the Indian arm of Fidelity Worldwide Investment and one of the most storied funds in the United States, is supposedly looking for a buyer for its Indian asset management business. Why would Fidelity think of exiting India? Is India breaking up, with prospects of deep recession and debt default staring at us all indefinitely? It is only in such dire economic conditions that a solid long-term investor would think of completely packing up. On the contrary, foreign direct investment (FDI) into India is booming and many multinationals see India just as not a strategic location but one that delivers huge cash flows that boost their global balance sheets. So what is the reason for Fidelity’s exit? It is simply harebrained experiments and draconian regulations by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) which has been cheered by everyone in the media since 2009 except Moneylife.

The foolish regulations that killed all incentives to sell mutual funds started under former SEBI chairman CB Bhave’s tenure and has been taken to new depths, ironically by someone who was running a large mutual fund - the current SEBI chairman UK Sinha. Two years before the media reporting Fidelity’s exit, we had reported that SEBI might have shot the industry in the back by banning entry load without thinking through the implications. ( ). With the banning of entry load, the distributors’ margins have been completely squeezed and they have been exiting the business of selling mutual fund in droves. Investors who need hand-holding and cannot decide without the help of market intermediaries, ended up buying harmful products that was pushed at them or preferred to keep the money in the bank. Mr Bhave singe-handedly killed the only route of average savers to grow their wealth in the long-term to beat inflation. For this capricious and patently anti-investor move, some managing directors of asset management companies supported Mr Bhave and he was uniformly hailed as the messiah of the small investor by the mainstream media.

When the decline in fund flows was obvious, SEBI started tinkering such as allowing stock brokers to sell funds, which was another foolish move as we had predicted. Sure enough, mutual fund sales through stockbrokers have amounted to nothing. Clearly nothing made any difference to the fund management industry.

In February last year UK Sinha took over as SEBI chief. There was a lot of hope among distributors that a man who has actually run mutual funds would now bring out some sensible policies. Instead, his policies turned out to be even more useless. (

In fact, SEBI went on to push Mr Bhave’s agenda further by brining in all sorts of funny advisor regulations. ( At a time when most of them are slowly moving to a fees-only model, SEBI is hell-bent on cutting them off. This will further impact distribution. When this happens, distribution business will fall on players who can afford them—the banks. But is it in the interest of the average saver?

Sebi's actions have pushed smaller distributors out of the business leaving investors at the mercy of bank relationship managers. But relationship managers are well-known for their unscrupulous and pushy ways, and tend to operate purely on commissions and rarely on customer interests. By having bank relationship managers double as distributors, they will be able to peddle their own mutual fund products, albeit unethically, to consumers. In lieu of an entry load, they are paid a professional fee ( Also the information they give will be biased and not in consumers’ best interest. We had also written about this earlier. ( The last thing the consumers need is relationship managers banging on their doors every week.

Apparently, SEBI hasn’t learned any lessons and refuses to do so. If the regulator does indeed go ahead with the implementation of the concept paper, it will not only be a death knell for the mutual fund industry but also for consumers as well as they will be starved of quality products.

The mutual fund business model solely rests on the quantum of assets managed. According to industry sources, Rs10,000 crore is the ball-park quantum of assets required to break even. Therefore, sale of fund products is paramount to the survival of a fund house. Fidelity, after years of systematic planning and execution, has Rs8,800 crore of assets, and incurred losses of Rs62.39 crore in FY10-11 against a loss of Rs27.56 crore in the previous financial year. Clearly, thanks to SEBI’s successive moves, Fidelity sees no hope.

This marks the first time a big-name mutual fund is a victim and has succumbed to the sudden change in environment. If this is any indicator of the current state of the mutual fund industry, it will only get worse unless massive consolidation takes place.

Distributors and advisors are responsible for pushing and increasing penetration of financial products. Their income depends on this and without this there is not much point in selling an unprofitable product the same way as it is not worthwhile to continue with unprofitable businesses. For years SEBI failed to pay heed to the investors. Under the last two chairmen it did not pay heed to market players either. It has been on its own trip at the cost of hapless retail investors and the fund industry. But with the mainstream media unable to see or hear any evil, Sebi bosses will get away by making guinea pigs out of us. Please offer your feedback here, even if Sebi prefers to remain indifferent to hard facts on the ground.

  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.


    9 years ago

    I can see lots of irrelevant comments charges and innuendos here. And very few seem to have followed Moneylife\\\'s progress and journey. As a reader let me share some facts which will answer the false allegations and attacks. Most people here have not followed how consistently pro-investor Moneylife has been and repeatedly critical of malpractices of mutual funds. I give only two examples:
    1. Name games:
    2. Games Funds Play:
    Please take some effort to read these and other articles in the site. Please compare this with other publications.
    Moneylife has written enough of articles about mis-selling by mutual funds and distributors. It has repeatedly pointed out that bigger distributors are the bigger culprits, as this article also says. Moneylife is also the only publication which has the guts to name names. It also actively resolved grievances. Mint started a grievance redressal service and quietly dropped it. Motivated supporters of Sebi have carefully ignored all this and attacked Moneylife\'s supposed bias.
    Moneylife seminar on mutual funds tells people not to invest in NFOs and points out that investors have to navigate between harmful and irrelevant products of mutual fund companies and harmful selling by the agents and distributors. It also advises that big names mean nothing in financial products like mutual funds.
    Finally, Moneylife foundation is the only product-neutral financial literacy effort that speaks for investors and savers.
    More than 104 seminars in 2 years by a small magazine is a tremendous achievement which the regulator deliberately ignores, as someone pointed out? Interesting.
    These are some facts worth keeping in mind as debate gets sidetracked from what I think Moneylife has clearly diagnosed and articulated - frequent and half-baked regulatory changes in the name of investor protection is really harming the investor. Its not about Fidelity. Its about the investor. Isn\\\\\\\'t it strange that this point was deliberately fudged by some of those who commented? Who is biased now?

    Ramesh B

    9 years ago

    over n above the points given so far, further they didn't allowed all IFAs registration.This might hv given them AUM above threshold level. And except Eqty fund and Tax fund, they had not any breakthrough schemes.Their payout was moderate.And inspite of their truly best efforts, it was considered foreign MF for affluent people and not for the masses.Their AMCs were at select places, hence penetration was not enough.



    In Reply to Ramesh B 9 years ago

    Mr Ramesh
    BANG ON!! too the point.
    too add to what you said, AMC was run by bankers worked in MNC banks din't have any idea about Retail and masses, they did open office but later closed them down.Look at franklin templeton, damn opposite of fidelity


    9 years ago

    Asset management/ MF is an industry that makes money even when you - the investor - loses money. If you held units in an equity MF for whole of last year (2011), you may have lost some 20% of your capital. But, the AMC or MF still got their 1.5 or 2%.

    In sectors with open competition, usually the top 3 players gather the most revenues and profits. This is true for MF also. Fidelity losses increased last financial year (mar2011)- the same year when Reliance MF net profits increased 30%. HDFC MF profits also grew to > 240 Crores!

    So, why is Fidelity losing money considering closing down in India? Look at the facts: In all businesses, there is a minimum scale required for sustained profitability. If you are too small, it is difficult to maintain profits because your revenues are not sufficient to allow the optimum costs (e.g. on sales, marketing, technology, staff). Or, as Indian small businesses know very well, you have to be very miserly on your costs to survive and beat the competition. Fidelity has neither managed to grow, nor shown the ability to be frugal on costs.

    a.) Fidelity has been stuck in the region of 8,000Cr to 9,000 Cr AUM. You\\\'ll find MF houses that came in much later have higher AUMs - under the same SEBI regulations. In India, fixed income products are a far larger proportion of total MF assets than equity. Fidelity hasn\\\'t had any successful fixed income product in this market!

    b.) Fidelity costs are much higher compared even to funds of similar size. e.g. expense ratios are almost double of Axis MF which has a a similar total AUM!
    I guess they came in with the full cost base of high salaries & bonuses and systems.

    On the other hand, Fidelity has been an honest fund. They have not played the NFO game and also gave long-term investors a bonus. So, I will be sorry to see them go. I hope they can control their costs and generate some innovative outreach programs to reach the investors and create a larger base.


    9 years ago





    Stany Dsouza

    In Reply to krish 9 years ago

    Yes, you are right Krish. I support your views. Industry is doing bad not because of entry load. Otherwise how HDFC is on the top and UTI once on the top, now at 6th position?

    Stany Dsouza

    9 years ago

    No. It is not a slap on SEBI,s face. Fidelity is a arrogant AMC and suffering from 'Superiority Complex'. That is why it did not allow IFAs to sell its products. It entirely depended upon Institutional Distributors. Without IFAs' support no AMC is surviving in India. This is also a warning to other AMCs.

    Mitul Desai

    9 years ago

    Congratulations for the bold articles, which eagerly read by Ms.Monica Halan of The Mint.
    Your article was published on 5.14pm on 31-jan-12 and Ms.Monica Halan took great effort the same evening/night and published article with counter arguement on 6.10am of 1-Feb-12.


    Madhusudan Thakkar

    In Reply to Mitul Desai 9 years ago

    True Mitul.See the difference between Monica's interpretation & ML on the same story.Monica has fixed BLAME whereas Debashish & Aditya have fixed the PROBLEM about what ails Mutual Fund Industry.Mainstream media is Anti social media need I say more?
    For the benefit of readers please find link to Monica's piece in Mint


    9 years ago

    what ever written is absolutely true.SEBI has not still learn the lesson that without intermediary any financial product which has complex model of understanding cannot more.Govt of India has seen this because it tried to sell NPS scheme without intermediary which has become a failure.SEBI had picked up fault of distributors/IFAs saying that they used to sell the product where the commission was more.I suggested SEBI to introduce such a regulation where there should be universal commission structure .
    If that would have been the regulation distributors would sell only a good scheme instead of a bad scheme because commission would have been same.It is a simple judgement that if one can get good and bad apple at the same rate then only good apples would sell.This simple judgement didnot came into SEBI's mind which had learned directors on the board.Sebi's decision to ban entry load is like- because lot of road accidents happening so let us ban plying vehicle on the road.It is foolish to what extent cannot be expressed.Today Fidelity is searching somebody to sell it's business.Tomorrow one by one other Mutual Funds will search buyer of selling their stake.What SEBI will do for that.May be Sebi will take a sigh of relief when MF industry will totally be closed as Sebi's responsibility will come down to a great extent.

    Anant Dhavale

    9 years ago

    Dear Mr Basu,
    You are praising the efforts of good IFAs in familatising the concept of investment in MFs and Fidelity didn't deal with IFAs they dealt with only Brokerages. Then how they will have access to the country side. Whereas desi fund houses are in profits. How is it?

    kamal singhi

    9 years ago

    SEBI's ban on entry load has not killed MF industry but its NFO business model which was making big distributors rich and killing small investors. In NFO selling, the advice part was completely missing as the only advice to be rendered was to say, this scheme is good and worth investing and the sale was through. Moreover high front commission allowed rebating for procurement of business from the prospective investors.
    MF returns are market linked hence require advice in respect to timing of investment, its tenure and purpose based on one's need and asset allocation which was completely absent in NFO selling. SEBI's reforms are directed towards bringing this advice element into the selling process.

    Under these facts Fidelity's exit is not a slap on SEBI's face but on Fidelity's own face as they are unable to reshape their business model according to changed scenario.

    K B Patil

    9 years ago

    As I see it, the problem is more fundamental. Not enough Indians invest in equities or mutual funds. We have a fetish for gold and land. So, even though real estate is the most problematic investment with high transaction costs and a high probability of being ripped off, people dont mind all the hassles and invest in land.

    Mutual funds too have contributed to the disinterest by having too many schemes of the same nature and by concentrating on the metros. Also, the help centres of even reputed MFs are not that helpful. For even a simple problem such as correcting the address, one has to jump through hoops. I had to send a dozen emails, a number of phone calls to get it done. It was enough to put anyone off.



    In Reply to K B Patil 9 years ago

    I think you are right, Mr. Patil. We Indians want the safety illusion of FDs, NSC, KVP, Gold. The ones willing to take risks are often interested only in short-term speculation - that's the reason for high volume of day traders on the stock markets and 'investors' in land and reality when property markets are going up.

    MFs tap this market via fixed income products but, unfortunately, fidelity failed to do so.

    Fidelity did not play the NFO and 10-similar funds game, and I respect them for that. But, they also failed to take the message to their target investors even in major metros. Otherwise, the base would have been larger.

    But, most importantly, when your business is smaller, you have to control costs to avoid making large losses. I think this is where Fidelity really missed the boat, coming from the culture of a large MNC financial institution.

    Nilesh KAMERKAR

    9 years ago

    Which other profession in the world works on such thin margins?

    Where does it happen?, in which profession that the service provider has to disclose their quantum & sources of earnings to its clients?

    If the evil lies entirely in the upfront commission & its abuse? Can the regulator not control it at the Fund level ie No fund / AMC / MF scheme can pay more than the competitor or a certain fixed percentage be set as a limit or all similar schemes are forced to pay a fixed sum only.

    If the evil also lies in aggressive / unwarranted churning of the client's portfolio? Can the regulator not control it by taking such erring entities to task rather than hurting the entire industry in one go.


    9 years ago

    Sincerely I din't care to read the entire article initially as the title says so much, about what would be written inside(don't ignore mine). It is easier to blame regulation and regulatory body.but that's what business are suppose to do. It's your business and no one said it's going to come on a plate.
    The idea to blame regulator is fine if the fidelity wouldn't have the first one to fall. But see it is.
    Just remove that "bigger than the god" fake aura of Fidelity and look at it. In the light of stake sales (just a few weeks back) in Reliance Mutual Fund, IDFC and may be players like Vanguard trying to come in India.Now think is it fidelity or sebi who is wrong?
    If Fidelity Exit was slap than Goldmansachs re entry was a kiss?

    I cannot resist myself comparing MF industry with Airlines where likes of KINGfisher are struggling and INDIGO is doing amazingly well. They are working in same environment.

    My questions to the editor(who let this article publish) and writer:
    why did likes of axis and religare mf grew in the same "non friendly" environment grew and fidelity failed in same environment.

    Look at the history of fidelity are they exiting from some country for the first time??
    then What qualifies as 'solid long term investor". If wrter had put in effort they would have seen that this "solid long term invetsor" is used to churning in and out of countries.

    The article clearly shows the birasness and shallowness of writer, as the fund house never had a systematic, planning and execution"

    In the subject of International marketing,people would have read localisation and globalisation. This AMC never understood the Indian Market correctly for which the Indian SBU's top management is to be blamed. They neither understood nor were willing to be flexible.Fidelity with all their systematic planning and execution had employee cost of 51% of there exepnses which by any standards is MADNESS. (as this Industry is only about people).
    When they started they had a berserk marketing expenditure which was highest Industry never seen never heard. There expenditure to the assets were 1.58% where as n largest (one time) AMC it's .85% only which had assets ten times that of Fidelity. and far larger than HDFC.
    Fidelity as a fund house which always tried to position itself as one with cult status never made it big the times about which writer is cribbing, during the same time a fundhouse like HDFCwas rising like there is no tomorrow.
    Reasons that they never understood Indian markets clearly can be found in
    number of distributors empaneled, number of office they have than see it in the light of expenses they had.
    For once writer and readers are requested to see fidelity as another fund house who couldn't understand Indian markets well and is thinking about exiting (if news articles to be believed)
    But its a writing on the wall that They will come back. India with all its regulations and problems is a huge opportunity to be missed. After all Business is about making money out of needs, wants desires, Problem/Opportunites.
    But SEBI still doesn't get a clean chit.


    J white

    In Reply to NOT A SEBI FRIEND 9 years ago

    gosh... this illiterate stuff shows that Indians still have a long way to go before understanding the fund industry, its costs and the fact that there have to be investors to generate profits!
    clearly, investor education is sadly lacking. was an interesting exercise wading through the messages from Indians. there are indeed some sensible ones, but the best is from Arun below who says "AMC of quality of Fidelity needs to be in india for our own good". quite frankly yes. as an outsider visiting here, if Fidelity is leaving India, I have to rethink about Indian markets, their quality, depth etc.


    In Reply to J white 9 years ago

    Dear Mr White
    Entire world is not divided in just black and white, there are shades of grey as well. With all due respect to the brand. There process brought in just "above average" performance in their equity funds.
    With due respect to Brand, My point is that the problem was with the management and the way business was run specifically in India about which you surely have no Idea. In last 7 years of operations they had reported loss of Rs 333 crores (if i am correct company was recapitalised as well ) AMCs with less than half of their age are making money not just for their investors but also for promoter.
    I am sure Mr Johnson' family is also an Investor and surprisingly no one is worried about his portfolio's performance.

    Fidelity's AMC business in India is not even 5% of their total stake in India.
    Fidelity has neither closed down there India dedicated fund or exited completely from their India exposure in Asia fund.
    It's pure, pure business sense to exit from a business which was making losses and had doubled them in last one year.
    and yes Indians are "literate' enough to make that figure that out.
    as far as you or your interests are concerned. you are welcome ass a guest have a happy stay in India.and yes on the matter of depth and quality, i would refer you to south china sea for "deep sea" diving as Indian Ocean is too shallow and lack quality for someone of your sense or understanding of business and the enitre issue.
    Happy Investing
    P.S:refer to today's mint

    arun t sawant

    9 years ago

    AMC of quality of FIDELITY needs to be in INDIA for our own GOOD .

    Pl let me know if we have to write to PM / FM or approch any authority to bring some sense of business in SEBI or meet SEBI Chairman.

    dillip swain

    9 years ago

    For the benefits of investor sebi regulation is is also consent of some big & foreign amc. Problem is that foreign amc knows world better not to INDIAN .

    Harish Kohli

    9 years ago

    A very strong indictment. I, as an investor, had thought that doing away with the entry load was a good act. Had this view mainly because of the impression that the entry load was "a bribe". I probably have a lot to learn.
    At the same time I have always wondered why the entry load? I have invested in many funds and quite a few are languishing. There was never a word of advice from any agent. I hope you have not forgotten the time when the application forms were available at the footpath. And by the way what makes you think there is any difference in the attitude of the brokers, relationship managers et al.

    80CCF infrastructure bonds—What are your options?

    IDFC, REC, L&T Infra, SREI Infra, IFCI and PTC India Financial are your current options. Check the interest rate, rating and buyback terms to help make a decision. There is less chance of higher interest rate offers in this financial year

    Depending on your tax bracket you can save maximum of Rs6,180 by investing Rs20,000 in infrastructure bonds qualifying for Section 80CCF deduction. Make a decision based on current offerings of interest rates, ratings and buyback terms. There are variations for these three parameters in all the offers. Don’t pin much hope of better interest rates offered in March. The trend of interest rate is down.

    The offers with ‘AAA’ rating are IDFC (Infrastructure Development Finance Company) and REC (Rural Electrification Corporation). IDFC (Tranche2) offers interest rate of 8.70% per annum (p.a.) for 10-year bonds, while REC will give 8.95% p.a. for the same tenure. The difference in the interest paid every year is only Rs50 for investment of Rs20,000. Going for either of the two is a good option, but REC is s better offer at this time for those looking for both safety and returns. 

    Both the bonds offer buyback option after five years. It means that in case market interest rates are higher than what these bonds currently offer, the customer can sell the bonds back to the company and reinvest the money in another investment earning higher interest. If the market interest rates after five years are down, the customer can remain invested in these bonds till the end of its term. 

    REC also offers 9.15% p.a. for tenure of 15 years with a buyback option after seven years. IDFC closes for subscription on 25 February 2012 while REC issue closes on 10 February 2012.

    L&T Infrastructure Finance Company (L&T Infra) has ‘AA+’ rating. Tranche2 offers 8.70% p.a. for 10-year bonds and a buyback option after five years. It issue closes on 11 February 2012. 

    SREI Infrastructure Finance (SREI Infra) offers a coupon rate of 8.90% p.a. and 9.15% p.a. for 10 and 15-year term, respectively. Both the terms offers buyback after five years which is an advantage for customers going for a 15-year term. The subscription closes on 31 January 2012 and it enjoys a rating of ‘AA’. While most of these bonds offer minimum investment of Rs5,000, SREI Infra has a Rs1,000 bond and hence is helpful if someone wants to invest less than Rs5,000.

    IFCI pays the highest interest amongst all of them. It pays 9.09% p.a. and 9.16% p.a. for 10 and 15 years, respectively. It offers buyback at the end of 5th and 7th year for tenures of 10 years and 5th and 10th year for 15-year bonds. Giving two options for buyback for each of the terms is an incentive for customers. IFCI bonds have rating of ‘A+’. The issue had closing date of 16 January 2012, but it has been extended to 8 February 2012. 

    PTC India Financial Services (PFS) offers 8.93% p.a. and 9.15% p.a. for 10 and 15 years, respectively. It offers buyback every year after completion of five years for 10 years bond tenure and every year after completion of seven years for 15 years bond tenure. The buyback terms are certainly flexible. Even though the parent company PTC is a government promoted public-private partnership, PFS has been assigned only ‘an A+’ rating. The issue closes on 2 February 2012. 

    Even though these bonds appear in a demat account, there are restrictions for selling them in the secondary market within the lock-in period of five years.


  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.



    B V Vijaya BE CIS

    9 years ago

    It is not worth to invest in Infrastructure bonds though there is income tax benefit on this investment.
    Consider the investment after paying income tax in a Mutual Fund for 5 / 10 years your money grows at least at 15% (It shall be much more than this on such loner periods even considering capital market fluctuations.
    Secondly one has to pay Income tax for the interest earned on these bonds which results in much lesser rreturns than said. The inflation reduces the returns further which makes the investment not worth.
    The returns of Equity Mutual funds are Tax Free {after one year} Plus one can withdraw the investment any time in due course.

    HSBC China Consumer Opportunities Fund: More of the same

    HSBC plans to launch another Fund of Funds scheme investing in foreign equities— another global fund with no track record

    HSBC Mutual Fund plans to launch an open-ended Fund of Funds (FOF) scheme—HSBC China Consumer Opportunities Fund. The scheme would invest 95%-100% in its overseas fund—HSBC Global Investment Funds (HGIF) China Consumer Opportunities Fund. The rest would be invested in money market instruments and units of domestic mutual funds. The investment objective of the underlying fund is to invest for long-term total return in a diversified portfolio of investments in equity and equity equivalent securities of mid to large cap companies around the world, positioned to benefit from the growing middle class and changing consumer behaviour in China. The rationale behind the fund is that the growing population of middle class, gifting culture and liberalisation of tourism are upholding demand for international and local consumer goods. The fund does not have any track record as it has just been launched in September 2011. As on December 2011, the fund had invested in companies of 10 different countries. Around 51.2% of the investments are in stocks of United States, France and Switzerland; just 17% is invested in companies located in Hong Kong and China. Some of the companies in the top ten holdings include: Adidas, Louis Vuitton, Swatch, L’Oreal and Henkel.

    This is the third FOF launched by HSBC which invests in its overseas fund. The other two funds are—HSBC Brazil Fund and HSBC Emerging Market Fund. (Read about what we said here: Avoid HSBC Brazil Fund new fund offer , Faith Investing ) There have been many such funds launched in the past by fund companies, inviting Indian investors to park money in their overseas fund. Apparently, most of these overseas funds do not have a long and proven track record of good performance. Moneylife has constantly been writing about such funds in the past years. These funds are pure fads.

    We have had similar funds like the recent Mirae Asset India-China Consumption fund, which invests as much as 35% in companies from China and the rest in Indian equities and debt instruments. There are also FOF schemes like JPMorgan JF Greater China Equity Offshore Fund and Mirae Asset China Advantage Fund which invest in funds that primarily invest in companies domiciled in China. Here again, there is no long-term performance available for these funds. In the last two years these funds have returned around 2% whereas the Sensex was down by 2%, but in the last one year the returns have more or less tracked the Sensex.

    Even if investing in such a fund tends to diversify one’s portfolio, how much should one plan to allocate to these funds? One needs to study the investment strategy and analyse the portfolio of the foreign fund. It’s clear these funds are not meant for individuals who do not even have a significant portion of his investments in Indian equity funds.

  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.


    We are listening!

    Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

    To continue

    Sign Up or Sign In


    To continue

    Sign Up or Sign In



    online financial advisory
    Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
    online financia advisory
    The Scam
    24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
    Moneylife Online Magazine
    Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
    financial magazines online
    Stockletters in 4 Flavours
    Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
    financial magazines in india
    MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
    (Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)
    FREE: Your Complete Family Record Book
    Keep all the Personal and Financial Details of You & Your Family. In One Place So That`s Its Easy for Anyone to Find Anytime
    We promise not to share your email id with anyone