In a rare outburst, heads of various mutual funds express displeasure with the regulator at an industry summit; also admit that rethinking is required about their own business
Five days after the law ministry and finance ministry took the wind out of the sails of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) on the issue of regulating Unit-linked Insurance Plans (ULIPs), the heads of mutual funds have probably started seeing their regulator in a different light and are emboldened to call a spade a spade. While the mutual fund industry has been limping over rocky terrain after the slew of regulatory changes introduced in July last year, fund companies were conspicuous by their silence on the extent of the impact felt by the industry.
However, during a summit discussion on challenges being faced by the industry yesterday, the chiefs of various asset management companies (AMCs) openly admitted to weakness in the industry's functioning and put the blame squarely on market regulator SEBI.
HN Sinor, CEO of AMFI (Association of Mutual Funds in India) set the tone by admitting that the industry has lost momentum post the changes. The newly elected chief of AMFI pointed out that there is a need for policy rework for the industry and that a roadmap should be drawn for the next five years to set things in order.
Speaking about the entry load ban and other initiatives taken by SEBI since last August, Mr Sinor said, "Commission payouts are an integral part of this industry.
A fresh review is needed in this regard. Such attempts (at regulatory change) could disturb the industry." Mr Sinor also suggested setting up of an ombudsman for the industry. The CEO's Interactive Roundtable at the CII Mutual Fund Summit 2010 that followed witnessed an even more frank discussion about the mess that the industry currently finds itself in.
UK Sinha, chairman and managing director of UTI Asset Management Co Ltd, commented that the mutual fund industry is becoming a 'shock absorber', what with all the changes being brought upon it. "The de-growth in assets under management is a worrying issue. The environment is not at all conducive or friendly," admitted Mr Sinha.
Ashu Suyash, managing director and country head, FIL Fund Management Pvt Ltd, pointed out that the industry players should have been given a reasonable time to adjust to the regulatory changes. "It has had a negative medium-term impact on the industry. The focus of AMCs has now changed from growth to survival," she said.
Sandeep Sikka, CEO of Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd, was also critical of the developments in the industry. Commenting on the regulatory involvement post the financial crisis, he said, "We have now moved from the point of less regulation to over-regulation in the industry."
Vivek Kudva, managing director, Franklin Templeton Asset Management India Pvt Ltd, pointed out that mutual fund products are sold, not bought. "The financial crisis has shown us that there is a role for advisors." Asking customers to cut a separate cheque as commission to the advisor is an inhibitor for this industry, said Mr Kudva. He pointed out that people do not do the same while buying electronic goods-a cheque is not made out to the manufacturer and dealer separately.
Not all brickbats were directed at the regulator, though. There were rare moments of introspection too. Mr Sikka, while addressing the issue of product innovation, made it clear that there is actually a need for the industry to be simple, instead of innovative. "The industry has innovated itself beyond its own understanding," he quipped. This is a rare admission. In the 2005-2008 period, AMCs were manufacturing and hard-selling mutual funds as if these were variants of soaps and shampoos. Distributors were offered lucrative incentives to sell new funds who in turn encouraged gullible investors to switch from existing units to new ones, deceiving them with the argument that the new units were cheaper because these were priced at Rs10. This glaring mis-selling is not talked of anymore but is one of the principal reasons for the poor fund performance and therefore the consequent disillusionment of retail investors with funds. It is quite intriguing to see CEOs of fund companies raising the issue of simplicity after having foisted complexity all these years.
Inside story of the National Stock Exchange’s amazing success, leading to hubris, regulatory capture and algo scam
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
1-year online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
30-day online access to the magazine articles published during the subscription period.
Access is given for all articles published during the week (starting Monday) your subscription starts. For example, if you subscribe on Wednesday, you will have access to articles uploaded from Monday of that week.
This means access to other articles (outside the subscription period) are not included.
Articles outside the subscription period can be bought separately for a small price per article.
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance.
Complete access to Moneylife archives since inception ( till the date of your subscription )
Unfortunately some people with the the idea of advisory service (but donot want to take the responsibility and pain of giving service to the client, which is the most needed to any investor who wants to save, invest and get a better returns) to make an easy money as any misselling agent (may be by changing to a more fancy name till their black deeds come to light) made these hue and cry and brought this mess and unfortunately the SEBI is responsible for all these.
All these people who make all these noice about commissions received by the intermediatories and talk about the FMC and frount end loads, why cant the come out with a product which dont have any charges and as they say just the advisor just suggests that product to investors and gets his advisory fee and the investor just buys it directly or does what he likes and if they are sucessfull all existing products will automatically vanish as they wish
Regards
Keshav B Bhat
Regards.
Here's why they are wrong.
ULIP Excuses, and Why They Are Wrong
The so-called turf-war on ULIPs that SEBI and IRDA have been fighting has now taken on a life of its own. In reality, just about the least important thing is who regulates ULIPs, while the most important thing-or rather, the only important thing-is that investors understand what they are getting into and make the choices that are best for them. I find that there's a great deal of misinformation floating around about ULIPs and why exactly are so many investment advisors so critical of them. ULIP proponents generally give a set of reasons which in their opinion invalidate criticism of ULIPs.
In this article, I'd like to briefly describe why I think these arguments are not valid.
Argument: ULIP expenses have been lowered by IRDA. ULIP expenses are now down to just 3 per cent for ULIPs of up to 10 years and 2.25 per cent for longer ones. Mutual funds, by comparison, have a higher fund management charges.
Reality: The way IRDA has framed the rules, 2.25 or 3 per cent is effectively the average over the entire lifetime of a ULIP. However, these charges are heavily front-loaded, something that allows insurance companies to circumvent them easily. During the first year, these charges are as high as 40 to 70 per cent. If the customer cannot continue with a policy for any reason, then his real expenses are far higher. And as it happens, a huge proportion of policies lapse during the earlier years. The front-loading has no logic, except to enrich insurers and agents. And fund management charges being lower than mutual funds is a not a full comparison. In mutual funds, total expenses are capped at 2.25 per cent for equity funds and less for other funds. These are not comparable to the fund management charges of ULIPs because ULIP customers also pay premium allocation charges, policy administration charges, mortality charges, and for guaranteed ULIPs, guarantee charge s. Comparing fund management cha ges alone is a joke.
Argument: ULIPs have led to a massive rise in insurance penetration in India.
Reality: Insurance means insurance, in the sense when the insured person dies, his family gets money to pay for food, rent and education. In a country with as little social security as ours, the growth of insurance has to mean the growth in the reach and quantum of risk cover for lives. To call ULIPs, a market risk-bearing product (with a tiny dose of insurance) by the name of insurance and then present it as evidence of the growth of insurance is simply dishonest, and to find a regulator appointed by the Government of India participating in this subterfuge is shameful.
Argument: The insurance industry provides a huge amount of employment. 30 lakh people have found work through insurance.
Reality: If ULIPs were a sound financial product than this would be wonderful news. Since they are not (see above reasons), this issue is a complete red herring. It is not the responsibility of ULIP customers to provide agents employment by giving away vast proportion of their premiums as commission. If crores of people's money has to be mis-invested to provide employment for lakhs of people, then it's better for those lakhs to find some other, more productive employment.
Argument: ULIP fund flows are important for the stock market and for infrastructure development.
Reality: The same as the employment argument. It is not the responsibility of ULIP customers to buy expensive and non-transparent investment products so that the stock markets can be boosted. Wouldn't it be possible to create infrastructure if ULIPs could be made more investor friendly.
I find the last two points to be particularly dishonest. They somehow imply that if ULIPs were made more investor-friendly, then lakhs of people would immediately become unemployed and money would stop flowing into development. However, ULIP critics like me have nothing against the concept of ULIPs. If ULIP cost is brought down and made non-front-loaded; and if transparency is enhanced to the level of other asset classes, then they would be a very good product. The fact that the ULIP's enforce gradual SIP-style investments could actually make them a superior product.
ULIPs should be converted into a product that has an investment component that has similar rules and regulations to mutual funds, in combination with an life-cover component that has the same pricing as term insurance. If this happens, then I'm sure that every opponent of ULIPs, including Value Research, will start recommending them above mutual funds.
-- Dhirendra Kumar
Valueresearchonline.com
is the reformist MR.BHAVE listening?
the yesterday's statement of mr. bhave saying MFs r not doing wel reflects that he is not aware of the returns given. SEBI should better concetrate on the other irregularities in the market. somebody should measure the performance of SEBI over the years
Instead of nailing 35 AMCs for reducing there costs on AC offices and Cushy Salaries and Incentives, he instead Screwed up the happiness of 35000 A r n holders.
And I donot have words for the 3 Crore and 50 lakh people in India, who will buy more of Ulips and other Insurance products now, as products with better commissions will get priority on marketing.
God knows who is going to get benefit out of the so called Initiatives.
Actually Bhave has very well enacted the role of "Warren Anderson, the former Union Carbide head" in what can be termed as the "Indian Mutual Fund Gas Tragedy".
Just would like to say, "bhave get well soon"
And once you do, take retirement and go to honeymoon.
asdistributor the revnuewhich they generate has plunged and their cost are as it is
many distributor has started to selling other product, or leaving the industry!
simply absurd.No client has ever complained about the entry load because no one mind paying a small amount of 1-2% as these charges for distributors are fully justifiable for the services they give their clients.