Why did HDFC Mutual Fund acquire Morgan Stanley?

HDFC Mutual Fund is one of the top asset managers in the mutual fund industry and yet, surprisingly, spent nearly 4%-5% of the total assets of Morgan Stanley to increase its own asset base by a meagre 3%
 

Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund is selling around Rs3,300 crore of assets to HDFC Mutual Fund which would mean just a 3% addition to HDFC Mutual Fund’s assets under management (AUM) of over Rs1 lakh crore. In the current acquisition, the mutual fund schemes of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund that would merge with schemes of HDFC Mutual Fund are: Morgan Stanley A.C.E, Morgan Stanley Active Bond, Morgan Stanley Gilt, Morgan Stanley Growth, Morgan Stanley Liquid Fund, Morgan Stanley Multi Asset, Morgan Stanley Short Term Bond and Morgan Stanley Ultra Short Term Bond.
 

Why would a HDFC Mutual Fund, a fund house with the highest assets in the industry, acquire schemes of a smaller mutual fund house which makes adds an insignificant 3% to HDFC Mutual Fund’s assets under management? This would make business sense only if the cost of acquiring new investors would be more than the cost of acquiring the schemes of another fund house. Is it that even a top performing fund house is probably finding it difficult to acquire new investors?
 

Last year Fidelity Mutual Fund sold its assets to L&T Mutual Fund. Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund is the second fund house to sell off its mutual fund asset this year after Daiwa Mutual Fund sold its assets to SBI Mutual Fund for an undisclosed amount. With heavy outflow of assets over the recent years, many mutual fund houses have found their businesses unviable. The fact remains that investors are not interested in investing in mutual funds due to flawed products, flawed methods of selling, flawed regulation and huge costs to acquire new investors.
 

Only three mutual fund schemes of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund have a corpus over Rs50 crore. Morgan Stanley Growth, an equity scheme, launched nearly two decades back, has a corpus of just Rs68 crore. The other two are Morgan Stanley Liquid Fund and Morgan Stanley Ultra Short-Term Fund. What is clear is that the Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund has been struggling to increase its corpus, having made a half-hearted push a few years ago to increase its range of funds.
 

According to an article published by Economic Times, HDFC Mutual Fund is said to have paid Rs150-170 crore which works out to 4.5% to 5% of the total assets of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund. Considering fund houses were paying as much as 6% commissions to distributors for getting high ticket value investments for Rajiv Gandhi Equity Savings Schemes, HDFC Mutual Fund would have probably found this route of asset acquisition a cheaper alternative. (Read: High value applications perverting RGESS, while SEBI remains mum)
 

To get noticed by investors, mutual fund houses would need to pay high commissions to distributors to promote their mutual fund schemes and more so, after the ban on entry load in August 2009 that killed all incentives to sell mutual funds. Three years back we had reported that SEBI might have shot the mutual fund industry in the back by banning entry load without thinking through the implications. (Read: Mutual Fund turmoil: Can SEBI be held accountable?). With the banning of entry load, the distributors’ margins have been squeezed and they have been exiting the business of selling mutual fund in droves. Mutual fund houses had their hands tied, because if they had to increase commissions for distributors they would have to pay from their own pockets. In the past few years, there has been a huge outflow of equity assets, while the markets have remained volatile and flat. With depleting mutual fund corpuses, many mutual fund houses would have found the business unviable.
 

According to Birla Sun Life Mutual Fund, the fifty years old Indian mutual fund industry is fraught with a number of challenges. A press release stated that the penetration of mutual funds in India (as measured by the AUM/GDP ratio) remains low at 4.7% as compared to 77.0% in the US, 41.1% in Europe and 33.6% in the UK. Greatly under-penetrated, the industry comprising over 40 mutual fund companies today collectively manages 2.5% of Indian household savings. The right kind of awareness among investors about mutual funds, the diversity and benefits of its offerings remains a challenge. Being an advisory product which is largely distribution driven, stagnation in growth of distributor base also acts as a limiting factor.
 

Over the past year the SEBI came out with a slew of reforms in order to drive more retail participation. However, these new policies have had a marginal impact on mutual fund inflows. For years SEBI failed to pay heed to the voices of investors. Under the last two chairmen it did not pay heed to market players either. It has taken a trip on its own, at the cost of hapless retail investors and the mutual fund industry.

Comments
Deepak Gupta
1 decade ago
4.5â„… of AUM will be recovered in just two years. So, it makes sense for HDFC AMC to buy this portfolio.
Sam Koshy
1 decade ago
It is very clear that AMCs don't want long term sustainable equity funds, instead they are interested in immediate profits only.They don't entertain a higher trail payouts for IFA distributors who bring in long term sustainable retail equity investments. Immediate profits comes from short term investing in equity schemes, which is happening in the case of corporate distributors and banks and they churn the investors money frequently which results in ultimate loss for the entire investors in a scheme. Because the corporate distributors and banks bringing in high volumes AMCs are ready to pay them more than triple the normal brokerage they pay for the IFA. Clearly speaking big distribution houses& banks are paid high at the cost of small IFAs. Those AMCs which are sure that they will not get more assets from the distribution fraternity will try such tricks of acquisition and mergers for their survival. But they will surely feel the heat soon. Whoever wants to develop the markets should consult the key IFAs& distributors, who are dealing with the end clients (investors),for getting constructive suggestions to develop the retail market.-Sam Koshy
CHILUKURI K R L RAO
1 decade ago
RGESS and closed ended funds are rarely sold by small distributors / IFAs and makes little difference to IFAs however big the commissions in those products may be. Moreover high commissions in these particular products are short term measures and have little impact in increasing the confidence of distributors to come in to the industry.

When IFAs like me bring in business fund houses hardly pay us 1% commission in the first year and from the second year onwards most fund houses pay around 0.5% commission for a majority of IFAs even today.

Focus has always been on bringing assets in to the industry with little importance given to sustaining them, hence the redemptions that we see today. Had the focus been on sustainability of assets, a higher trail only model would have been an auto choice. But, to give a higher trail only model fund houses have to sacrifice short term profits and sadly not many fund houses are willing to do so.

Had the increased expense ratio been passed on to the distributors in the form of a Trail commission of around 1% (irrespective of their size) it would have brought the sustainability of assets in to focus. If the existing active IFA survive and become profitable it will automatically attract new distributors to the industry.

Bringing back entry load would not only be an additional burden to the investors, it would bring back all the bad practices like churning, pass backs etc.,(which the industry is trying get rid of) and will dent the long term prospects of Mutual Funds as an industry.
Sanjay
1 decade ago
1) If selecting right stocks to invest is not easy then selecting right MF is also not easy. there are more schemes of MG than good stocks to invest.

2)high With expenses and commotion paid investor will always get lesser than stocks in bullish market and loss more in bearish market.
3) Investor unfriendly rout for direct plans - Submission of documents physically for KYC to every fund house - and tracking them separably discourages us for even short term parking of funds with MF
Mothit
1 decade ago
There is too much of blame game here. The attempt of SEBI to stop certain bad practices like frequent new fund offers from 2004 to 2008 resulting in not much benefit to investors as much as distributors and mutual funds and subsequent doing away with entry load altogether by SEBI. On the other hand, the costs at AMC skyrocketing on account of very high employment costs (eg Fidelity employment costs was appr. 60-70 cr) and at an average the employment costs at most AMC is appr. 18-20 crores which is ridiculous given that most of the work in outsourced. COmpounded is the poor fund management and stock markets. So its not one piece of problem as articulated by the author, but plentiful. I see the industry only focusing on the AUM and valuation, thats a reality.

The latest one going when I take note of SEBI site is the number of closed ended funds being launched. eg of SUndaram, the commission I understand is app. 8% upfront. If this is the only way investors will be lured then there is a lifespan for such practice.

I only hope that PFRDA eases costs as well as brings in flexibility, thats a far better choice from a financial planning perspective.
DEEPAK KHEMANI
1 decade ago
Its finally an AUM gathering exercise, expenses of upto 2.75% year on year is probably what counts.
The big only became bigger!
Vaibhav Dhoka
1 decade ago
Here financial literacy and availability of financial products is urban based and urban oriented only.
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback