Much has been written and publicized by the investment managers about their ability to generate Alpha – above market returns. Most of the Mutual Funds offer documents and advertisements talk about how the fund has consistently beaten the market over the past years. And surprisingly, using very carefully chosen time frame as well as parameters, most of them have data also to substantiate their claims.
So, does it mean that these managers actually beat the market? Well, very unlikely – and if one adds the entry load (1-2% for most schemes), management fees (~2% annually), and exit loads (0-1%), there is very very miniscule chance that an investor would be better off by investing in a fund as against directly in the market index. Assuming an average all-expenses of 3% for a fund, you need the manager to beat the market by more than 3% to be actually able to generate alpha to his end clients. Add to it the fact that alpha is strictly a zero-sum game, and for every manager who beats the market, there would be another one who has been beaten by the market.
I’m strictly against use of Mutual Funds, atleast by people who can understand the basic nuances of stock market, and have the resources/skills to invest directly in the market. Most of the time we are afraid of losing money in the market – a fact compounded by frauds like Satyam, and we always run the fear that we may be caught on the wrong foot. However, the reality is that the same is true for a professional fund manager as well, and in fact I would like to think that they would have a larger tendency to take risks. And most of the fund managers in reality were caught napping during the Satyam fiasco.
So where does this leave an average retail investor? There are two choices for generating the market returns - (a) Using Index Futures, and (b) Using ETFs. I tend to prefer the latter over the former as futures are by their very nature a short term betting instrument, and if one plans to have an investment horizon of atleast an year, then futures would entail rolling the contract at every expiry – a costly as well as cumbersome exercise. ETFs are nothing but essentially a basket of all the stocks in an index, and have a small ticket size (currently INR 500 for Nifty BeES). Much goes behind the scenes with regard to how they are structured, and how they are able to track the Index. However, for a small investor, it would be sufficient to understand that they would tend to trade very close to the actual index value, and the management fees are much lower (0.50% or so) for these funds. So, if one just wants to have a plain exposure to the market, ETFs present a much better option compared with the mutual funds.
So, does it mean that these managers actually beat the market? Well, very unlikely – and if one adds the entry load (1-2% for most schemes), management fees (~2% annually), and exit loads (0-1%), there is very very miniscule chance that an investor would be better off by investing in a fund as against directly in the market index. Assuming an average all-expenses of 3% for a fund, you need the manager to beat the market by more than 3% to be actually able to generate alpha to his end clients. Add to it the fact that alpha is strictly a zero-sum game, and for every manager who beats the market, there would be another one who has been beaten by the market.
I’m strictly against use of Mutual Funds, atleast by people who can understand the basic nuances of stock market, and have the resources/skills to invest directly in the market. Most of the time we are afraid of losing money in the market – a fact compounded by frauds like Satyam, and we always run the fear that we may be caught on the wrong foot. However, the reality is that the same is true for a professional fund manager as well, and in fact I would like to think that they would have a larger tendency to take risks. And most of the fund managers in reality were caught napping during the Satyam fiasco.
So where does this leave an average retail investor? There are two choices for generating the market returns - (a) Using Index Futures, and (b) Using ETFs. I tend to prefer the latter over the former as futures are by their very nature a short term betting instrument, and if one plans to have an investment horizon of atleast an year, then futures would entail rolling the contract at every expiry – a costly as well as cumbersome exercise. ETFs are nothing but essentially a basket of all the stocks in an index, and have a small ticket size (currently INR 500 for Nifty BeES). Much goes behind the scenes with regard to how they are structured, and how they are able to track the Index. However, for a small investor, it would be sufficient to understand that they would tend to trade very close to the actual index value, and the management fees are much lower (0.50% or so) for these funds. So, if one just wants to have a plain exposure to the market, ETFs present a much better option compared with the mutual funds.
No comments:
Post a Comment