Will small savings schemes be rationalised?

Lately, several business dailies have been carrying reports suggesting that the rates offered by schemes from the small savings segment are up for review. Apparently, banks that have been nudged by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to cut lending rates have demanded a rationalisation in small savings schemes; the rationale being that attractive rates on the same prevent banks from lowering deposit rates. This in turn impacts their ability to reduce lending rates. A recently-appointed RBI deputy governor echoed similar views.

What are small savings schemes?
Small savings schemes are colloquially referred to as post office schemes. Broadly speaking, schemes like Public Provident Fund (PPF), National Savings Certificate (NSC), Kisan Vikas Patra (KVP), Post Office Monthly Income Scheme (POMIS) and the Senior Citizens Savings Scheme (SCSS), among others form the small savings segment. These schemes are backed by a sovereign guarantee, making them risk-free investments. Also, certain schemes offer tax benefits under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act.

The rationalisation saga
Reports of a rationalisation in the small savings segment have cropped up on several occasions over the past few years. Several panels and committees mandated by the central bank have recommended a more 'rational' structure. However, barring some cosmetic changes, the small savings segment has remained largely unchanged.

Incidentally, provisional figures (sourced from RBI's website) reveal that in 2008-09, inflows in the small savings segment grew after falling successively in the two previous financial years. It's not difficult to understand the reason for this phenomenon. The aforementioned time-frame coincided with a sharp downturn in equity markets; consequently investors smarting from heavy losses in equity and mutual fund investments chose to opt for 'safe' avenues. And investors' preference for small savings schemes in a time of adversity only bears testimony to their popularity.

Will the FM bite the bullet?
Come July 3, 2009 when the Union Budget is presented, will the FM announce a reduction in rates offered by small savings schemes? Your guess is as good as mine. However doing so would certainly qualify as a bona fide unpopular step. For instance let's consider a segment of investors like senior citizens and retirees who are largely dependent on income generated from investments. For such investors, POMIS and SCSS are 'bread and butter' investment avenues, given their need for safety of capital and assured income. Any reduction in interest rates on these avenues is unlikely to go down well with investors. Also, let's not forget that speculation is rife, that we are in store for a popular budget.

The 'middle of the road' approach
A more likely scenario seems one wherein interest rates on certain schemes will be altered, instead of 'across-the-board' changes. For instance, the PPF which runs over a 15-Yr period offers assured returns, however the interest rate (8% pa at present) is subject to change. Post Office Time Deposits (POTDs) offer an investment proposition similar to the one offered by bank fixed deposits. A reduction in interest rates on such schemes is unlikely to raise many eyebrows.

While reducing interest rates would be the direct approach to rationalisation, there are other ways as well. These would entail reducing the attractiveness of the schemes. For example, Section 80C benefits can be removed from some of the schemes. The investment tenure/lock-in can be enhanced, thereby forcing investors to stay invested for longer. Clearly, there's more than one way to rationalise the small savings segment.

What investors must do
For investors who were planning to invest in small savings schemes, now wouldn't be a bad time to get invested. This is especially true for avenues like NSC or POTDs wherein the rate of interest is locked at the time investment. This will ensure that the investments are immune to any subsequent change.

Without doubt, the small savings segment looks set to undergo an overhaul; as regards the magnitude of the same, only time will tell. However, few would dispute the role that small savings schemes can play, in terms of being the risk-free debt component in the portfolio. As always, investors would do well to judiciously select schemes that suit them the best.

Much ado about 'no entry load'

All right. So, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has decided that mutual funds will no longer be permitted to charge an entry load. And all hell has broken loose! Newspapers are carrying articles with comments from 'experts' and 'senior officials' at fund houses running down the move; a lot of emphasis is being laid on how this step will hurt the mutual fund industry. But is that correct? Can a step that is evidently pro-investor be detrimental to the industry?

Let's take a look at what SEBI has proposed. Following is an extract from a press release posted on SEBI's website:

"There shall be no entry load for the schemes, existing or new, of a Mutual Fund. The upfront commission to distributors shall be paid by the investor to the distributor directly. The distributors shall disclose the commission, trail or otherwise, received by them for different schemes/ mutual funds which they are distributing or advising the investors."

The guideline suggests that the practice of fund houses deducting an entry load (from the sum invested) and paying the same to distributors (investment agents/advisors) as upfront commission will be discontinued. Instead, the investor will have to compensate the distributor for the services rendered. Also, distributors shall be obliged to reveal the total commission they earn from various mutual funds.

So let's see, what's causing all the hoopla? Have distributors been deprived of their livelihood? Does the regulation suggest that henceforth distributors will have to treat selling mutual funds as a philanthropic activity? No. So why all the fuss? Here's why. Thanks to this step, distributors have been made accountable. They can no longer operate with a "the more I sell, the more I will earn" mindset. With an assured income of 2.25% or thereabouts from the entry load, aspects like quality of advice and service were rarely granted any importance. However, that modus operandi is now history. Several distributors will have to kiss a tearful goodbye to the 'easy money' route. And this is where all the agony stems from!

Any distributor who is confident about the quality of services he offers, should welcome this step. Nowhere does the guideline suggest how much income the distributor can demand from the investor. So if the distributor provides quality advice that is consistently in the investor's best interests and backs it with top-notch service, he could potentially demand more than the 2.25% that was available to him via the erstwhile entry load. Hardly a reason to complain!

Now for the second part of the guideline - disclosing all commission earnings. Again, distributors only have themselves to blame. Having built a reputation for selling mutual funds that offer them the highest commission, mis-selling continues to be common practice in the mutual fund industry. SEBI is simply trying to incorporate greater transparency in the investor-distributor association. Distributors who do not engage in any malpractice have no reason to fear. They should be able to justify why they are recommending a given fund vis-à-vis another.

Some fund houses are apparently aggrieved since they believe that the mutual fund industry will suffer, since distributors will gravitate towards insurance products offering better commission. Hence fund houses will end up with lesser assets to manage. Of course, a smaller asset size translates into lesser income for the fund house.

Here's a counterargument - if the mutual funds on offer are attractive enough and can aid the investor in achieving his investment goals, he will demand them and thereby create a demand. And the onus to ensure that funds are attractive lies primarily with the fund house. Also, if a fund house feels that distributors deserve to be better compensated, it is free to cough up additional benefits out of its own pockets. Remember the regulator only stipulates how much expenses can be charged to the fund (i.e. borne by the investor). Any fund house/AMC which believes that distributors are being short-changed, should feel free to reward them out of its own coffers.

Time and again, fund houses have failed to act in the best interests of the investor. Their partisan attitude towards distributors and indifference towards investors has been disappointing to say the least. Let's hope this time around better sense prevails and they don't create any roadblocks in the implementation of this directive.

As for investors, they couldn't ask for more. First, they were given the opportunity to invest directly with the fund house, thereby bypassing the distributor and avoid paying an entry load. Now with the guideline to scrap the entry load, they can negotiate with the distributor and arrive at a fair price for the latter's services. The onus to make the most of this opportunity lies with investors.

Kudos to SEBI for taking a stand for investors!

Distributors and fund houses - keep your chin up. This round goes to investors!

Do you have a contingency reserve in place?

Does your investment advisor/financial planner recommend that you have a contingency reserve (or fund) in place at all times? Also, does he help you evaluate the adequacy of the same at regular time intervals? If not, then there might be a case for re-evaluating your association with the investment advisor/financial planner.

Simply put, maintaining a contingency reserve amounts to saving for a rainy day. Alongside creating portfolios to meet goals like retirement and children's education, having a contingency reserve in place is equally important. As the name suggests, this is a pool of money set aside to provide for unforeseen events. While the concept of maintaining a dedicated reserve for the aforementioned purpose isn't exactly a recent phenomenon, its need has certainly become more pronounced now, thanks to the layoffs, pay cuts and enterprises shutting shop.

A contingency reserve ensures that you can go about with your day-to-day activities even in the event of an unexpected (and unpleasant) situation arising. In effect, it ensures that you don't have to compromise on your lifestyle, even in difficult times.

How much money will I need
Like investing, creating a contingency reserve is also a personalised activity i.e. it has to be tailor-made for you. What you need to do is determine how much money you need to meet all your expenses on say a monthly basis. This will include making an estimate of all expenses i.e. grocery bills, utility bills (electricity, telephone, petrol, rent and EMI), outlay towards children's tuition fees, among others. Activities like dinners in restaurants, weekend getaways, movies and shopping sprees at malls should also be provided for. You might also want to incorporate a certain amount for medical emergencies, given how expensive hospitalisation and medical treatment can be (remember, medical insurance doesn't cover all ailments). While theoretically the list can be endless, you need to arrive at one that is right for you. It should comprehensively cover all the areas that you would need to spend on in the normal course, and thereby ensure that your lifestyle is not dented.

The next step is to determine the period for which you would like to make a provision. Again, this choice needs to be made, based on what works for you. Suppose you arrive at Rs X as the sum that you need to spend every month; furthermore, you believe that 6 months is the period for which you would like to have a 'safety net'. In that case, you should have a contingency reserve of Rs 6X.

How to create a contingency reserve
It's possible that you may not have the requisite sum (Rs 6X) available at your disposal, to begin with. That's fine. Set aside what you have and keep adding to it in a disciplined manner until the target is achieved. It is important that the contingency reserve be invested in appropriate avenues. Safety and liquidity are two factors that must be accorded high priority. Hence, the sum can be stored in a separate (more on this later) savings bank account; a portion of the reserve can even be held in cash. The intention is ensure that the earmarked funds can be accessed at a short notice and also, that they are not exposed to any risk.

The contingency reserve is sacrosanct
It is vital that you respect the sacred nature of the contingency reserve. In some cases, the sum being set aside can be quite substantial. There will be temptations to dip into the reserve and use the monies for purposes, other than the intended ones. For instance, if equity markets are surging, a substantial sum of money lying unutilised in a savings bank account may stick out like a sore thumb; there will be temptation to invest those monies in the markets. When it's the festive season, attractive discounts are commonplace. You might be tempted to use the reserve to capitalise on the same. Don't succumb to such temptations. It would certainly help to hold the contingency funds in a separate bank account. Thus the likelihood of the funds getting used up for extraneous purposes will be reduced.

Finally, at regular time intervals, it is important that you review if the contingency reserve is adequate. An upgrade in your lifestyle could mean that the contingency reserve has become inadequate. In such a scenario, replenishing the same at the earliest should be given priority.

In a time of crisis, not having a contingency reserve could force you to either compromise on your lifestyle or divert monies from other needs. In either case, it would be an undesirable scenario. Several individuals are vulnerable to the "it will never happen to me, so why provide for it" syndrome. While it would be nice to be never faced with a crisis, banking on the same might amount to wishful thinking. Remember, the rationale for a contingency reserve can be traced to the time-tested tenet of - prevention being better than cure.

The Lords of Flatbush: A small classic

The black & white image on the blog has evoked a fair bit of curiosity. I have had several queries on what it stands for. Here goes - it's an image from a 1974 movie called "The Lords of Flatbush" - TLF. A typical low-budget independent flick, over the years, it has acquired a cult status. Also, it happens to be one of my all-time favourites.

For most, TLF's claim to fame is that it boasts of several major stars in their pre-stardom days. Of the leading men, Perry King subsequently made a name for himself as a television star starring in the series "Riptide" and several made-for-TV films. Henry Winkler acquired iconic status playing "Fonzie" in "Happy Days". Finally, a lesser-known actor called Sylvester Stallone went on to become one of the biggest movie stars portraying legendary characters like "Rocky" and "Rambo".

But there's much more to TLF than its star cast. Set in the 1950s, it's a heartfelt coming of age tale. The central characters are a bunch of leather-clad, teen-aged delinquents who are resisting growing up. They identify themselves as members of a 'social athletic club' called the Lords of Flatbush. And their activities include indulging in boorish behaviour, picking up fights, chasing girls, stealing cars and playing pool. In fact, the opening credits unambiguously establish the credentials of the Lords.

As is often the case with low-budget flicks, TLF suffers from some serious technical flaws. Oddly, they add to the film's gritty and real theme. And that is one of TLF's fortes. Unlike "Grease" (the far more popular 1950s movie that hit theatres a few years later), which is about as real as Santa Claus, TLF offers an earthy look at life in the 1950s, despite the leather jackets, pompadour hair, vintage cars and bikes, drive-in, soda store et al. It's about believable characters in life-like situations.

While the performances are top-notch, the well-etched characters and perfect casting deserve to be applauded as well. Perry King enjoys maximum screen time; armed with a cool bike, he is the Casanova with a roving eye. Sylvester Stallone plays the archetypal tough guy with a heart of gold, with a lot of gusto. Henry Winkler has the brains in the gang and is clearly wasting his time. But then breaking ranks and doing something worthwhile wouldn't be Lord-like behaviour. Finally, the pint-sized Paul Mace whose only identity is that he is a Lord, and he couldn't care less. Each actor has his moments. However, the best scenes are undoubtedly the ones wherein the Lords are together doing what they do best - having a blast!

TLF's brilliant and apt soundtrack merits a mention. Another interesting aspect of the film is that it lacks a well-developed story line. Instead, what you have are various incidents in the life and times of the protagonists; each one offering an insight into the protagonist's character. One grouse I have with TLF is its runtime. At about 86 minutes, it seems a trifle too short.

While TLF-enthusiasts have lapped up the film on DVD and video over the years, they were in store for a bonus recently. TLF's co-director Stephen Verona authored a book titled "The making of The Lords of Flatbush". It offers some interesting insights, trivia and a behind-the-scenes look at the cult film. For instance, Richard Gere was set to play one of the Lords and his run-ins with Stallone were largely responsible for his exit. Also, Bette Midler was supposed to be a cast in TLF.

Anyone who has ever been a part of a closely-knit gang will easily identify with TLF and the nostalgic feel that it strongly evokes. Without doubt, TLF qualifies as a must-watch!

Look who's talking!

Mutual funds are back with a bang! Pick up any newspaper and you are bound to come across a mutual fund related write-up or advertisement. Given the surge in equity markets, the performance of mutual funds has started looking up. And fund houses are sparing no effort (explicit or implicit) to spread the gospel of mutual funds. There are articles eulogising the impressive showing delivered by mutual funds in the recent past; also, the fact that the mutual fund industry now holds a record assets under management (AUM) size has been well-documented. Fund managers are busy giving out interviews highlighting how mutual funds will hold investors in good stead over the long-term. Dividends are being declared in a hurry by several funds to prove their prowess. Finally, some new fund offers (NFOs) have already been launched (more on this later in the article) and several others are on the way. All in all, it can be safely stated that mutual funds are back with a bang!

Circa October 2008
Not too long ago (October 2008 to be precise), the scenario was radically different. Equity funds had been hit hard by the sharp decline in equity markets; even 3-Yr performance numbers were in negative territory. Debt offerings like fixed maturity plans (FMPs) and liquid/liquid plus funds had come under the scanner on account of the liquidity crisis; questions were being raised about the quality of investments made by several funds. Simply put, mutual funds had become everyone's favourite 'whipping boys'. While all the criticism may not have been justified, some of it certainly was.

Interestingly, the response of fund houses to the demanding situation was rather curious. Most fund houses went into a 'silent' mode and simply chose not to react. When relationship managers were contacted for information about their funds, the standard response was, "everything is fine; there is nothing to worry about". Requests for one-on-one interviews with fund managers were either instantly turned down on the grounds that the fund manager was busy or stalled with the excuse - "we'll get back to you on this one". While some fund houses/fund managers were willing to go on record about the nature and quality of their fund portfolios, they were strictly in a minority.

Odd isn't it. In a time of crisis, fund houses, instead of communicating with investors to assuage their concerns, chose to go into hiding. And now, when the going is good, fund houses are acting like 10-yr old over-energetic blabbermouths who can't keep mum. That tells you something about fund houses, doesn't it?

As for the NFOs, at any sign of rising markets and a revival in investor interest, they make a comeback. Already, we have had a round of the 'target return' NFOs. Simply put, these are funds wherein there is an inbuilt clause for booking profits when a certain return (as specified by the investor) is clocked. In most cases, the profits are booked and invested in a debt fund from the same fund house. For investors who were ruing the fact that they didn't book profits when markets peaked in January 2008, only to see the value of their investments plummet subsequently, these NFOs struck a chord.

Here's a thought - is it prudent for mutual funds to book profits for investors or is that something investors should be independently dealing with after taking into account factors like their individual financial goals, the investment scenario and the performance of their investment portfolio as a whole. Also, let's not forget that regularly 'booking profits' for every individual investor at a fund level, just might force the fund manager to prematurely sell some quality stocks from his portfolio. This in turn, could be detrimental to the long-term interests of the fund.

But given the receptiveness shown by investors, fund houses were only more than happy to launch a slew of 'target return' funds. Some introduced the facility to book profits in their existing funds. Of course, the fact that even after booking profits, (on account of transfer of profits booked into a debt fund) there is no fall in the AUM of the fund house doesn't hurt the latter's cause. Rest assured, with the markets moving northwards at a brisk pace, it's only a matter of time before a number of NFOs hit the markets.

What investors must do
Given that fund houses have failed to distinguish themselves, it is fair to state that investors would do well not to blindly follow them while making investment decisions. Going forward, fund houses will try to entice investors by making them believe that all is hunky dory and now is the time to get invested lock, stock and barrel. Can't blame them, it's the AUM that translates into income for them. Hence, higher the AUM i.e. more investments made by investors, the better it is for fund houses.

On the other hand, investors need to be a lot more pragmatic. They should not get carried away by all the hype being whipped up by fund houses. Instead, they should use the downturn and despondency that they witnessed and experienced not too long ago, to make a fair evaluation of their risk-taking ability. This can help them determine what portion of the investment portfolio should be allocated to mutual funds. While no one would dispute the ability of well-managed mutual funds to add value to investors' portfolios, there is certainly a need to guard against making investments in a reckless manner.