Of Mutual Funds, Asset Sizes and Oblivious Experts

With calendar year 2015 coming to an end, business dailies are busy publishing round-ups of the year gone by. Expectedly, performances clocked by various investment avenues have been put under the scanner. An article detailing the performance of the largest (by asset size) equity mutual funds caught my eye. In a year when equity markets have had a rough run, most of the abovementioned funds fared better than their respective benchmark indices.    

However the truly interesting bit was an expert’s take on the performance. He attributed the positive showing to a combination of active fund management and strong flows into funds. The former makes sense. In a year when large-cap stocks struggled (the S&P BSE 100 posted a loss of 3%) and small/mid-caps fared somewhat better (S&P BSE MidCap: up 6%, and S&P BSE SmallCap: up 5%), a benchmark-hugging strategy wasn’t going to work. Skilled stock-picking and portfolio management were the need of the hour.

Robust inflows aid performance?

Now for the latter part: strong inflows in equity funds aiding performance. Not only is this reasoning questionable, it also exhibits a poor understanding of how mutual funds work.

Let’s take an example: Both Rs 100 and Rs 1,000 invested in a stock that appreciates 20% over a year deliver the same annual rate of return—20%. Simply put, a higher investment sum doesn’t alter the rate of return.

Critics might argue that the return varies i.e. while Rs 100 yields Rs 20, Rs 1,000 returns Rs 200. Fair enough. But let’s not forget that inflows (a higher investment amount) also result in a proportionately higher number of mutual fund units being issued. In other words, the higher return (Rs 200 versus Rs 20) is equalised by a larger number of units, resulting in the same rate of return.

Buying on dips: Theory vs. Practical

The expert further elucidates how robust flows helped portfolio managers invest smartly during corrections. Portfolio managers would like inflows to coincide with downturns; invest on downturns and then see those stocks outperform thereon. Admittedly in theory, that premise sounds fine. However in practice things work a bit differently. 

To begin with, typically such a phenomenon plays out over the long-term, and not over a year. Furthermore, in 2015, not many of the better performing stocks displayed a ‘V-shaped’ recovery. Any manager expecting the ‘downturn-inflows-invest-upturn’ cycle to play out consistently and immediately is banking on luck.    

On the other hand, a skilled manager focuses on portfolio construction—stock and sector allocation, managing liquidity and risk, among other aspects—which in turn enables him to rejig the portfolio and increase allocation to attractively valued stocks. Hence, yet again it doesn’t take inflows to deliver a positive showing.    

Asset size and performance

To buttress his point, the expert adds that fund asset size being a constraint for performance is a myth. Let’s examine this hypothesis. In India, the framework for expenses charged to a fund is structured to reduce cost when asset size grows. Hence, the larger a fund gets, cheaper it becomes; this is certainly positive for investors. Also for debt funds, it might help to have a larger size to enable making investments in government securities, given the standard market lot size of Rs 50 mn.    

But there is a flip side too: A large fund size can pose challenges in the form of market-impact costs, the opportunity cost of having to spread trades over longer periods and liquidity management; this is especially true in small/mid-cap funds. In India, several small/mid-cap funds have mutated into large-cap dominated funds thanks to unrestricted asset flows. It’s worth mentioning that in many cases the performance in the new avatar was a shadow of its former self.

Finally there’s the often unappreciated fact that the dynamics of running a large fund are vastly different versus those of running a smaller sized fund. Not every portfolio manager has the skills to successfully run a large fund. 

Why investors must beware

There’s a plethora of investors who are yet getting used to the idea of investing in mutual funds. Sadly, misconceptions such as invest based only on performance, focus on the one-year showing are prevalent. When oblivious experts go about preaching that a large asset size aids performance et al (in other words, ‘invest in a large sized fund’) they are doing investors a disservice. On their part, investors would do well be wary of such experts and their advice.

Data sourced from: www.bseindia.com

Should SEBI be so concerned about size?

Admittedly, “does size matter?” is one of the more tricky questions to answer. Depending on where and when that question is posed, it could evoke different responses from the same individual.

However (and on a more serious note), market regulator SEBI seems to have an unambiguous view on the subject. It is seemingly convinced that bigger is indeed better. Not too long ago, it mandated that the minimum net worth of asset management companies (AMCs) be increased to Rs 500 million (from the erstwhile minimum of Rs 100 million). If recent media reports are to be believed, SEBI has written to AMCs asking them to merge or close debt funds with an asset size of less than Rs 200 million. Reports further suggest that equity funds with an asset size of less than Rs 100 million will be dealt with likewise.

Yet again SEBI seems convinced that investors’ interests will be better served by investing in larger funds. To be fair, larger funds offer certain advantages: all things being equal, they are structured to be more competitive on the price (read expense ratio) front versus smaller sized funds. In certain segments of the debt market, the minimum lot size is on the higher side, in turn necessitating that the fund have a reasonable asset size to be able to operate efficiently.    

But doesn’t it strike as being odd that the market regulator is now even dictating what a fund’s minimum asset size should be? Clearly, there’s more to it than meets the eye. For some time now, SEBI has been trying to make mutual fund investing less complicated for investors. Remember the risk-based colour-coding for funds, or even asking AMCs to disclose fund performance versus an appropriate benchmark index across specified time periods. To my mind, SEBI recognizes that there are too many funds available out there which makes fund selection a difficult task for investors. With this move, SEBI is in fact trying to rationalize the number of funds.

In India, AMCs have displayed a penchant for recklessly launching new fund offers (NFOs), since NFOs do act as tools of asset mobilisation. In this context, while the regulator’s intent cannot be flawed, the approach needs to be questioned. A fund’s asset size in isolation cannot be the barometer of its worthiness. Just as there are several small funds which perform and serve investors well, there are several large ones which are laggards and hurt investors’ interests.

Disallowing smaller funds en masse hardly seems like the right solution. Instead what the regulator must do is force (since they seem incapable of doing so voluntarily) accountability on AMCs. And here’s how:

1.   Make AMCs invest in all their open-ended funds:   

Extend the scope of the recent regulation whereby the concept of seed capital in open-ended NFOs has been introduced to all open-ended funds. Simply put, it should be mandatory for AMCs to invest their personal monies in all their open-ended funds. Apart from boosting the fund’s asset size, this move will (more importantly) also reveal an AMC’s true commitment to its funds. It should come as no surprise if a number of funds are voluntarily closed or merged irrespective of their asset size.

2.   Make the Board of Trustees accountable

The Board of Trustees (BoT) is required to sign off on NFOs authenticating that they are different from the AMC’s existing funds. Truth be told, not all boards have distinguished themselves, else we wouldn’t have had a proliferation of like NFOs. It’s time SEBI makes the BoT accountable by getting them to audit all existing funds on an ongoing basis with a view to weed out both weak and similar funds. The audit report, recommendations made and action taken should be a part of the annual statutory disclosure.

3.   Enhance quality of distributors

This is admittedly a long-term initiative: the Indian mutual fund industry needs more informed and better-equipped distributors. Sadly, there are a large number of well-meaning distributors who would like to do what’s right for the investor, but are ill-equipped to do so. For instance, when an AMC offers them a fund with a poor investment proposition, they are unable to see through it. The answer lies in re-visiting the criteria for empanelling distributors. Also, SEBI should mandate that a part of the monies meant for ‘investor education’ initiatives (we all know how that is really utilised J) be used for training distributors.

Finally, the market regulator must recognize that if it wishes to attract investors and build investor confidence, there is a need to make systemic changes in the mutual fund industry. Targeting smaller sized funds is unlikely to help on either count.