Should Investors Tap Into Media For Investment Advice?

Last weekend at a party, I met a rather interesting individual who declared that ‘the best things in life are free’. To buttress his view, he spoke about investments, and questioned the need to engage an adviser (read pay a fee), when one can get free advice from the media i.e. publications and television channels. I’m unaware as to what drove his belief: experience or the lure of ‘free’. In any case, his views found several takers, and soon he was dishing out ‘free advice’ on the best sources of investment advice. 

To be honest, this isn’t the first time I have heard such views being expressed. Many investors are convinced that sourcing and acting on investment advice from media can be financially rewarding. But is that line of thinking prudent? Let’s find out.

Advice vs. Coverage

Any adviser worth his salt will agree that investment advice should be focused on the investor i.e. customised to his risk appetite, investment horizon and goals. The key is to navigate the investor’s portfolio through various events, and stay on course to achieve predetermined goals.

Conversely, the media typically focuses on current events and trends. The journalist/host will have a perspective in place. Domain experts contribute to the perspective with quotes and/or data. Having covered one event, the media moves on to the next.

Whether or not the coverage is apt for every investor following it, is anyone’s guess. Therein lies the fundamental difference between investment advice and media coverage.

Go Where the Wind Blows

In Feb 2016, when domestic equity markets crashed, stocks of public sector banks were among the worst hit, reeling under burgeoning bad loans. Expectedly the media coverage was negative, and most experts opined that the worst was far from over.

Between then and now, both bank stocks and equity markets have staged a smart recovery. While fundamentally not much has changed, appreciating stock prices have resulted in sections of the media putting a positive spin on PSU bank stocks with experts stating “You can’t do away with SBI. If it’s not in our portfolio, we are missing out on India’s economic growth…” and so on. To clarify, such instances of rapidly changing positions are common in media.

Is this a case of mala fide intent? Not at all. This is simply the nature of the beast; media covers events in a manner that will appeal to its audience. Investors choosing to treat media coverage as investment advice, and acting on the same, only have themselves to blame.

Should We Shoot The Messenger?

Does the solution lie in insulating oneself from media? I don’t think so. Media can be an excellent source of information and updates. Following reputed channels and publications can help stay abreast of events. That’s where investors must draw the line.

I’m not suggesting that every investor must engage an adviser. There are several who are conversant with the nuances of investing, and don’t need to engage an expert.

As for investors who need assistance, but have never paid for investment advice, admittedly it can be a difficult threshold to cross. But there’s a need to weigh up the downside of a misguided investment versus the cost of acquiring prudent and expert investment advice. 

In any case, relying on media for investment advice seems like an imprudent choice.

Will This Be Robo Advisory Firms’ Achilles' Heel?

Robo advice has become a buzzword in the financial services domain, and robo advisory firms are mushrooming at a furious pace in India. A combination of factors—growing financial literacy among investors (especially in urban areas), internet penetration, and enhanced awareness about mutual funds, among others—has contributed to this phenomenon. It can be safely stated that robo advice is an idea whose time has come.

As the name suggests, robo advice eliminates human intervention. Instead of an adviser, the investor is guided by algorithms run on a website. Typically, the investor feeds in information about his age, risk-taking ability, income and expenses, current assets and liabilities, financial goals, expected inflation et al. The robo adviser uses the data to produce a suggested asset-allocation and a list of mutual funds that can aid the investor achieve his financial goals while adhering to his risk appetite. Furthermore, robo advisory firms also enable investors to make online mutual fund investments thereby acting as distributors too.

To my mind, several of the robo advisory firms do a decent enough job when it comes to risk-profiling and arithmetic calculations. Likewise, it is evident that some have paid due attention to areas such as user interface. It is the last mile—recommending mutual funds—where most err.

It is commonplace to see funds being recommended based solely on performance. Typically, the three-year period is considered, and top-performing funds make it to the robo adviser's list. Recommendations are also offered in the form of a portfolio of mutual funds. Yet again, the three-year showing is the primary factor for picking funds from various categories. Given the strong showing posted by small/mid-caps in the recent past, it comes as no surprise that at present several recommended portfolios have a strong small/mid-cap bias.

A rule of thumb approach is perceptible in the recommendations. For instance, investors with a moderate risk appetite are offered large-cap funds. However, no thought is applied to the nature of the fund. For instance, a large-cap fund wherein the manager aggressively churns the portfolio, and draws on factors such as news flow, market sentiment and momentum while investing might not be suited for a moderate risk-taker. Yet such funds make the cut thanks to their performance and large-cap classification.

Not only is making recommendations based solely on performance a fundamentally flawed approach, it also reveals a poor understanding of the basics of investing. When the present top-performers are replaced by others (as it can and does happen in the case of market-linked investments) will investors be expected to churn their portfolios? Robo advisory firms can’t take refuge under the premise that their advice is bound to be ‘formulaic’. There is a difference between formulaic advice and flawed advice.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not questioning the utility of robo advice. For first-time investors and those with uncomplicated investment needs, robo advice can be the way to go. But robo advisory firms must realise that there is more to investment advice than just running calculations. Indeed, flawed advice can significantly hurt investors' interests.

Robo advisory firms have a huge opportunity at hand. If tapped well, robo advice can prove to be a game-changer for both the mutual fund and distribution industries. However ignoring the ‘advice’ aspect of the business will prove to be a costly miss.

Why Investors Must Cheer SEBI’s Initiative On Mutual Fund Disclosures

Last week, market regulator SEBI released a circular that among others, enhances mutual fund disclosures. The new directives have the potential to be game changers.

Let’s start off with the disclosure that has garnered most attention—commission paid to distributors. SEBI has ruled that henceforth half-yearly account statements sent to investors will have information regarding commission paid to distributors. Commission has been defined to include both monetary and non-monetary payments made by the fund company to the distributor. Furthermore, the statement will also have information regarding expense ratios (for both regular and direct plans).   

Some quarters are up in arms against this ruling. While some feel that disclosing commission-related information will push investors towards direct plans, others argue that this is a conspiracy to ease out small distributors. I believe the reservations are a case of stretching the point.

Fund companies pay commissions to distributors for selling their products (and rightly so!); all they need to do is disclose the same to investors (who bear the cost). No one’s suggesting that fund companies must stop compensating distributors. Also, to assume that an investor who is satisfied with his distributor’s service, will turn his back on the same and opt for a direct plan, because the commission is disclosed is a fallacious argument. So long as the distributor adds value, the investor will continue to be associated with him.

In the confusion, most have overlooked what to my mind is the most important ruling—investments in funds by portfolio managers and other personnel. From May 2016, every fund’s Scheme Information Document (SID) will have information related to investments made by the fund’s portfolio manager(s), the AMC’s Board of Directors and other key managerial personnel.

The rationale behind this move is to encourage the concept of ‘skin in the game’. The concept is far more common in the West, than in India. For instance since 2005, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has required fund companies to annually disclose how much portfolio managers invested in the funds they run. At its core, 'skin in the game' is about inspiring confidence in investors. Managers who invest alongside their investors show conviction in their investment approach and acumen. It’s a classic example of putting one’s money where the mouth is. This regulation offers investors insights into funds, and the opportunity to evaluate them in a manner hitherto unavailable.

Then there’s the directive on soft-dollar arrangements. So far, investors have been blissfully unaware of soft-dollar arrangements between fund companies and brokers, and how the same impacted their investments. SEBI has decided that henceforth, soft-dollar arrangements will be limited to benefits that are in the interest of investors, and the same shall be disclosed.

Admittedly, some rules seem odd—it has been mandated that compensation of the fund company’s top brass be disclosed. Likewise, fund companies will have to publish a list of employees whose annual remuneration is equal to above INR 6 million, and also the ratio of CEO's remuneration to median remuneration of employees. I fail to see how these provisions can help investors make better investment decisions. Investors’ interests would have been better served if the method of computing annual remuneration had been disclosed. That way, investors could have comprehended what fund company top bosses are mainly compensated for—growing assets or fund performance.

That said, all in all, the mandated disclosures have the potential to usher in an era of transparency in the mutual fund industry. However, one must understand that a disclosure (read transparency) isn’t an end in itself. Learning more about funds should translate into informed investment decisions, and in turn, goals being achieved. The onus to make the most of the information on hand, lies on investors, advisers and distributors alike.

Stupid Portfolio Manager vs. Ignorant Portfolio Manager

Aggression seems to be the flavour of the season. Several politicians routinely breathe fire; at present, students at a New Delhi campus are in a belligerent mood. No discussion on Indian cricket is complete without the mention of aggression; likewise, a bespectacled newscaster known for his confrontational demeanour tops the TRP charts. And just when one thought it couldn’t get any more interesting, aggression has reached the mutual fund industry.

Recently, the promoter of an asset management company published a piece insinuating that competing portfolio managers are stupid. His contention is that since the NDA government assumed charge at the centre, bogus/hyped earnings estimates have been doing the rounds. Hence, equity portfolio managers who believed in and acted on the same are stupid. Furthermore, portfolio managers who didn’t fall for the hype, but failed to communicate their misgivings (on lucrativeness of equities) to investors are dishonest.

Apart from a touch of arrogance, the piece also reveals a poor grasp of how investing works. Investing is a personalised activity i.e. each investor pursues an investment philosophy and strategy that works for him. This principle holds good for portfolio managers as well.

For instance, while some managers pay more attention to top-down factors, others rely on bottom-up analysis. Some invest with a growth-bias, while others have a value-bias. There are managers plying research-oriented strategies and others who deploy a sentiment and momentum-driven approach. Even the investment horizon can vary significantly. Admittedly some strategies are more efficient than others, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that investing isn’t a one-size-fits-all activity, as the article erroneously suggests.

Equity investing isn’t a pure science. When a manager evaluates a business, factors such as his investment philosophy, interpretation and biases (among others) come into play. To suggest that every manager should have (or did) read the macroeconomic environment in a uniform manner is oversimplification. More importantly, is it apt to evaluate managers based on one event? Prudence demands that an equity manager be evaluated over the long-haul spanning a market cycle.

An element of bragging rights is perceptible too. Over the last year or so, equity markets have experienced a fair bit of volatility. The flagship equity fund (from the author’s AMC) takes cash calls based on valuations, and has expectedly fared well in a peer-relative sense. The portfolio manager and strategy deserve credit for the showing. However, that doesn’t diminish the credibility of competing managers who don’t take cash calls; expectedly, such funds have fared poorly in the recent past.

   

On the dishonesty bit, yet again the author displays his ignorance by mixing up the roles of an adviser and a portfolio manager. The latter is responsible for running the fund to the best of his abilities and in the investor’s interest at all times. However, offering the investor asset allocation-related advice, or managing the investor’s portfolio is not the manager’s role. That’s what advisers are engaged for.

In the competitive asset management industry, the need to celebrate and spread the word about one’s success is understandable. However, branding the competition as stupid and dishonest on untenable grounds reeks of ignorance.

When Investors Are Intolerant Of Their Advisers’ Views

Let me clarify at the outset: I’m neither weighing in on the ‘intolerance debate’, nor do I have an opinion on what to do with awards :) Recently, I ran into an acquaintance who is an investment adviser. Expectedly, the conversation veered towards markets, clients and investment avenues. The gentleman had a rather peculiar complaint. He said “my clients engage me for investment advice, and I am paid a fee for the same; oddly, some of them simply expect me to reinforce their views”. To further complicate matters, his dissenting views were not only met with resistance, they even led to investment decisions being delayed.

This phenomenon is more common than one would imagine. Over the years, I have encountered several investors whose expectations from their investment advisers are no different. At the risk of hazarding a guess, perhaps such investors have an opinion on where to invest, and need advisers for validating their views. Conventional wisdom suggests that the adviser is an expert on investment-related matters; furthermore, he is engaged to help investors achieve their investment goals. Hence, it makes sense to be receptive to his views. 

I’m not suggesting that investors should blindly follow everything their adviser recommends. Not at all. I have always maintained that investors must actively participate in the investment process. An integral aspect of the same is to be informed and to thoroughly discuss the adviser's views and recommendations.  That said, expecting an adviser to simply reinforce the investor’s preconceived notions defeats the purpose of engaging an adviser. Investors and advisers who find themselves in such a scenario have much to mull over.

On their part, investors must evaluate if they are capable of handling investments on their own. If the answer is affirmative, then such investors are better off dissociating from their advisers.

Now for the more tricky one—investors who need investment advice, but are unwilling to accept any from their adviser. There is a need to assess why the relationship isn’t working. It could be a case of losing confidence in the adviser on account of failed recommendations, or perhaps the investor realising (with the benefit of hindsight) that his views on investing are not in sync with those of the adviser. Sadly, this conundrum doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all solution. However, investors owe it to themselves to go to the root of the problem and resolve it. 

The relationship between an investor and his adviser must be symbiotic. While the adviser is expected to pitch in with independent and credible advice that is apt for the investor, the investor must diligently act on the advice, and compensate the adviser as per agreed terms.  An investor-adviser relationship operating on the extremes—either the investor following the adviser blindly, or the investor being cynical of everything the adviser recommends—is bound to fail. The key lies in finding a common ground.

On a parting (and lighter note), apparently my acquaintance has decided to practice intolerance by discontinuing dealings with his unreceptive clients.

Investment lessons from Rocky Balboa

Years ago, when I first saw “Rocky”, I was hooked onto it immediately. Since then I have watched the entire series umpteen times, and it has never failed to impress. While few would dispute the entertainment (remember I am a fan), the Rocky fable also offers some handy investment lessons. Read on.

It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward

At its core, the Rocky saga is a tribute to the indomitable human spirit. That makes it the greatest underdog story of all times. Let’s not forget that Rocky is a boxer who is on the wrong side of age with a bad eyesight. But what he lacks in physical attributes, he more than makes up for in determination. To quote Adrian: “All those fighters you beat, you beat them with heart not muscle”.

Likewise while investing, it is undeniably important to be well-informed of the nitty-gritties of the economic environment, market conditions and investment avenues. But alongside the aforementioned, investors must also possess the ability to be resilient at all times. For instance, they should succumb neither to temptation (take on undue risk to make a quick buck in frothy markets), nor to panic (in down markets when fundamentally robust investments are trading in the red). Investors who can detach themselves from the noise in the markets and resolutely stay the course are often best placed to succeed over the long-haul.

Nobody's ever gone the distance with Creed. All I wanna do is go the distance

Throughout his boxing career, Rocky is unambiguously aware of his goal. Also, his unwavering focus and willingness to do all it takes to achieve the goal are noteworthy. For instance, when he first goes up against Apollo Creed, he simply wants to last the entire match, but in the rematch he focuses on beating Creed. Against Clubber Lang, it’s about regaining his confidence and the title. For taking on Ivan Drago, Rocky choses to train in testing conditions in Russia.

At the risk of using a cliché, investing without a goal is a bit like a journey without a destination; you never know where you will land up. Before investing, investors must decide what their goals are i.e. what they intend to accomplish and how much monies are require for the same. This in turn will help them figure out their investment horizon, avenues to consider and even the sum of money to be invested. Having pre-set goals also helps evaluate if investments are panning out as expected, and if not, corrective action can be taken.

Because I’m a fighter. That’s the way I’m made

In the Rocky series, the protagonist dabbles in vocations ranging from a thug for a loan shark, trainer to a restaurateur. However his true calling is to be a boxer and that’s where he is at his best. This is a classic example of identifying one’s true self and then sticking to it.

On their part, individuals must identify what kind of investors they are. They should find out how much risk they can take i.e. are they fine with risking money invested in a trade-off for higher-than-average returns? Or, do they put a premium on preserving capital, even if it means foregoing returns? Likewise, investors should try to determine if they are comfortable trading around, or is a long-term oriented buy-and-hold approach more apt for them? Such insight into their psyche will aid investors devise an investment philosophy that they are most comfortable with. It is no less important for investors to consistently adhere to their philosophy.

I wanna thank Mickey for training me

Admittedly it’s Rocky who wins all those glorious bouts in the ring, but he is always backed by a strong team. To begin with, he is mentored and trained by Mickey; subsequently it’s Creed and Duke who take on training duties. Let’s not forget that Adrian and Paulie are omnipresent in Rocky’s corner. Simply put, it pays to have a strong team.

There’s a plethora of investment advisers and financial planners who can help investors manage their monies. Then there are investment-focused publications and websites which can also aid investors. Investors would do well to make the most of the available resources. Expectedly, investors must ensure that the chosen adviser is competent, experienced, has a proven track record and always acts in their best interests. Likewise, before relying on a website or publication, investors must verify its credibility.

It ain’t over till it's over

In his career Rocky goes up against some formidable opponents–Creed, Lang, Drago, and Mason Dixon to name a few. Have you noticed how each opponent is more fearsome than the previous? Sure, Rocky does beat most of them, but nonetheless, each time a new opponent shows up, and the Rocky saga continues.

It's no different with investments. The investment process never comes to an end, not even for investors who may have an ideal portfolio in place. Factors such as changing market conditions, and investors’ needs and finances necessitate a constant review of the portfolio. For instance, often when one need is fulfilled, a new one crops up. At times, existing needs change with passage of time. Hence, investors must understand that investing is not a one-off activity, rather it’s an ongoing activity that they must devote adequate time to.