Bharti AXA mulling to launch unemployment insurance product - Moneylife
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Friday, August 3, 2012
Financial products: Less is more - Moneylife Personal Finance site and magazine
Only a few products would meet your needs
From just a handful of products a few decades ago, the number of financial products has grown to thousands today. Do we need all of them? Can we even make a proper choice? While choices have certainly made our life more interesting, they have not made it easier. In fact, several research studies have shown that our mistakes get compounded when the possibilities of conflict arise among the options; therefore, exercising choice becomes difficult. In case of financial products, too much choice is definitely harmful.
Then there is false advertising and foolish articles in the media to make us lean the wrong way. The result is wrong and harmful choices. This leads to mental fatigue, wrong decisions and harmful consequences. For example, choosing the wrong insurance product can be disastrous. You may end up with low cover and low savings. More choices require more information to make informed decisions. According to the book Gut Feelings by Gerd Gigerenzer, an experiment was conducted on shopkeepers in a supermarket in California. There were two tables, one with six varieties of pickles and another with 24 varieties. Expectedly, it was recorded that 60% of the consumers stopped at the table with more varieties of pickles, while 40% stopped at the one with just six varieties. However, when it came down to the actual purchase, surprisingly only 3% of all the shoppers bought one or more jars at the first table, while a significant 30% of the consumers bought at the second table. Clearly, having fewer products to choose from was better. Not only does it benefit consumers but producers too, as they are able to sell more. When consumers are faced with fewer choices, their brains perform better as less information is involved which leaves ample room for processing it and translating into action.
As a greater variety of products flood the market, the importance of branding, promotion and advertising becomes paramount. Consumers get lured by flashy advertisements. Producers understand this and begin to spend less effort on product design; there is scant regard for addressing consumers’ needs. There’s a human tendency to start comparing products. People want ‘more’ and ‘better’ than the next person; they want only the ‘best’ product. This prompts people to start purchasing and accumulating needless stuff which, in turn, hurts their future financial situation. If one does the tedious homework of comparing, in reality, there are only a few products which are suitable for our needs.
Similarly, there are hundreds of mutual fund (MF) schemes which share common characteristics and have overlapping features. For example, you will notice that ICICI Bank, Infosys and Reliance will all figure among the top holdings of several schemes. There are 19 infrastructure funds and half-a-dozen gold funds. This herding mentality makes the MF landscape even more complicated. How does the consumer decide which MF scheme to pick? This is akin to choosing a sari in varying shades of red colour; more or less similar with similar benefits. Except that choosing a sari is a harmless action; choosing a wrong MF is not.
By asking yourself the question: “What do I really need?” you will surprise yourself—you actually need less, not more. With fewer options to evaluate, you will be a much happier person; you’ll spend more time with your loved ones and have more money at your disposal which can be used to invest wisely. Thus, you ought to make an effort to choose a few items that suit your needs. This will increase satisfaction over the long term and lead to less regrets. How does one apply this to the world of money? All you need is just two-three equity schemes, a term life insurance, a health plan and tax-saving instruments. Tune out the rest and you will do much better, if not the (mythical) best.
From just a handful of products a few decades ago, the number of financial products has grown to thousands today. Do we need all of them? Can we even make a proper choice? While choices have certainly made our life more interesting, they have not made it easier. In fact, several research studies have shown that our mistakes get compounded when the possibilities of conflict arise among the options; therefore, exercising choice becomes difficult. In case of financial products, too much choice is definitely harmful.
Then there is false advertising and foolish articles in the media to make us lean the wrong way. The result is wrong and harmful choices. This leads to mental fatigue, wrong decisions and harmful consequences. For example, choosing the wrong insurance product can be disastrous. You may end up with low cover and low savings. More choices require more information to make informed decisions. According to the book Gut Feelings by Gerd Gigerenzer, an experiment was conducted on shopkeepers in a supermarket in California. There were two tables, one with six varieties of pickles and another with 24 varieties. Expectedly, it was recorded that 60% of the consumers stopped at the table with more varieties of pickles, while 40% stopped at the one with just six varieties. However, when it came down to the actual purchase, surprisingly only 3% of all the shoppers bought one or more jars at the first table, while a significant 30% of the consumers bought at the second table. Clearly, having fewer products to choose from was better. Not only does it benefit consumers but producers too, as they are able to sell more. When consumers are faced with fewer choices, their brains perform better as less information is involved which leaves ample room for processing it and translating into action.
As a greater variety of products flood the market, the importance of branding, promotion and advertising becomes paramount. Consumers get lured by flashy advertisements. Producers understand this and begin to spend less effort on product design; there is scant regard for addressing consumers’ needs. There’s a human tendency to start comparing products. People want ‘more’ and ‘better’ than the next person; they want only the ‘best’ product. This prompts people to start purchasing and accumulating needless stuff which, in turn, hurts their future financial situation. If one does the tedious homework of comparing, in reality, there are only a few products which are suitable for our needs.
Similarly, there are hundreds of mutual fund (MF) schemes which share common characteristics and have overlapping features. For example, you will notice that ICICI Bank, Infosys and Reliance will all figure among the top holdings of several schemes. There are 19 infrastructure funds and half-a-dozen gold funds. This herding mentality makes the MF landscape even more complicated. How does the consumer decide which MF scheme to pick? This is akin to choosing a sari in varying shades of red colour; more or less similar with similar benefits. Except that choosing a sari is a harmless action; choosing a wrong MF is not.
By asking yourself the question: “What do I really need?” you will surprise yourself—you actually need less, not more. With fewer options to evaluate, you will be a much happier person; you’ll spend more time with your loved ones and have more money at your disposal which can be used to invest wisely. Thus, you ought to make an effort to choose a few items that suit your needs. This will increase satisfaction over the long term and lead to less regrets. How does one apply this to the world of money? All you need is just two-three equity schemes, a term life insurance, a health plan and tax-saving instruments. Tune out the rest and you will do much better, if not the (mythical) best.
Fund mergers: What mutual fund houses do to hide underperformance - Moneylife Personal Finance site and magazine
There would be three fund mergers over next two months and all these three schemes have poor performance. Are fund companies opting for fund mergers to hide scheme underperformance?
Over the past one year, as many as seventeen schemes have been discontinued and merged into existing schemes. Three of these schemes have been approved for merger since June 2012. UK Sinha, chairman, Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI), had expressed concerns over underperformance of equity schemes at a mutual fund summit and said that they encourage merging of schemes. However, fund companies should not choose this as the best way out, he added.
But one can expect some more mergers in the near future as fund houses prefer to merge their underperforming schemes into larger schemes that are performing better. One of the main reasons why fund companies do this is because once a scheme starts underperforming, other investors would shun the scheme and therefore there would be no fresh inflows, in fact existing investors would start exiting. Take the example of the worst performing fund house—JM Financial—which over the past one year has merged 10 schemes into just three schemes. UTI MF too, which has a labyrinth of schemes, has discontinued five schemes and has merged them in to existing schemes.
Many of the schemes that have been merged would have just been fad schemes that were launched during a ‘hot’ period. However, once they got out of fashion and inflows dried up, merger seemed to be the best option. That is why one sees so many sector schemes among the list. We have always warned about sector funds. We have also written that there was nothing ‘contra’ about Contra Funds as these funds fails to live up to their name and objective, ING Contra Fund is one such scheme and has been merged.
If a scheme has a bad track record, it would take a long time before it becomes more appealing. Mergers reduce the management costs for the fund house and erase the bad track record. Schemes with a small corpus can cost more to mange than they generate in fees. The plus for investors is that the expenses ratio could get reduced in cases when the scheme which it is being merged with has a much larger corpus. However, what is more important is the performance of the new scheme.
If one of your schemes has got or is getting merged, then you may have been invested in the wrong scheme from the start. But if the performance has been reasonable, then probably the merging schemes have similar strategies. Therefore, investors must evaluate the new scheme objective whether it is the same and if it fits into your portfolio.
Let’s look at the two mergers that will be executed this August. SBI One India Fund will be merged into SBI Magnum Equity Fund and Principal Services Industries Fund will be merged into Principal Growth Fund. Both these schemes that are being phased out have pathetic performance. In the last thirty three-year rolling periods from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2012, SBI One India Fund has underperformed the benchmark on 27 occasions and Principal Services Industries Fund has underperformed the benchmark on all but two occasions. Both these schemes have underperformed their respective benchmark by an average of two to three percentage points.
The investors of the SBI scheme would be better off in the new scheme—SBI Magnum Equity Fund—as it has underperformed the benchmark just twice and the expense ratio would come down from 2.27% to 2.24%. However, the same cannot be said of the Principal scheme. Other than the reduction in expense ratio, the performance of the new scheme is just as bad, underperforming the benchmark 29 times out of 30. There are better performing schemes of other fund houses which one can choose as well.
It is important for investors to keep a track of their schemes and keep an eye open for deteriorating performance. If your scheme begins to underperform its benchmark regularly it is time you switch and opt for better performing schemes.
Over the past one year, as many as seventeen schemes have been discontinued and merged into existing schemes. Three of these schemes have been approved for merger since June 2012. UK Sinha, chairman, Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI), had expressed concerns over underperformance of equity schemes at a mutual fund summit and said that they encourage merging of schemes. However, fund companies should not choose this as the best way out, he added.
But one can expect some more mergers in the near future as fund houses prefer to merge their underperforming schemes into larger schemes that are performing better. One of the main reasons why fund companies do this is because once a scheme starts underperforming, other investors would shun the scheme and therefore there would be no fresh inflows, in fact existing investors would start exiting. Take the example of the worst performing fund house—JM Financial—which over the past one year has merged 10 schemes into just three schemes. UTI MF too, which has a labyrinth of schemes, has discontinued five schemes and has merged them in to existing schemes.
Many of the schemes that have been merged would have just been fad schemes that were launched during a ‘hot’ period. However, once they got out of fashion and inflows dried up, merger seemed to be the best option. That is why one sees so many sector schemes among the list. We have always warned about sector funds. We have also written that there was nothing ‘contra’ about Contra Funds as these funds fails to live up to their name and objective, ING Contra Fund is one such scheme and has been merged.
If a scheme has a bad track record, it would take a long time before it becomes more appealing. Mergers reduce the management costs for the fund house and erase the bad track record. Schemes with a small corpus can cost more to mange than they generate in fees. The plus for investors is that the expenses ratio could get reduced in cases when the scheme which it is being merged with has a much larger corpus. However, what is more important is the performance of the new scheme.
If one of your schemes has got or is getting merged, then you may have been invested in the wrong scheme from the start. But if the performance has been reasonable, then probably the merging schemes have similar strategies. Therefore, investors must evaluate the new scheme objective whether it is the same and if it fits into your portfolio.
Let’s look at the two mergers that will be executed this August. SBI One India Fund will be merged into SBI Magnum Equity Fund and Principal Services Industries Fund will be merged into Principal Growth Fund. Both these schemes that are being phased out have pathetic performance. In the last thirty three-year rolling periods from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2012, SBI One India Fund has underperformed the benchmark on 27 occasions and Principal Services Industries Fund has underperformed the benchmark on all but two occasions. Both these schemes have underperformed their respective benchmark by an average of two to three percentage points.
The investors of the SBI scheme would be better off in the new scheme—SBI Magnum Equity Fund—as it has underperformed the benchmark just twice and the expense ratio would come down from 2.27% to 2.24%. However, the same cannot be said of the Principal scheme. Other than the reduction in expense ratio, the performance of the new scheme is just as bad, underperforming the benchmark 29 times out of 30. There are better performing schemes of other fund houses which one can choose as well.
It is important for investors to keep a track of their schemes and keep an eye open for deteriorating performance. If your scheme begins to underperform its benchmark regularly it is time you switch and opt for better performing schemes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)