FUND FULCRUM (contd.)
December 2013
The Indian mutual fund sector’s slide started in 2009,
after the Securities and Exchange Board of India banned entry load, an upfront
fee funds charged investors to pay distributors. Since then, many distributors
have been indifferent to selling mutual funds. The continued bear market added
to the woes. Smaller fund houses were hit harder because these could not
compete with larger peers’ deep pockets for pushing products. In the past four
years, the share of the top 10 funds in the sector’s total assets rose to
almost 80%. Currently, there are a little over
40 entities in the mutual fund sector. Hardly a third of them are profitable.
Piquant
Parade
Morgan Stanley became the
second largest global giant to exit India' s
crowded and barely profitable mutual fund industry when it agreed to sell its
business to HDFC, the country' s
biggest mutual fund manager. HDFC Mutual Fund, with assets of Rs 1.03 lakh crore, agreed
to buy all eight schemes of Morgan Stanley with combined assets of Rs 3,290
crore. The purchase is expected to help the fund widen the gap with Reliance,
the second biggest mutual fund house and consolidate its position at the top of
the industry. Reliance has assets worth Rs 93,249 crore. Morgan was the first global fund to launch a mutual fund in
India
in 1994 after liberalisation but its performance in the country has been rather
lacklustre. Its asset size is small by international and Indian standards and
like Fidelity it has been unable to keep pace with the growth of Indian mutual
funds such as HDFC Mutual Fund, Reliance Mutual Fund, ICICI Prudential, UTI Mutual
Fund, and Birla Sunlife which between them control over 50% of the industry' s assets. The fund posted losses in both 2011 and
2012. Morgan becomes the second big global investor to exit the local market
after Fidelity which sold its business to L&T in March 2012. Daiwa sold its
assets to SBI Mutual Fund for an undisclosed amount this year and this was
preceded by Invesco' s purchase of a
49% stake in Religare for Rs 460 crore and Nomura' s
acquisition of 35% in LIC Mutual Fund for Rs 308 crore.
Regulatory
Rigmarole
Small fund houses
are up in arms against the SEBI Mutual Fund Advisory Committee’s recent proposal to raise minimum
net worth of fund houses having AUM of less than Rs 1000 crore to Rs 25 crore
within three years. Presently,
fund houses have to maintain a minimum net worth of Rs. 10 crore. The 16-member
committee is headed by Janki Ballabh, former Chairman of the board of trustees
of UTI Mutual Fund. Only 1% of the AUM is from the bottom 10 AMCs. This
percentage has not changed substantially in the last five years and it is
indicative of the presence of non-serious players in the industry.
Research analysts will soon have to obtain a certificate
from the capital market regulator to continue giving opinions and
recommendations on listed companies. SEBI issued draft Research
Analysts Regulations, 2013, which mandated all research analysts to obtain a
certificate of registration, have right educational qualification, and also a
minimum net worth. SEBI has proposed research analysts, which are corporate
bodies, will have to maintain net worth of at least Rs 0.5 crore, while
individual or partnership firms will have to have net tangible assets of Rs
500,000. The certificate will be valid for five years. Research firms
incorporated outside India
will have to set up a subsidiary in India and register it with SEBI.
SEBI has exempted investment advisers, asset management companies, proxy
advisory service providers, and fund managers. However, if these entities
provide their views through the public media, they will have to follow the
processes regarding conflict avoidance and disclosures. Analysts or a brokerage
will not deal in shares of companies a month before and five days after
publishing of a research report. Analysts will be barred from publishing or
recommending a security if they are traded in the previous 30 days. The
compensation or bonuses of an analyst should not be tied to any specific
investment banking or brokerage transactions.
The regulations also bar an analyst or a brokerage from issuing research
reports or making public appearances on companies where they act as investment
bankers in IPOs or FPOs. The proposed regulations also bar distribution of
research reports to selective clients in advance. In addition, analysts
distributing third-party reports can do so only after ensuring their accuracy.
Dealing room activities of
brokers, fund managers, and other institutional investors have come under
regulatory scanner for possible manipulations through use of web-based social
networking apps and messaging platforms. While use of personal mobile phones are
already prohibited inside dealing rooms -- where trades are executed on behalf
of clients -- some brokers and fund managers have been found to be active on
social networking and other web-based groups and messaging platforms while
placing orders. This has brought to the fore significant
risks of insider trading, front running and other manipulative
activities with regard to key client trade information being shared with
outside investors or even among the dealers possibly working as a cartel. Brokers and fund managers are not allowed to use their personal
mobile phones inside dealing rooms to receive orders from clients, while fund
houses and brokerage firms are
required to store records for all client calls for future inspections by SEBI. SEBI is considering further tightening of norms
with regard to dealing room communications, given the fast emergence of social
networking and other web-based messaging platforms. Those likely to be affected
include entities dealing in stocks, derivatives and currency trading, among others. In a
global probe into suspected rigging of forex rates, including those involving rupee as well, foreign regulators already
suspect use of intra-bank and web-based messaging platforms among the currency
traders. Subsequently, many large global banks have
already started clamping down on use of such platforms inside their dealing
rooms and similar action can be expected with regard to Indian markets as well.
The market
watchdog is already mulling over steps it can take to check risks being posed by
use of new-age smartphone messaging
services like BlackBerry Messenger
(BBM) and WhatsApp by manipulators to spread sensitive
information about their target stocks. To strengthen its
surveillance on stock market transactions, SEBI has already got software tools
in place along with IT experts to analyse discussions on social networking sites like Twitter
and Facebook. However, applications like WhatsApp and BBM have proven trickier,
given the multi-level difficulties faced in tracking the source and spread of
market-sensitive information through these mass-messaging platforms. While
these applications use the internet
servers of smart phones, the transmission of messages through these
platforms happen in a highly encoded manner and it is very difficult for a
third party to decode them.
SEBI has released consultative guidelines for
the operation of REITs in India, five years after it first introduced the
initial guidelines. REITs are
investment vehicles that invest in return-generating real estate. This
investment may either be in the form of properties, mortgages or
mortgage-backed securities. The trust collects money from retail or
institutional investors in return for shares in the property and its managers
then deploy the funds into real estate (usually commercial) projects. The
income—mainly rent or lease—is then distributed as dividend among investors. In
this way, REITs are similar to mutual funds. But there are some important
differences, the prime one being that REITs directly buy property instead of
investing in property stock. REITs are focused on one sector and invest in a
limited set of assets therein. SEBI’s list of regulations is more stringent. It
states that 90% of the total investment corpus must be put into completed
revenue-generating real estate within India . REITs cannot invest in
vacant or agricultural land or mortgages (except mortgage-backed securities). These
limitations are clearly aimed at improving the risk and return profile of
REITs. In addition, three-fourths of the revenues shall necessarily be from
rental, leasing and letting of real estate assets, and 90% of the after-tax
income must be distributed to investors. To weed out fly-by-night operators,
the regulator has set a minimum corpus size of Rs.1,000 crore for REITs. Further, when a REIT gets
listed, the initial offer size must be at least Rs.250 crore, of which 25% must be publicly floated.
SEBI has also proposed that the minimum subscription size be set at Rs.2 lakh and that high networth individuals and
institutions be approached as initial investors until the market develops. All
in all, the draft regulations are geared towards protecting the investor, while
simultaneously opening up the liquidity tap and ensuring total transparency of
operation. The regulator seems to have performed a laudatory balancing act. However,
this is not to say that REITs do not have their own risks. While they promise
investors stable returns, they do have some aspects comparable to equity
markets. For instance, a downturn in real estate can impact investors’ ability
to sell off their shares (since real estate is an illiquid asset and selling a
property can take time). Moreover, there are some taxation issues. In the
current form, experts feel the tax burden could exceed 40%. However, it is
believed that plans are afoot to make REITs a pass-through investment, which
will make them taxable only at a single point, i.e., in the investor’s hands.
Distributors have
requested AMFI to consider relaxing the unique identification (EUIN) rules.
They want EUIN remediation period to remain 30 days as is the rule currently. Distributors were required to provide valid EUIN
within 30 day from the end of the month in which the transaction took place.
The commission withheld was released by fund houses if distributors remediate
it within this period. From January 01, 2014, this remediation period will
be seven days from the end of the month in which the transaction takes place.
For instance, all transactions submitted prior to January 01, 2014 have to be
remediated from February 07, 2014 and within seven days from subsequent months.
Thus, distributors risk losing their commission if there are unable to provide
EUIN within the stipulated remediation period. Quoting EUIN in
application forms became mandatory from June 01, 2013 for purchases, switch,
registration of SIP / STP / DTP / trigger. SEBI introduced EUIN to address the
issue of mis-selling. Distributors have to get EUIN for all employees who
advice clients. This helps track the employee/relationship manager if in case
of mis-selling. If there is no interaction between the employee of the
distributor with respect to a particular transaction, distributors have to get
a declaration signed by the investor. If the distributors fail to furnish this
declaration to the AMC within the remediation period, their commissions are
forfeited permanently.
SEBI
has modified account opening forms (AOF) by doing away with annual income and
occupation details of clients to be captured in KYC forms. It has now been decided in consultation with
various market participants to shift certain information (annual income,
occupation) in Section C of Part I to Part II of the account opening form AOF
(for both individuals and non-individuals). Part I contains the basic KYC
details of the investor used by all SEBI registered intermediaries and Part II
captures additional information specific to the area of activity of the
intermediary. Information contained in revised Part I of AOF shall only be
required to be captured in the systems of KRAs. SEBI has given a timeframe of
six months to make modifications to KYC forms. The modifications would assist
in avoiding repeated modifications in the KRA system as information provided by
the clients in Section C changes over a period of time and will facilitate in
making the KYC uniform for the entire financial sector. Distributors say that
the KYC norms are stringent for non-individuals as they have to furnish their
financial details every year. Companies
and partnership firms are supposed to submit copy of the balance sheets for the
last two financial years. This is required to be submitted every year which is
a tedious process. Income and net worth data will still be required to be
captured in order to comply with Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Client’s
income can change every year and this was not getting updated in the systems of
KRAs since it is not feasible to perform KYC multiple times.
AUM
data for the initial three quarters of
2013 suggests that the year has
been sluggish for the mutual fund industry. In fact, notably, during the year,
no new licenses were issued, there were no M&A activities and no fresh foreign
investment flowed into the sector. SEBI had, in the past, taken steps to
re-energise the mutual fund industry with continued focus on investor
protection. These steps have contributed a
sense of stability to the mutual fund industry, which has been operating in a
challenging environment. Going forward, SEBI could adopt a stricter approach towards ' non-serious' asset managers. An advisory committee formed to
review the net worth requirement for AMCs has suggested an upward revision in
the minimum net-worth required for an AMC. Debt schemes continue to be the
flavour of the season. The first Infrastructure Debt Mutual Fund scheme (mutual fund-IDF) was launched in the
year 2013. Further, while mutual fund AMCs have shown interest in tapping the
pension products market, in the absence of adequate tax incentives, this is yet
to take-off. From an asset management industry perspective,
the proposal to launch REITs could provide an
alternative investment avenue to investors. While the Government has
pro-actively amended the law to resolve taxation issues for mutual fund
industry on investment in securitisation trusts, the industry remains
circumspect and the amendments have
failed to attract investments by mutual funds in securitisation trusts. The
industry continues to litigate past tax issues on securitisation trusts. In a
sense, the performance
of the mutual fund
industry has, to an extent, mirrored the performance of the Indian economy, the stock markets, and the FII investment (or divestment)
story. With elections on the anvil, an element of ' uncertainty' could prevail for the next quarter or so. Moving on, the industry looks
forward to quick and clear directions on safe harbour for management of
offshore funds from India
and other similar measures whereby tax can be a facilitator for growth. Nearly
fifty years old, the Indian Mutual Fund industry is fraught with a number of
challenges. The penetration of mutual funds in India
(as measured by the AUM/GDP ratio) remains low at 4.7% as compared to 77.0% in
the US , 41.1% in Europe and
33.6% in the UK .
Greatly under-penetrated, the industry comprising over 40 mutual fund companies
today collectively manages 2.5% of Indian household savings. The right kind of
awareness among investors about mutual funds, the diversity and benefits of its
offerings remains a challenge. Being an advisory product which is largely
distribution driven, stagnation in growth of distributor base also acts as a
limiting factor.