Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the restrict-user-access domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home1/portfol1/public_html/wp/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114

Deprecated: Class Jetpack_Geo_Location is deprecated since version 14.3 with no alternative available. in /home1/portfol1/public_html/wp/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114

Deprecated: preg_split(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($limit) of type int is deprecated in /home1/portfol1/public_html/wp/wp-content/plugins/add-meta-tags/metadata/amt_basic.php on line 118
RIA | Portfolio Yoga

Regulations with respect to Research and Investment Advise

Outside of finance, there are few fields where there are so many intermediaries who try to provide solutions for every aspect of one’s finances be it personal finance or corporate finance.

In the United States, you have Mutual Funds, Registered Investment Advisors and Broker Dealers who perform activities with regard to providing advice to clients with respect to investments in the financial markets. 

India has a much fragmented ecosystem with Mutual Funds, Portfolio Management Companies, Registered Investment Advisors, Research Analyst and Mutual fund distributors performing the same functions.

While only Mutual Funds are Product sellers in the US, here PMS can also be categorized as product sellers with the rest being service providers. 

A couple of days back, SEBI through its settlement order seems to have suggested that Research Analysts cannot offer Model Portfolios. In a way, this order unless challenged and changed would mean that a Research Analyst can at best offer Buy / Sell on stocks but not provide the client any information on how much to risk.

If one were to look at any sell side research, the reports are what SEBI seems to believe is the way for a Research Analyst to act. While even Sell side these days showcase Model Portfolios, the majority of Sell side is basically about providing a Buy / Sell call on a single company with a detailed report to back up their viewpoint.

The issue though is that a big sell side organization can have a Buy on as many as 100+ securities. There is no way someone can follow this up and build a portfolio of stocks whose aim is to ultimately get returns better than the benchmarks.

So, who is an investment advisor?

If you were to look up the meaning as per US Laws, its;

“Investment adviser” means any person who, for compensation, engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or who, for compensation and as part of a regular business, issues or promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities

Sell Side Research which is freely provided to investors in theory should not come under Investment Advisor since he doesn’t directly receive any compensation for the fees even though the firm may indirectly benefit from getting more business from clients who wish to have access to their research team.

On the other hand, any one suggesting someone to buy a stock, mutual fund, PMS or any other financial asset where the person who recommends is compensated in one way or the other can be seen as Investment advisor.

But let’s back to the core issue – Model Portfolios

The basic idea of providing a Model Portfolio is simple – an investor has a sum of money he wishes to invest. The advisor provides a set of stocks where the said sum of money can be invested. If you think deeply, this is the same that happens when you buy a Mutual Fund or invest in an PMS. 

The amount you invest is “theoretically” invested in a set of stocks. While we may not know in advance the stocks and the proportion that is invested in Active funds, we can approximately guess as to how our investment will be invested. This works best for the vast majority of investors for it makes things simple.

When you buy a fund today, you have no choice on what stocks will be invested. If you don’t want to have say the Reliance group or the Adani group, you have very little choice in that matter.

When you hire an advisor and he recommends a portfolio of stocks, there is no compulsion into investing into all that. Let’s assume the advisor recommends buying Mc Dowell but you don’t want to buy into “Sin” stocks. You can easily overcome that by just not executing a trade in McDowell.

The right certification to recommend a portfolio we are told today is that of an Registered Investment Advisor (RIA). But there is a problem. The reason a Registered Analyst (RA) is not allowed to provide a Model Portfolio is because an RA doesn’t do any Risk Profiling of the client and the same portfolios are offered to clients about whose Risk taking ability the advisor seemingly has no clue.

But the way Model Portfolios are built and sold have little understanding of the intention of why SEBI framed such and such a law.

Assume I were to take a Risk Profile questionnaire and the output is that my risk profile is Conservative, should I be able to buy a Small Cap Portfolio?  If I can buy, what is the point of taking the Risk Profiling questionnaire anyways.

Is the Investor is Naïve

Thanks to information arbitrage, the retail investor for long has been naïve and have many a time been taken for a ride by unscrupulous dealers. The objective of SEBI was to ensure that the small investor got a fair deal and in many ways they have been able to get that right.

Since SEBI came into the picture, stock markets have become safer and better managed. While we even today have a broker default or two, the numbers are a rounding off error when one compares the number of brokers who used to default in the past.

But this heightened surveillance has also meant a more concentration of market share. So while a broker defaulted a couple of decades earlier did not cause risks to millions of investors, the same cannot be said today.

The way rules are getting framed, I wonder if the only way a small investor can be saved is by killing them beforehand. 

If you are active on Social Media, it’s tough to not have read an article or a book by one of the guys who work at Ritholtz Wealth Management. But for all their talk on how investors should act and behave, if you are an investor whose investment is less than a $1 Million, they have no interest in providing you with their service.

All investors require a certain degree of handholding. But if the advisor community is shrinked, there are only so many capable players who remain in the game. Will they wish to have small investors who demand as much time and attention as large investors as part of their clientele?

Once upon a time, India had more than 25 stock exchanges and thousands of stock brokers. Onerous regulations combined with changes in technology has meant that 90% of them have stopped being in existence. While there is a good side to it, the negative is lack of support for anyone who is not tech savvy.

Brokerage rates for investors have fallen to Zero but someone has to pay and this has meant that brokers today try to have more traders as part of their fraternity than investors. Having seen enough people lose in trading, I don’t see how this can end well to the vast majority. 

As India grows, the percentage of people who wish to be associated with the capital markets shall grow. What we need is regulations that ensure that the advisor community shall grow to meet the needs and this doesn’t have to stop at just having more Mutual Fund Distributors. 

Wish SEBI comes with clear regulations with respect to what and what not a Research Advisor can provide his client with for no small advisor wants to have a Sword of Damocles hanging over their head by way of massive financial penalty. Better not to do business than take that chance.

Killing the Small Advisor

First they came for the Stock Brokers, and I did not speak out –

Because I was not a Stock Broker

Then they came for the Portfolio Managers, and I did not speak out –

Because I was not a Portfolio Manager

Then they came for the Advisers, and I did not speak out –

Because I was not a Adviser

Then they came for me, the Investor – and there was no one left to speak for me


With due apologies to  Martin Niemöller

SEBI was instituted to safeguard the interest of investors, but the way its acting in recent times makes one wonder if there will be any investor left to safeguard at the end. 

Like any other professions out there, the financial services industry has seen a large number of bad apples. In an effort to remove those bad apples, SEBI is in recent times trying to implement the policy of kill a fly with a cannon. 

While there have been a lot of good moves in terms of regulation with respect to Stock Brokers, the high level of compliance costs and the falling revenues from transactions has meant that brokerage industry is now dominated by a handful of companies with the capital to survive. A small broker with limited abilities stands no chance today.

Portfolio Management Service (PMS) is a unique concept that is not found elsewhere in the world of finance. This was before the arrival of the Alternative Investment Funds the poor man’s alternative to Mutual Funds.

Today, with a Net-worth Requirement of 5 Crores, minimum investment of 50 Lakhs, the concept is essentially dead especially considering that your tax liability is far higher than with Mutual Funds. I wrote about this here 

The small investors who were once serviced by small stock brokers are today advised by either a Registered Investment Advisor or a Mutual Fund Agent. 

SEBI has now floated a Consultation Paper on Review of Regulatory Framework for Investment Advisers

Before we get into the paper, let’s try to understand what a Registered Investment Advisor {RIA} can do and cannot do. A RIA can advice his clients for a fee on creating personalised Portfolios using mix of Equity,  Debt and Funds, Asset Allocation and provide Financial Planning services.

What he cannot do is offer execution or directly manage the monies of clients or sell products where he shall receive a commission for his efforts. Of course, the rules are for those who follow and as I wrote in my post, SEBI is sleeping while the regulations are openly flouted

Today and even tomorrow, all it requires for one to sell intra-day tips is a database of phone numbers. Most of them I doubt even go through the registration process that SEBI has put in place let alone adhere to them.

The number of RIA’s that offer Financial Planning is barely a handful in number with most RIA licenses being used to offer Portfolio Advisory which is more simpler and easy to sell. But portfolio’s are not designed with regard to one’s own risk temperament nor is there advice on how much of one’s assets should be invested in what kind of allocation. 

Both of these fall into the bracket of a financial planner who places a lot of time and effort to understand your requirements, get a hold on your limitations and plan the most optimal investment portfolio that suits both your goals and yet doesn’t require to take more risks than what you can bear.

Portfolio Advisory on the other hand doesn’t require a deeper understanding of the client’s financial abilities or even his risk temperament. The advisor is offering a portfolio which is sold on a certain attribute and one that is designed for the do-it-yourself investor who understands the market.

RIA unfortunately clubs both of them in the same bracket even though the type of clients they are different with different set of requirements. Since RIA’s who are individuals are prohibited from providing execution services (Corporate entities can offer execution facilities under a separate company and while this is not to be compulsory, we all know how this works)

A while back, SEBI raised the minimum net-worth requirement for Mutual Funds from 10 Crores to 50 Crores. Next it raised the net-worth requirement of PMS from 2 Crores to 5 Crores. Through this consultation paper, SEBI wishes to raise the Net-worth to 50 Lakhs. While its 10 Lakhs for Individuals with clients lower than 150, given the prices that client can bear, 150 clients with its attendant costs {Office Space, at least 1 employee, etc} means that you barely break-even at 150.

SEBI’s recent thought process seems to be that if you are Rich, you won’t pull wool over people’s eyes. The reason I say this is because Net-worth is basically a deposit that is kept at your end and one that can at best provide you a risk free return. It does nothing to benefit either your working requirement (since you cannot use it to buy assets that depreciate) or the client.

When we try to analyze securities, we try to look for companies that have a Return on Capital Employed greater than 20%. Here, your capital of 50 Lakhs will be basically offering a return of 7%. Since this cannot be used for setting up a new office or employing others, basically this is a dead investment. This is true even in case of PMS or Mutual Funds.  

To add to the misery, the Consultation paper requires some serious investment and monitoring to ensure that in case of a dispute, you are in the clear. SEBI is attempting to do by asking for all conversations to be recorded. This is already happening at the stock broker level and is not new, but adds another layer of cost especially since these records have to be saved for 3 years. While cloud has ensured cheaper storage space, it’s still an additional cost not to talk about ensuring that these files remain secure since it impacts clients privacy.

What is also interesting, though this is not a new requirement is the primacy given to a degree. While we have no standardized way to test the aptitude of an advisor, exams like CFA / CMT and CFP have been recognized worldwide as a good way to filter out candidates. The NISM exam is really a very low hanging fruit and one that can be cleared easily by even those without a deep understanding of finance. 

A person should not be too honest. Straight trees are cut first and honest people are screwed first

Chanakya

SEBI seems to reckon that if you are honest you should be Rich. Given the lack of financial literacy in India, we want more qualified Individuals to embrace the world of advice but by overreaching, SEBI may end up doing the very opposite of what it has set out to do – help the small investor.

Lack of good Investment Advisors is already resulting in mis-selling of products that are not suitable for the investor but yield a good commission to the seller. By enforcing very high standards, SEBI will essentially kill the ecosystem that has just started to blossom. I doubt this is SEBI’s intention though.

Transparency in Mutual Funds

On Friday, SEBI came out with a Circular detailing among other things

  1. The amount of actual commission paid by AMCs/Mutual Funds (MFs) to distributors (in absolute terms) during the half-year period against the concerned investor’s total investments in each MF scheme. The term ‘commission’ here refers to all direct monetary payments and other payments made in the form of gifts / rewards, trips, event sponsorships etc. by AMCs/MFs to distributors.
  2. The scheme’s average Total Expense Ratio (in percentage terms) for the half-year period, of both direct plan and regular plan, for each scheme where the concerned investor has invested in.

This has really set things abuzz among the IFA folks who believe that this spells death for many of them given the fact that now the customer is empowered with the knowledge of what he is paying for the advice he is receiving, he may not really be quite keen on continuation of the service as it stands.

Some time back, SEBI decided to differentiate between an Adviser and a Distributor. An Adviser while could charge a fee could not take advantage of the commission paid by the AMC. The basic idea here was to ensure that by de-linking the adviser’s income to products he sold, a adviser wouldn’t sell products not suitable for the investor. But given the fact that Distributors were given a free run where they could (and a leading site that enables investment in mutual funds) still claims and I quote “The smartest way to invest in Mutual Funds and more – For FREE!, it was a tough issue for any adviser to ask an investor to pay when he could supposedly get the same for free.

To overcome this, many a RIA just placed their distributor code under a different entity making it seem that they provided the advice for Free when it clearly was not happening since many of them did not even enable investors to invest in “Direct” rather than “Regular”.

The biggest concern among IFA’s is that this method (of not making the client know what the IFA is getting paid) was the best since we “Indians” supposedly do not wish to pay for advice. Yes, we would love to get things for free (who doesn’t), but if there is a way to evaluate and showcase why paying for advise maybe worth the investment, a lot of those who weren’t ready will have a change of heart. That doesn’t mean everyone will do, but who said changing opinions is easy.

Syms, an off-price clothing store in New York, says, “An educated consumer is our best customer.” I have friends who are happy to go with a distributor since he provides them with evidence backed data on what funds are good investments and what aren’t. If a distributor is providing value and has nothing to hide (after all, no one expects anyone to do anything for Free), I find no reason as to why should this new disclosure bother him. The only guys who would be stumped are those who were claiming to do a free service while riding piggy back on the commissions.

As to those who claim that without the distributor, Mutual Funds will not be able to penetrate in a big way, I would like to read this short story “The Old Lady of Somanahalli