SEBI panel on MFs recommends Rs 100 transaction fee: Srcs
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
So an investor doing an SIP of Rs 1000 and an investor doing an SIP of Rs 10000.00 would be charged Rs 100.00 per transaction. This leaves the small investor poorer on percentile basis.Small investors will not invest.The transaction charge should be done on slab basis, so no one feels overcharged.However, there should be no trarsaction fee on switches from one fund to another. STP should also be excluded from transaction fees.
this is not right approach, fee should not be based on transaction it must be a percentage of investment value because one customer may be near to my office where the transaction fee of rs.100/- will suffice another customer may be about 30 to 40km away(easily possible in chennai kind of city) in this scenario the 100/- not even take care of my transportation expenses, thinking that they are doing good to the ifa community again they are not going to make us poorer it is initiative to make us beggers
Rs.100.00 is this not an insult? In which era are the panel members living. If the panel can't help us let them not make a mockery of the Distributors. I once again say we have to call for an audit as to how the various funds created by SEBI like Investor Protection Fund, Investor Education Fund e.t.c.. are being spent and on whom it is being spent - It is created from our sweat earnings let it be spent for our betterment rather than for the luxury of HNI and so called National Distributors.
Absurd is the word i will use to define the thinking process of those in the committee. How on the earth can they even justify Rs. 100/- to take care of not only the transportation cost, but also the labour, communication, record keeping and intellect cost? Somebody who can understand the mutual funds so as to engage in getting this transaction done for the investor seemlessly has to be educated and be in system for atleast 2-3 years so as to know the right process of doing things. Such a person will atleast put Rs. 12000 to Rs. 15000 as his minimum monthly wage cost, will have to keep records of all applications, will have to service investor queries in future, will also have to travel to deposit not only the application, but also do KYC. After all these costs, there will be little or no incentive for this person to engage in this activity. And for those who will get into this, they will have no option but to charge beyond Rs. 100, which will be incorrect and illegal from law perspective. Why create such loopholes in system so as to give chance to these activities? Since independence, our bureaucrats have been making such provisions and acts which only lead to bad practices and exploitation. Hope this committee, with all the knowledgeable people on board, does not fall prey to age old rudimentary practices....
it is absurd to charge Rs100 when one investor will invest Rs 1 lakh and second investor will Rs 5000. There is no point to charge Rs 100 Today when petrol Pricies are raising day by day what is the use of Rs 100, 2% entry load is the solution or Make investment based transaction fee.like Rs 500 / 1000 /2000 etc SEBI & AMFI just playing the feelings of IFA.They dont want retail investor in Mutual Fund.No future to small investor In India. chandrashekhar kulkarni ARN-15259 Nashik
The regulators think too cheap and low of people who are supposed to be "Advisors", the people who are put to regorous tests, burdened with heavy formalities, and who have to shell out huge Fees for frequent renewals, and in whose Hands lie the Future of several crores of individual people. The Regulators must first practice, what they have in mind, for a period of at least six months, and if their families can SURVIVE only on this income, servicing only the small retail investors, then they should be justified in implementing what they have been practicing. I feel, a boycot of this Transaction Fees, would be the only appropriate option at this juncture.
This is so absurd. Are there representatives of the IFA community on this panel. Where do these people come up with these ideas. A small investor will be at the receiving end. They should revert to a simple percentage of funds invested, so the the big investors pay more and small investors pay less. A cap on the total fees/client/year may be fixed, though this too is controversial.. They should revert to 1% load and if advisers can demand fees over and above that well and good. Voluntary payment of fees has not caught on still after 3 years and some will never pay.. Another interesting point made by Mr Vipul is there should be an audit of Investor Protection/ Edcation Fund ..
Last 2 years ,we were in an orientation programme ,where everyone was telling us,charge your customers.Let the customer evaluate the distributor and the fee model will be the one going forward.
What has suddenly changed to reintroduce some kind of fixed charge,that will again see the needle of suspicion for wrong practices turning towards the Distributor.
Let the client decide how much is the worth of the Advice and the service quality and let him compensate.If there needs to be a transaparency,at best get this evaluation on the form itself and let him authorise the AMC to compensate the Distributor with any amount of fees out of his transaction amount.There can be a percentage or fixed amount cap whichever is lower on the upside,that can be subject to regulation .But let the decision of amount payable to the distributor now be with the client only. Also feel is there a reason to have a DIRECT mode of investment now,when there is no entry load at all.Who is providing advice to these clients.And whether they informed of all the competing products information and performances.In that case does this not amount to be a matter of solicitation and inducement to sell In house product in which the seller is having financial interest. Feel DIRECT mode of investment should now be done away with.
And if there is a fixed fee in the form of transaction costs reimbursement,why not apply even to the stock exchange broking community which also is governed by the same regulator. Say Rs.10/- per trade !!! That will also standardise the industry which decides its own fees structure and is also seeing shrinking volumes. Shrinking retail volumes has got nothing to do with the fees structure.
9 comments:
So an investor doing an SIP of Rs 1000 and an investor doing an SIP of Rs 10000.00 would be charged Rs 100.00 per transaction. This leaves the small investor poorer on percentile basis.Small investors will not invest.The transaction charge should be done on slab basis, so no one feels overcharged.However, there should be no trarsaction fee on switches from one fund to another. STP should also be excluded from transaction fees.
A MF distributor
this is not right approach, fee should not be based on transaction it must be a percentage of investment value because one customer may be near to my office where the transaction fee of rs.100/- will suffice another customer may be about 30 to 40km away(easily possible in chennai kind of city) in this scenario the 100/- not even take care of my transportation expenses, thinking that they are doing good to the ifa community again they are not going to make us poorer it is initiative to make us beggers
PVE Wealth Creators
Rs.100.00 is this not an insult? In which era are the panel members living. If the panel can't help us let them not make a mockery of the Distributors.
I once again say we have to call for an audit as to how the various funds created by SEBI like Investor Protection Fund, Investor Education Fund e.t.c.. are being spent and on whom it is being spent - It is created from our sweat earnings let it be spent for our betterment rather than for the luxury of HNI and so called National Distributors.
Absurd is the word i will use to define the thinking process of those in the committee. How on the earth can they even justify Rs. 100/- to take care of not only the transportation cost, but also the labour, communication, record keeping and intellect cost? Somebody who can understand the mutual funds so as to engage in getting this transaction done for the investor seemlessly has to be educated and be in system for atleast 2-3 years so as to know the right process of doing things. Such a person will atleast put Rs. 12000 to Rs. 15000 as his minimum monthly wage cost, will have to keep records of all applications, will have to service investor queries in future, will also have to travel to deposit not only the application, but also do KYC. After all these costs, there will be little or no incentive for this person to engage in this activity. And for those who will get into this, they will have no option but to charge beyond Rs. 100, which will be incorrect and illegal from law perspective. Why create such loopholes in system so as to give chance to these activities? Since independence, our bureaucrats have been making such provisions and acts which only lead to bad practices and exploitation. Hope this committee, with all the knowledgeable people on board, does not fall prey to age old rudimentary practices....
it is absurd to charge Rs100 when one investor will invest Rs 1 lakh and second investor will Rs 5000. There is no point to charge Rs 100 Today when petrol Pricies are raising day by day what is the use of Rs 100, 2% entry load is the solution or Make investment based transaction fee.like Rs 500 / 1000 /2000 etc
SEBI & AMFI just playing the feelings of IFA.They dont want retail investor in Mutual Fund.No future to small investor In India.
chandrashekhar kulkarni ARN-15259
Nashik
The regulators think too cheap and low of people who are supposed to be "Advisors", the people who are put to regorous tests, burdened with heavy formalities, and who have to shell out huge Fees for frequent renewals, and in whose Hands lie the Future of several crores of individual people. The Regulators must first practice, what they have in mind, for a period of at least six months, and if their families can SURVIVE only on this income, servicing only the small retail investors, then they should be justified in implementing what they have been practicing. I feel, a boycot of this Transaction Fees, would be the only appropriate option at this juncture.
Hey, does the Panel value the services of an IFA as Rs.100/- ?
I invite the fee based model...
This is so absurd. Are there representatives of the IFA community on this panel. Where do these people come up with these ideas. A small investor will be at the receiving end. They should revert to a simple percentage of funds invested, so the the big investors pay more and small investors pay less.
A cap on the total fees/client/year may be fixed, though this too is controversial..
They should revert to 1% load and if advisers can demand fees over and above that well and good. Voluntary payment of fees has not caught on still after 3 years and some will never pay..
Another interesting point made by Mr Vipul is there should be an audit of Investor Protection/ Edcation Fund ..
Praveen ARN 81327
Last 2 years ,we were in an orientation programme ,where everyone was telling us,charge your customers.Let the customer evaluate the distributor and the fee model will be the one going forward.
What has suddenly changed to reintroduce some kind of fixed charge,that will again see the needle of suspicion for wrong practices turning towards the Distributor.
Let the client decide how much is the worth of the Advice and the service quality and let him compensate.If there needs to be a transaparency,at best get this evaluation on the form itself and let him authorise the AMC to compensate the Distributor with any amount of fees out of his transaction amount.There can be a percentage or fixed amount cap whichever is lower on the upside,that can be subject to regulation .But let the decision of amount payable to the distributor now be with the client only.
Also feel is there a reason to have a DIRECT mode of investment now,when there is no entry load at all.Who is providing advice to these clients.And whether they informed of all the competing products information and performances.In that case does this not amount to be a matter of solicitation and inducement to sell In house product in which the seller is having financial interest.
Feel DIRECT mode of investment should now be done away with.
And if there is a fixed fee in the form of transaction costs reimbursement,why not apply even to the stock exchange broking community which also is governed by the same regulator.
Say Rs.10/- per trade !!!
That will also standardise the industry which decides its own fees structure and is also seeing shrinking volumes.
Shrinking retail volumes has got nothing to do with the fees structure.
My view and I agree to disagree.
Post a Comment