Direct plans become costlier

Good move by amc,s

I have been saying this from day one that reduction in brokerage is just an eyewash. It is not to benefit investors by making it cheap but just for maximising profits of AMCs. Now where is SEBI? How are the regulator allowing to increase the TER? Where is the so called investor favoured approach of SEBI? Even in Franklin case regulator has favoured AMC only over investors and that is the biggest reason why SEBI has lost its credibility as a regulator. What use is the regulator if they can't regulate what they are supposed to regulate and safeguard the investors? Instead they have been regulating distributor commissions and how to remove them from the equation so that AMCs get a free hand and can increase and maximise their profits and anytime close schemes and still can get away openly. Also due to increase in TER of direct schemes now direct scheme with RIA fees have become even more expensive than what it previously was. Previously direct plan with RIA fees was little more expensive than regular plan but now the gap has widened and RIA which is a failed model in UK from where our wise regulator has brought it from will now Gail miserably here as well. In fact it is a big failure here from the day one. So many RIAs have been stripoed of their license because of their wrongdoings which raises a big question mark on the regulator who grants license to anyone and everyone who pays them and then first allows them to file the investors and then takes action which is an eyewash. SEBI has completely lost credibility.

No doubt this is the biggest reason why people have started in eating in equity directly in to sticks leaving mutual funds. Although the stock market is also regulated by the same regulator but there the middlemen which is AMC is not being favoured at least.

Good move from AMC

Regular and direct investments understands the AMC good decision

I think direct TER should be more than Regular funds TER. As Marketing & Sales cost to promote and garner direct funds are more than distribution costs. All fund houses RM only do direct business, they are more inclined towards direct clients rather than distribution channel. Include the cost of sales team also while calculating TER. SEBI is not looking into this matter. Why don't AMC keep direct team to service direct client separately. Moreover operation teams of all AMCs cost goes to regular funds but are they not servicing direct clients also. They are also more serviceable to direct clients queries.
SEBI should look into this matter and then decide costing of funds.

There's a steep increase in Axis mutual fund schemes. Ha ha SEBI. The TER should be the other way around. The base rate should be for Direct scheme and sales and distributor expenses should be added to arrive at the regular TER. If the sales and distributor expenses decrease then the regular TER should be decreased, this is the proper way.

AUM Seperate For Direct And Regular Plan not refelect any where kindly raise the voice Its Help distributor And Small Investor

In Short Sab ek number ke Chor, Lootre Hai.....Sab Haram Khor Hai...sorry to say but everyone is having eye on Distributer commission....

If the marketing and selling cost comes down, the total TER also have to come down ie if 20bps, then TER is 1.8%.

I have a few questions to ask. If anybody can throw light on these it will be beneficial.

1. Direct plans are being actively promoted by Fintechs e.g. GROW, Scripbox, ETMoeny, PAYTm and now the controversial Kuvera Wealth. If they are offering FREE SERVICE how they are managing to stay afloat? How long they can burn Cash pumped in by PE investors? It is now absolutely clear that they have under table arrangements with AMCs i.e. Kuvera case. How these problems get resolved?

2.If Clients are brought in by Fintech firms can they be serviced by AMC teams[ looking after Direct Sales] and if so , what is the benefit to the AMC. Would fintechs share cost of Direct teams of AMCs? If they do then should SEBI continue to look the other way?

3. Institution sales have always been controversial be it Banks, NDs or Corporates. The AAUM growth happens IFIs only over the years. Now the earlier institutions are being replaced by these Fintechs . Does SEBI has to look at these entities as pet sons and abandon IFIs?

4. RIAs are being asked to form Companies / corporate entities and if individual RIA model does not sustain they will have to go to Companies servicing RIAs like I-fast etc. Here too SEBI paving way for institutionalizing MF business? How does it going to benefit a large section of mass affluent clients who will not be able to avail quality service at reasonable cost?

I think SEBI is high on Weed.....in the name of investor friendly they are working for corporates and are trying to remove brokers,distributors. First this direct plan in MF and now new stupid rules for Stock brokers. Traditional stock brokers are finished in coming years its all the way for discount brokers like Zeroda,Groww, upstocks. all these new regulations are in there favour. be it in MF or in Stock Broking.

It is such a weird way of calculation , anyways even with this getting implemented I dont think in anyway direct becomes costlier, what about the distributor commission, very very strange and wrong way to put up the whole article.