Last week, an indignant client called, demanding the reason for me not having recommended a particular scheme which was giving out a dividend of 20%.
After all, a return of 20% in a matter of a few days, according to him, was too good an opportunity to miss out. After explaining my rationale he did calm down; however, since this issue is of general investor interest, I thought of sharing it with all readers.
Let's say I borrow Rs 10,000 from you today and promptly return Rs 2,000 back to you in a couple of days such that now I owe you Rs 8,000. Will you consider your return on investment to be 20%? Obviously not.
Now, if I were to pay you the Rs 2,000 and yet continue to owe Rs 10,000, then and only then can one say the return is 20%. But since I paid back Rs 2,000 such that I owed you that much lesser, it is return OF capital and not return ON capital. The above example is fairly straightforward. However, when it comes to investing in mutual funds, many investors mistake a return of capital to be return on capital.
Any dividend received from a mutual fund is essentially return of capital and not return on capital. The difference is moot, since an unclear understanding of this concept is being misused by many distributors to shove undeserving investments down an unsuspecting investor's throat.
This is especially true in the case of equity-linked tax saving (ELSS) funds where large dividends are doled out as March 31 approaches and investors are invited to invest based on the lure of a quick return on capital.
The problem is on account of usage of the term 'dividend' in relation to mutual funds.
Investors mistake it to have a similar significance as the term has with respect to stocks.
Now, when say Infosys gives you a dividend, it transfers money from its pocket to your pocket. To that extent, Infosys becomes poorer and you become richer. However, when a mutual fund gives you dividend, it is transferring money from your left pocket to your right pocket. Post the dividend, neither is the mutual fund poorer nor are you any richer.
It's only your money coming back to you. In other words, the value of your investment (NAV) falls to the extent of the dividend. In terms of an example, as on July 31, the NAV of the growth option of Reliance Growth Fund was Rs 351.49 whereas that of the dividend option was Rs 49.88. The difference of Rs 301.61 per unit is largely nothing but your own money paid back to you (by calling it dividend).
The investor who has chosen not to receive the dividend is owed Rs 351.49 per unit by the scheme whereas an investor choosing the dividend option is owed only Rs 49.88. Now can you find similarities between the example that we started out with and this one?
The pitch becomes even more bizarre when it comes to ELSS funds. Let's say the NAV of an ELSS fund is Rs 100. It whispers to the distributor (Sebi doesn't allow a loud declaration of the impending dividend prior to five days of the record date, hence the whisper) who in turn whispers to the investors that the scheme is set to announce a dividend of say, 25% or Rs 25 per unit.
The proposal is one that cannot be refused -- 25% return from dividend (Rs 25 divided by Rs 100 per unit initially invested) plus 30% return due to the tax saving making a total of 55% return on investment!
And this is just on the basic capital invested, if the scheme performs well, it will be additional icing on the lucrative cake. Now, let's see why this boils down to downright cheating. First, as explained earlier, the 25% return is not on capital but of capital. As soon as you receive the Rs 25 as dividend, the NAV falls to Rs 75. The 30% tax deduction is spread over three years of lock-in, so at best it is 10% per annum.
Readers may remember that mutual fund NFOs were at one time called IPOs. To enable investors differentiate between a mutual fund IPO as against a company IPO and prevent any mistake on the investors' part or mis-selling on the distributors' part, the term 'NFO' for new offers from mutual funds was introduced. It is time that something similar is done in the case of mutual fund dividends.
My suggestion is to drop the term 'dividend' altogether and classify all income from mutual funds as capital gain. When the MF pays you money, it is called dividend. When you yourself withdraw an equivalent amount, it is called capital gain! Same amount, different terms, different tax treatment. Not required -- specially seeing the way it is being misused by vested interests at the cost of lay investors.
Source : Media
After all, a return of 20% in a matter of a few days, according to him, was too good an opportunity to miss out. After explaining my rationale he did calm down; however, since this issue is of general investor interest, I thought of sharing it with all readers.
Let's say I borrow Rs 10,000 from you today and promptly return Rs 2,000 back to you in a couple of days such that now I owe you Rs 8,000. Will you consider your return on investment to be 20%? Obviously not.
Now, if I were to pay you the Rs 2,000 and yet continue to owe Rs 10,000, then and only then can one say the return is 20%. But since I paid back Rs 2,000 such that I owed you that much lesser, it is return OF capital and not return ON capital. The above example is fairly straightforward. However, when it comes to investing in mutual funds, many investors mistake a return of capital to be return on capital.
Any dividend received from a mutual fund is essentially return of capital and not return on capital. The difference is moot, since an unclear understanding of this concept is being misused by many distributors to shove undeserving investments down an unsuspecting investor's throat.
This is especially true in the case of equity-linked tax saving (ELSS) funds where large dividends are doled out as March 31 approaches and investors are invited to invest based on the lure of a quick return on capital.
The problem is on account of usage of the term 'dividend' in relation to mutual funds.
Investors mistake it to have a similar significance as the term has with respect to stocks.
Now, when say Infosys gives you a dividend, it transfers money from its pocket to your pocket. To that extent, Infosys becomes poorer and you become richer. However, when a mutual fund gives you dividend, it is transferring money from your left pocket to your right pocket. Post the dividend, neither is the mutual fund poorer nor are you any richer.
It's only your money coming back to you. In other words, the value of your investment (NAV) falls to the extent of the dividend. In terms of an example, as on July 31, the NAV of the growth option of Reliance Growth Fund was Rs 351.49 whereas that of the dividend option was Rs 49.88. The difference of Rs 301.61 per unit is largely nothing but your own money paid back to you (by calling it dividend).
The investor who has chosen not to receive the dividend is owed Rs 351.49 per unit by the scheme whereas an investor choosing the dividend option is owed only Rs 49.88. Now can you find similarities between the example that we started out with and this one?
The pitch becomes even more bizarre when it comes to ELSS funds. Let's say the NAV of an ELSS fund is Rs 100. It whispers to the distributor (Sebi doesn't allow a loud declaration of the impending dividend prior to five days of the record date, hence the whisper) who in turn whispers to the investors that the scheme is set to announce a dividend of say, 25% or Rs 25 per unit.
The proposal is one that cannot be refused -- 25% return from dividend (Rs 25 divided by Rs 100 per unit initially invested) plus 30% return due to the tax saving making a total of 55% return on investment!
And this is just on the basic capital invested, if the scheme performs well, it will be additional icing on the lucrative cake. Now, let's see why this boils down to downright cheating. First, as explained earlier, the 25% return is not on capital but of capital. As soon as you receive the Rs 25 as dividend, the NAV falls to Rs 75. The 30% tax deduction is spread over three years of lock-in, so at best it is 10% per annum.
Readers may remember that mutual fund NFOs were at one time called IPOs. To enable investors differentiate between a mutual fund IPO as against a company IPO and prevent any mistake on the investors' part or mis-selling on the distributors' part, the term 'NFO' for new offers from mutual funds was introduced. It is time that something similar is done in the case of mutual fund dividends.
My suggestion is to drop the term 'dividend' altogether and classify all income from mutual funds as capital gain. When the MF pays you money, it is called dividend. When you yourself withdraw an equivalent amount, it is called capital gain! Same amount, different terms, different tax treatment. Not required -- specially seeing the way it is being misused by vested interests at the cost of lay investors.
Source : Media
No comments:
Post a Comment