MF direct plans vs regular plans – Expense ratios investigated

Share on whatsapp
Share via Whatsapp
Share on twitter
Tweet it out
Share on facebook
Share on FB
Share on linkedin
Post on LinkedIn

You all know that high MF expense ratio (also called total expense ratio or TER) impacts returns – especially in categories where returns are in single digits themselves. You also know that direct plans deliver more than regular plans as TER is lower for direct plans than regular plans. So, let’s go to the next step and try to answer three better and more important questions.

expense ratio
  1. Which categories of funds have unusually high TER? Should you avoid them – be it regular or direct?
  2. In which categories of funds is the TER difference between regular and direct too high? And are you better off staying with direct in such categories?
  3. Know where the TER differential is high in some popular/large funds.

While we have always considered TER in our research methodology, in recent times we have been observing the increasing differential in expense ratios between the direct and regular in some funds.

So, in our latest review (results of which will start flowing from next week for subscribers only), we have gone one more step in terms of highlighting to you where you should go for direct instead of regular plans. These would be schemes that otherwise showcase good performance but would not qualify as a ‘buy’ within the regular category as the TER would be far higher than category average.

By moving to direct in such cases, you would still hold a fund with good performance and also not lose out on the additional returns to be made. This comment will be available in our review tool early next week when our quarterly changes are published –  we will sound you off on the same.

Before we get into the details, some points to note:

  • We have split the study into equity, hybrid, and debt categories for ease of reference.
  • We had to avoid FoF (including overseas FoF) as the true nature of expense will not be known without the cost of the underlying fund. So, commenting on this category without final performance (NAV captures all expenses) may not be correct.
  • We took the average TER of last 3 months ending August 2020.
  • We have given the difference of the simple average TER of regular and direct. We think this will be more appropriate than weighting them against AUM because, the high TER funds (likely with lower AUMs) are more likely to be pushed to regular-plan-investors by their distributors, especially banks.
  • We have, however, stated the weighted expense ratio differential so that you get an idea of the how much you get to save (or lose) in equity, hybrid, and debt.
  • This is not a buy or sell call on funds. You will need to use our MF review tool that already takes into account cost factors to evaluate funds.

NOTE: This is NOT an attempt to stoke the raging debate on whether you need an advisor or not. It is rather an endeavor to empower you to make informed decisions on choosing funds, irrespective of whether you go to a distributor or do direct.

Debt funds

While equity funds are more popular, the TER factor is more impactful in debt funds than in equity, given that the former delivers single-digit returns in the 6-9% range. Hence, we’re starting with the debt category. We are splitting this as follows –  one, categories that have high TER per se, even under direct. Two, those categories where regular is quite high and therefore direct may make more sense.

The table further below gives you the respective category average expense ratio of difference debt funds for direct and regular. The following observations are worth noting in this:

On high TER (even) in direct

  • Categories such as credit risk, medium duration, medium to long duration, long duration, gilt, and dynamic bond have an average TER of over 0.5% even under the direct plan. For a debt fund, this TER is not insignificant. If you hold any of these funds, performance metrics will be key to determining whether these categories are good to hold in the first place.
  • Specifically, categories such as medium to long duration and long duration which do not have much of dynamic duration management  (unlike dynamic bond) nor credit management (like credit risk or medium duration) have relatively high expense ratios for just managing duration within a limited range.

In the above-mentioned categories you have two choices –  one, to stay away from such categories altogether or two, monitor your fund performance closely to know if returns are not pulled down by high cost. Here’s what we would suggest when it comes to such categories:

  • Credit risk needs lot of careful navigation. It is not worth the cost, in our view. If you are a DIY investor, the best is to stay away, even with direct.
  • Similarly, without much value-add from medium to long or long duration categories, a high fee can be a dampener in these categories. You may not lose much staying away. Besides, ETFs such as Bharat Bond ETF (longer tenure) may compete more effectively with lower expense ratio.
  • With gilt funds, you might still want to do your bit of research and go direct as the regular expense ratio can pull down overall returns higher than in other categories.
  • Medium duration is a category fraught with risks, compounded by higher TER. Unless you have sound research advice, the risk calls for caution and if you are not a PrimeInvestor subscriber, you are better off staying away from this category.

On high differential in regular plans

TER of regular plans of debt funds are higher than direct plans by 48 basis points (and 44 basis points if weighted with AUM). When a regular plan’s expense ratio in debt is higher than 1%, they can clearly pull your returns if your fund does not perform well.

The following points are worth highlighting and noting in regular plans.

  • The same categories that we mentioned earlier as having high TER in direct also have high TER in regular plans
  • The additional category where TER is above 1% in regular is short duration. This is a category that is much lower cost-wise when invested through direct.
  • As a rough thumb rule, where the differential is over 50 basis points in regular, you need to question your advisor about the value add coming from significantly higher distribution fee. If not, you could ask for other categories such as corporate bond, banking & PSU or lower duration funds suiting your risk appetite and time frame. The regular plan TER of these categories are not way higher than their direct plan cost.

There are 3 broad points you need to know before we move to the other categories.

  • Most categories with institutional money will have low TER. This is because it is a game of large volumes for the AMCs here. Liquid, ultra-short, and money market categories are examples.
  • It is primarily because of lower cost of such institutional plans that many of the accrual strategies with short duration yield reasonably well and compete with even duration and credit strategies in returns. You can check data on this article on accrual strategy.
  •  Fund expense ratio goes down with AUM. But there can be exceptions to this. Listed below are examples of debt funds with over Rs 10,000 crore AUM where the regular plan TER is higher than direct by over 50 basis points. We view these as ‘push’ products i.e. the AMC is trying to push these schemes, with higher distribution fee (than the category average), large AUM notwithstanding.

Many of you have asked us about some of these funds and their lower rating or call in our ratings and review tool. You will now know a host of factors go into providing you our researched output.

Equity funds

On an average, the regular plan TER of equity funds is higher than direct expense ratio by 1.03 percentage points (90 basis points if AUM weighted).

The numbers stack up more evenly in the case of equity and hence we are not doing any deep dive into categories nor splitting them in terms of direct and regular. The following points are noteworthy:

  • The expense ratio largely follows risk. Higher risk categories have higher expense ratio, specifically in regular plans, suggesting that AMCs need them to be pushed.
  • Sectoral, thematic, small cap, focused, midcap, large & midcap are examples in the regular plan.
  • Interestingly, even the large cap space appears to have become a segment that needs more ‘push’ going by the over 1 percentage point under TER in regular plan.

What to make of equity TER?

  • Expense ratio is not a game changer within the equity category – unless of course you take the index fund route.
  • Since the TER does not massively vary within equity schemes, rather than focusing on which category to add or avoid based on TER, you will do well to mix strategies well and ensure you pick funds based on consistency and performance.
  • Direct plans clearly score over regular plans and for those who have the acumen or take the right support (read Prime Funds 😊), it can make a difference to long-term wealth building.

Interestingly, in equity funds too, there are good performers that are expensive. The funds below have an AUM of over Rs 5,000 crore and have a regular plan TER that is higher than direct plan by 1 percentage point.

These funds will clearly show far superior returns through the direct route than the regular plan. For example, in the data below for Axis Bluehip, a near-9% higher corpus through a SIP of Rs 1 lakh from 2013 (start of direct plans) to date can make a decent different to your corpus.

Hybrid funds

Now, here’s a category that tries to do many things. And therefore, it does not come particularly cheap. As data below will show you, four of the six hybrid categories have TER of over 1 percent even in the direct plan. And five out of six categories have TER of over 2 percent under the regular plan.The regular plan TER is higher than the direct plan by an average 1.05 percentage points (0.75 percentage points on a weighted AUM basis).

We have already discussed in our article on multi-asset allocation funds that a simple mix of equity and debt and gold has delivered higher returns. Let us now just do a simple back of envelope calculation of a 60:40 equity: debt proportion (which many of the above hybrid funds have).

The average TER of equity direct plans is around 1.12% that of debt is about 0.39%. A 60:40 mix gives us a 0.8% in expense ratio. Now look at the above categories and figure which one (other than arbitrage which is not comparable to a 60:40 strategy) has a lower direct TER than this mix? None!

Therefore, the bottom line here is simple: Unless you find a hybrid category appealing in terms of its strategy and the fund you use in such a category is a consistent performer, hybrid funds are expensive! Going by underperformance in categories such as hybrid aggressive, you would need to be selective in using hybrid – on a case to case basis. When you are sold a hybrid plan, you might want to ask what happens if you take a simple equity and debt product separately instead.

Hybrids with high expense ratio differential

And because hybrid funds are expensive, and are marketed as ‘all-in-one’ products, there is more ‘push’ for it. Given below are funds with over Rs 1,000 crore AUM and TER differential of over 1 percentage point. You will find some of the ‘popular’ schemes here.

In almost all the cases above (barring one), you will find direct TER to be below 1 percent, lower than the category average. However, the regular plan pushes the cost significantly for those who seek distribution services.

How PrimeInvestor recognizes expense ratio

TER is among the key factors we consider when assessing funds. It is more so in debt and hybrid and to a limited extent in equity. Therefore, funds with high TER, direct or regular, will automatically get penalized.

However observing the increasing differential in TER,  in our latest review (results of which will start flowing from next week for subscribers only), we have gone one more step in terms of highlighting to you where you should go for direct instead of regular plans. This will be available in our review tool early next week –  we will sound you off on the same.

Besides the above, in some time, we plan to put out a page – a ready reckoner – where you will find the total expense ratio of regular and direct plans, and their differential. This will help know the excess TER you pay for a fund, compared with peers. Of course, you will need to also verify our MF review tool to know our overall call. But this will be a good ground for you to be conscious of whether you are sold products with higher cost.

You may use the category average costs mentioned above as a rough benchmark to know where your funds stand. However, doing so without considering fund performance will lead to incorrect decisions. Our Review tool as well as Ratings consider all of them appropriately weighted. We request you not to ask queries based merely on TER and instead rely on our Review tool to help you!

Share on whatsapp
Share via Whatsapp
Share on twitter
Tweet it out
Share on facebook
Share on FB
Share on linkedin
Post on LinkedIn

Please note that any specific queries on any of our recommendations will be answered ONLY through email. If you are a subscriber, please mail  Only general queries or discussions will be answered through the comment section of the blog. For full details, please refer to this post – How to communicate with PrimeInvestor.

20 thoughts on “MF direct plans vs regular plans – Expense ratios investigated”

  1. Why can’t you start showing SIP returns for every fund along with lumpsum return? Lumpsum return doesn’t give the clear picture

    1. Sir, I am afraid we are not a data provider. We provide research solutions and some basic data. Please refer to data sites for such information. thanks. Vidya

  2. Hi Vidhya ,

    Its always learning to read all article & hence my knowledge. Many new things I have learnt post subscribing Prime Investor.

    The said article in itself will ensure correct adherence to lead to more profitability.

    Thanks, appreciate the hard work done by entire Team of Prime Inverter.

  3. Tavinder Singh Saran

    Thanks for this article & the upcoming TER ready reckoner on the same. PI team is doing a fantastic job for DIY investors, kudos!!!

  4. There seems to be a lack of transparency when it comes to the commissions being paid out to the distributors. Also, these commissions are not standard. A big distributor can negotiate with the AMC.

    I have 2 queries:
    1) Is there a reliable way to find out the average commission (%age) being paid out to the distributor in a scheme?
    2) Is there a reliable way to prove that higher TER means higher commissions or is this something we assume (as it is quite logical).

    1. 1. Amfi publishes annual data on this in terms of total commission paid (value) and total AUM. 2. It depends on fund accounting. We cannot be sure funds do proper allocation of common expenses to direct or load it all on regular plans. thanks, Vidya

  5. An eye opening article indeed. Thanks a lot. Especially for making this article free for all. I can now refer this article to my friends who are still in the regular route.

    If I wish to calculate my portfolio’s Expense ratio: Can I just multiply the weight of the fund in my portfolio (in%) and multiply by the average of latest three TER of the fund, then add them all? will that give my portfolio TER.
    Or is there any other formula?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Register for FREE!

Gain instant access to more PrimeInvestor articles, researched products, and portfolios

The essence of PrimeInvestor

Register for FREE!

Gain instant access to more PrimeInvestor articles, researched products, and portfolios

Legal Disclaimer : Redwood Research (with brand name PrimeInvestor) is an independent research entity offering research services on personal finance products to customers. We are a SEBI registered Research Analyst (Registration: INH200007478). The content and reports generated by the entity does not constitute or is not intended to constitute an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation to an offer to buy or sell financial products, units or securities. All content and information is provided on an ‘As Is’ basis by PrimeInvestor. Information herein is believed to be reliable but PrimeInvestor does not warrant its completeness or accuracy and expressly disclaims all warranties and conditions of any kind, whether express or implied. The services rendered by PrimeInvestor are on a best effort basis. PrimeInvestor does not assure or guarantee the user any minimum or fixed returns. PrimeInvestor or any of its officers, directors, partners, employees, agents, subsidiaries, affiliates or business associates will not liable for any losses, cost of damage incurred consequent upon relying on investment information, research opinions or advice or any other material/information whatsoever on the web site, reports, mails or notifications issued by PrimeInvestor or any other agency appointed/authorised by PrimeInvestor. Use of the above-said information is at the user’s own risk. The user must make his own investment decisions based on his specific investment objective and financial position and using such independent advisors as he believes necessary. All intellectual property rights emerging from this website, blog, and investment solutions are and shall remain with PrimeInvestor. All material made available is meant for the user’s personal use and such user shall not resell, copy, or redistribute the newsletter or any part of it, or use it for any commercial purpose. PrimeInvestor, or any of its officers, directors, employees, or subsidiaries have not received any compensation/ benefits whether monetary or in kind, from the AMC, company, government, bank or any other product manufacturer or third party, whose products are the subject of its research or investment information. The performance data quoted represents past performance and does not guarantee future results. Investing in financial products involves risk. Mutual Fund Investments are subject to market risk, read all scheme related documents carefully. As a condition to accessing PrimeInvestor’s content and website, you agree to our Terms and Conditions of Use, available here. This service is not directed for access or use by anyone in a country, especially, USA, Canada or the European Union countries, where such use or access is unlawful or which may subject Redwood Research or its affiliates to any registration or licensing requirement.

• Aditya Birla Mutual Fund • Axis Mutual Fund • Baroda Mutual Fund • BNP Paribas Mutual Fund • BOI AXA Mutual Funds • Canara Robeco Mutual Fund • DSP Mutual Fund • Edelweiss Mutual Fund • Essel Mutual Fund • Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund • HDFC Mutual Fund • HSBC Mutual Fund • ICICI Mutual Fund • IDBI Mutual Fund • IDFC Mutual Fund • IIFL Mutual Fund • Indiabulls Mutual Fund • Invesco Mutual Fund • ITI Mutual Fund • Kotak Mahindra Mutual Fund • L&T Mutual Fund • LIC Mutual Fund • Mahindra Mutual Fund • Mirae Asset Mutual Fund • Motilal Oswal Mutual Fund • Nippon India Mutual Fund • PGIM Mutual Fund • PPFAS Mutual Fund • Principal Mutual Fund • Quant Mutual Fund • Quantum Mutual Fund • Sahara Mutual Fund • SBI Mutual Fund • Shriram Mutual Fund • Sundaram Mutual Fund • Tata Mutual Funds • Taurus Mutual Funds • Union Mutual Funds • UTI Mutual Funds • Yes Mutual Funds

Equity: Large Cap Funds | Mip Cap Funds | Large And Mid Cap Funds | Small Cap Mutual Funds | Contra Mutual Funds | Dividend Yield | Focused Mutual Funds | Find Top Index Funds | Best Sector Funds | Thematic Mutual Fund | Best Value Mutual Funds | Equity Linked Savings Scheme | Tax Saving Funds
Debt: Banking And PSU Funds | Corporate Bond Funds | Credit Risk Funds Mutual Funds | Dynamic Bond Funds | Floating Rate Funds | Gilt Mutual Funds India | Find Top Liquid Funds In India | Long term debt funds | Low Duration Funds Debt Funds | Medium Duration Debt Funds | Medium To Long Duration Funds | Money Market Debt Funds | Overnight Debt Funds | Short Duration Debt Funds | Ultra Short Term Debt Fund
Hybrid: Aggressive Hybrid Funds | Arbitrage Mutual Funds | Balanced Advantage Mutual Funds | Conservative Hybrid Funds | Dynamic Asset Allocation | Equity Saving Funds | Multi Asset Funds | Multi Asset Allocation

Login to your account