The Quiet Discipline of Asset Allocation
Why mix matters more than the manager — and how we set the long-term defaults that survive the next bear market.
A plain-language account of the cost differential — and when each route genuinely makes sense.
The direct-plan movement has been excellent for Indian investors. It has forced a conversation about costs that, until ten years ago, simply did not happen in most client relationships. We are in favour of that conversation. We also think it is incomplete.
Regular plans carry a trail commission paid by the AMC to the distributor. The expense ratio is higher than that of the equivalent direct plan — typically by 50 to 100 basis points for equity funds. Compounded over thirty years, that differential is not small.
So the question is not whether regular plans cost more. They do. The question is whether the service that sits behind the trail is worth what it costs — to you, given what you actually need.
A low expense ratio that lands you in the wrong asset allocation is the most expensive investment you will ever make.
In a well-run practice, the trail pays for:
If none of those things are happening, the commission is a cost without a service — and a direct plan is the right answer. If all of those things are happening, the commission is a fee for work, and the conversation becomes one of value, not of cost alone.
Our own position is declared. We deal in regular plans only. That is disclosed in writing at the start of every relationship, and the commissions we earn are disclosed annually. What we ask for, in return, is the chance to demonstrate that the service is worth it.
Why mix matters more than the manager — and how we set the long-term defaults that survive the next bear market.
What to ask — and what the answers should sound like — before signing up with anyone, including us.
A no-obligation discovery call — thirty minutes to understand your goals, your existing portfolio, and whether we are the right fit.