Few would dispute that investors now find themselves in a situation wherein there is an overload as far as investment choices and advice is concerned. And this overload has led to the rise of a number of "investment myths".
Investment advisors and agents use these myths to their advantage. As a result, the investor's interest is often compromised with. In this article, we debunk five common investment myths to enable investors to make well-informed investment decisions.
Rs 10 NAV makes a cheaper buy
Thanks to the large number of new fund offers being launched by fund houses and the attractive commissions being offered thereon (vis-a-vis existing funds) to investment advisors/distributors, NFOs have emerged as the most frequently "recommended" investment avenues. Investment advisors often use the Rs 10 net asset value as a factor in their sales pitch.
In effect, they suggest that buying into the fund at Rs 10 makes it a cheaper buy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The NAV is simply representative of the assets backed by each unit of the mutual fund. Hence a Rs 10 NAV (offered by an NFO) is no cheaper than say a Rs 100 NAV (offered by an existing fund).
The rationale of buying cheap, works in equities wherein the book value (the stock's intrinsic worth) is different from the market price (wherein market sentiments are also factored in). However in a mutual fund, the book value and market price are not divorced from each other. They are both represented by the NAV.
The long-term always pays off
We have always been strong proponents of long-term investing in equities and equity-oriented avenues. However, along with the long-term investment comes a caveat - investors should be invested in the right avenue i.e. in case of say mutual funds, the right schemes. A bad investment stays unchanged even over the long-term.
Investors who added sector funds to their portfolios at the height of market rallies (for instance, technology funds in 2000) will vouch for this. An upsurge in stock prices across the spectrum holds the potential to turn even a bad investment into a profitable one, but then investors would be relying on "good fortune" to succeed. And that is certainly no way to manage an investment portfolio.
Along side a long-term investment horizon, being invested in the right investment is equally pertinent. Investors would do well not to bank only on the long-term investment horizon or good fortune, while getting invested.
Universally suitable investment avenues exist
In the world of investments, there is no such thing as a universally suitable investment proposition. An investment can be termed as being ideal, if it is in line with the investor's risk profile and can contribute towards achieving his investment goals.
In effect, it's right for the investor in question. Investing is a personalised activity and what could be right for one investor can be completely unsuitable for another.
For example, a well-managed diversified equity fund with a fantastic performance history over a longer time frame and across market phases can make an apt fit in a risk-taking investor's portfolio. But the same fund may not find a place in the portfolio of a 70-yr old gentleman who has no appetite for taking risk and accords importance to assured and regular income along with safety of capital invested.
SIPs are always right
At Personalfn, we have always maintained that investors should invest using the systematic investment plan route. However, SIPs need not always succeed or deliver the expected results. For example starting off an SIP (in isolation) without any investment objective or an SIP in a poorly managed fund is unlikely to serve any purpose.
Similarly, an SIP which runs over shorter time frames (like 6 months) may not even help lower the cost of investment, if the same coincides with a bull run in the markets.
The key lies in being investing via an SIP in a well-managed fund, in line with a broader investment plan and for a longer time frame like at least 3-5 years. SIP should be seen as a "means" for achieving one's financial goals and not an "end" by itself.
There is no such thing as too much diversification
Diversification across asset classes and investment avenues is vital. By doing so, investors can ensure that investment portfolio is insulated from a downturn in a given asset class/investment avenue. However, it is also pertinent that an optimal level of diversification be maintained.
At times, investors tend to stretch diversification to absurd levels, by investing in just about any fund that comes their way. Often no thought is paid to the value, which the fund can offer to the portfolio or even the fund's aptness. Eventually, investors are left with a portfolio that is fragmented.
There is a cost associated with mutual funds, both in terms of money (entry loads) and time (to regularly track the funds). Instead, the right approach would be to have a well-diversified portfolio constituted of not more than 6-7 funds, which have broad investment mandates.
For a Free download of the latest issue of Money Simplified - The 2007 Guide to Tax Planning, Click here!
More from rediff