I can't tell you how important it is to calculate your PMS/ RIA / AIF annual performance on post tax basis. Use this no to compare against benchmark
Benchmarked performance shown by PMS/AIFs/RIAs (including on SmallCase) is usually post fees & costs but NOT post taxes
The reason most don't talk about post tax performance is that for each client the tax implications will be different. hence it's messy. Fair enough
Therefore as a client it's for you to go back & c what the performance was post tax
Usually an index is used as benchmark to compare performance. Remember, when any PMS/AIF/RIA uses an index as benchmark, they are in some ways comparing how their active investing worked against just buy & hold index strategy
In India one can buy index ETFs through mutual funds. Their post costs performance is usually close to index but on lower side. (About 0.5% to 1% lower)
Such an index ETF investor will incur NO taxes TILL the investor sells the fund. If investor keeps holding - no taxes
However, the PMS/RIA/AIF investors incur taxes every time any securities are sold at a profit and the aggregate profits booked in a year (net of losses) lead to a tax liability.
As an illustration:
Assume
'A' puts 100,000 under a PMS
'B' puts 100,000 in index ETF
Both won't redeem their investment and will compare value after 3 years.
'B' gets statement of NAV each yr. No taxes to pay
'A' gets statement from PMS each yr showing value net of fees & cost. They also advise on tax obligations. Note: Many in real world one doesn't redeem from PMS to pay tax, but pays from other sources. 'A' does the same
At end of year 3:
'A's pf with PMS is worth 150,000
'B's pf in index ETF is worth 140,000
PMS shows OUTperformance of 10% over 3 years - an alpha of ~3% per year
However 'A' goes back & recalculates his portfolio value based on: 'what if i withdrew from PMS to pay taxes, since these taxes arose out of PMS advisory?'
After some work: he finds that post tax value of pf with PMS would b only 141,000/-.
Barely any outperformance!
I have used above example only to convey a message here: Publicly reported performance data by PMS/AIF/RIAs (including Small Case RIAs) DOES not capture the effect of taxes. It's the clients responsibility to do so and only then can they truly gauge the benefit of association
Have seen clients who paid reasonable taxes for a yr like 2017-2018 when their small and mid cap focussed PMS booked good profits (PMS basically only churned and reinvested proceeds in other stocks). As always, the PMS showed pf value on March 31st 2018 on pre-tax basis.
A yr later, on march 31st 2019 the PMS pf was down big time: about 35%. But in reality the client was down a lot more than just 35%, because of the taxes he paid.
Taxes paid on gains and then gains gone :)
Lastly please remember: Futures, Options and intra day trading in equity does not get benefit of short term capital gain rate of 15% but instead one pays full tax rate
Bottomline: higher the churn of a PMS/AIF/RIA (including on SmallCase) the higher the likelihood of taxes. Publicly reported performance data does not adjust for this tax drawdown. So pic is incomplete
If adjusted, alpha shown by some vs benchmark, may turn to zero or negative
*AIF taxation is a bit more complex depending on category of AIF and pass through status. So for purpose of this thread focus more on PMS/RIA
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A thread on some observations from #Nazaratechnologies DRHP - largely to do with revenue analysis. The IPO notes of i-bankers aren't delving on these points. Since I noticed them, I am putting them out here.
(not an opinion or recco wrt to IPO)
Reported consolidated revenues:
Sep 2020 (6m) = 200 cr (~annualised 400 cr)
Mar 2020 (12m) = 248 cr
Mar 2019 (12m) = 170 cr
Mar 2018 (12 m) = 172 cr
Interesting insight into the 200 cr rev for 6 months ended Sep '20:
1) 79/200 cr is from segment 'gamified early learning'. This entire 79 cr is attributable to subsidiary, paper boat apps: makers of Kiddopia. Nazara owns 51% - acquired in '20. Entire 79 cr rev is from N America
Competition would like Vodaidea gone. But Vodaidea has bought itself a couple of yrs of survival from AGR verdict as they will be able to raise enough funds to last a couple of years by convincing board that 'as ARPU's rise things will get better'
To kill Vodaidea competition needs to keep ARPUs low for 2 more years. But competition itself doesn't make enough money at these ARPUs. So will they want to self inflict pain for 2 more yrs?
Forced selling by NBFC's who have loaned against shares (LAS) is exacerbating sell off in cash mkts. There is a case for RBI to reduce margin requirments for LAS to mitigate some of this stress with little impact to lenders @RBI@nsitharaman@FinMinIndia
I explain:
Currently RBI mandates that a minimum 50% LTV be maintained at any point for LAS. So if one borrowed 50 against share worth 100, then if share falls to 80, investor should bring in additional 10 as collateral. OTH, if share goes to 120, investor can borrow an additional 10!
With this rigid margining system, in a rapidly falling market, NBFCs r forced to sell collateralised shares if clients can't meet margin requirements within mandated time frames. While forced selling is theoretically possible, r markets clearly lack ability to absorb this selling