A first-time investor in Indian funds, who recently relocated from the US, reached out to me with this question: “How is a ‘balanced advantage fund’ different from a dynamic asset allocation fund?” He expanded on that saying that until recently, he thought they were one and the same- that a ‘balanced advantage fund’ was just a desi term (his words) for a dynamic asset allocation fund. But now, after reading something, he wasn’t so sure.
The term ‘balanced advantage funds’- if I can actually call it a term- did indeed evolve as a sort of an Indianism for tactical (or dynamic) asset allocation funds after a number of such funds, one by one, adopted the words ‘balanced advantage’ as part of their name. In part, one could attribute that to a 2017 circular from SEBI in which it drew up most of the scheme categories as they exist today.
Unfortunately, some fund houses have reduced its use to a marketing ploy. There is at least one fund house that uses this term as a masquerade (more on that later). Lastly, there are individuals, including journalists, who use it out of ignorance and/ or indifference. In my experience, this lack of authentic communication has ended up confusing and misleading many investors. I suspected that something on those lines had happened with this investor as well. It turned out to be worse than I thought.
The investor had read a recent interview of a senior executive at one of the largest fund houses in which he made this bizarre assertion:
…as per SEBI, we can either have dynamic asset allocation or balanced advantage fund.
With all the politeness and political correctness that I could muster, I explained to the investor that what the executive had said, was utter nonsense. As evidence, I shared with the investor, copies of the SIDs of a few schemes, all of which had the words ‘Balanced Advantage’ in their names. This included a scheme that is managed by the fund house where the aforementioned executive is employed. In all these SIDs, as statutorily required, the ‘type of scheme’ is mentioned as ‘dynamic asset allocation fund’.
I further pointed out to the investor that any fund with the words ‘Balanced Advantage’ in its name could have just as well had the words ‘Dynamic Asset Allocation’ in its name, and vice versa. In fact, a dynamic asset allocation fund can be called anything else, if SEBI is willing to go along with that. Thus, we have a few funds that prefer ‘Dynamic Equity’ in their name, and one that goes by the name of ‘Equity Debt Rebalancer’.
It seemed as if I had got across to the investor, but he had one more related question. Why was it that in India he could find no ‘balanced’ funds, and only ‘balanced advantage’ funds?
It’s a great question, if you ask me. To this, I would add a few more.
- Why did SEBI emphatically limit the use of the word ‘balanced’ in fund names but saw no issue with the term ‘balanced advantage’?
- Why has SEBI allowed HDFC Balanced Advantage Fund to be called as such, and categorized as it is, when it is indisputably managed as an ‘equity hybrid’ fund?
- How is it that the SID of HDFC Balanced Advantage Fund mentions its scheme type as ‘balanced advantage fund’, which is in violation of SEBI’s 2017 circular?
- Who should be held responsible for investors making poor choices in selecting a dynamic asset allocation fund, just because they aren’t privy to any of this?
To be clear, I support SEBI’s efforts in curtailing the use of misleading terminology. However, issues and anomalies such as the ones I have pointed out, hurt SEBI’s credibility and undermine its efforts in that direction.
Dynamic asset allocation funds have the potential to do more good for lay investors than any other category. But I think it’s worth remembering that this is also one of the most challenging categories to select a fund from, and to monitor.
As with most hybrid funds, these funds need close scrutiny because, by and large, there are no restrictions on where the equity portfolio will be invested or how the debt portfolio will be managed. In addition, investors need to be clear about how each fund proposes to make its tactical shifts, the limits to that, and the rationale behind that. Investors also need to keep track of how each fund’s allocation is split between unhedged equity, hedged equity, and debt instruments.
At the very least, fund houses should refrain from playing devious name games with investors.
