The costs of investing

Cost is an important, though poorly understood aspect of investing. It is important for the simple reason that costs reduce the overall return one makes from an investment option. It is also poorly managed as people focus too much on explicit costs (cost of brokerage or fees) and ignore the hidden ones (such as opportunity costs).

a.    Fixed deposit : cost 0, likely return : 8-9% (pre-tax)
b.    Index fund ETF: cost 0.6% to 1%. Likely return : 14-15% (pre-tax)
c.    Mutual funds (HDFC equity fund): cost 2%. Likely return : 20-21% (pre-tax)
d.    PMS: usually 2% of asset and % of gains.  Likely returns: Who knows?

Fixed deposit and index funds are zero or low cost options with the FDs having no volatility, but much lower returns. IF you want to build wealth, an FD is not going to get you there. Index funds are a decent alternative, where the risk of active portfolio management is removed. You don’t have to worry if your portfolio manager is an idiot who will underperform or worse lose money over the long term.

The last option is private vehicles such as PMS (portfolio management schemes). These involve high costs, and in some cases deliver good returns. However they have a mixed record and are generally not a good option for most investors due to a high minimum investment.

Let’s take a hypothetical case

At the end of 3.5 years, you will have following sums with you
Fixed deposit (pre-tax): 4.05 Lacs (pre-tax) and 3.84 Post tax
Index fund (pre-tax and post tax): 4.18 Lacs (net 1% as cost)
Mutual fund (pre-tax and post tax): 4.62 lacs (net 2% management fee )

The explicit costs
In order to make the higher returns, an investor had to contend with all the volatility and noise in the market. In addition to the emotional toll, there was an explicit cost of around 3% for the index fund and around 6% for the mutual fund.

Inspite of these costs, if an investor could stomach the volatility, he or she came out ahead during one of the lousy periods in the stock market.

If you think explicit costs are bad, I would say the hidden costs are even worse.

This difference only increases over time and would be even wider once the market performs close its long term average (15-17%) and interest rates drop.

If you bought 3 lacs of gold in Jan 2011, you would have around 3.78 Lacs of gold now (at pre-tax). I don’t want to discuss taxes as paying taxes on gold is different issue altogether. So gold did barely as well as an FD. Keep in mind that gold over a 20 year or longer period has delivered 9-10% per annum despite the recent runup (excluding transaction and holding costs)

The returns on a specific investment – a stock or a property is not same as the return of an entire investment class. If you want to look at the average returns, look at this table by NHB. The returns vary from -15% for a Kochi to 249% returns for Chennai over a 7 year period. So we are talking of -2% to 15% per annum for different locations. This does not even include taxes, brokerage, and maintenance fee (For property).

Congrats – but then you are missing the final point. The final point is the cost of time and effort – if you are a full time or even a part time investor in RE, you are using knowledge/ skill/ time to dig out such deals and investment in them. As you do this, you are not using your time do XYZ (spend time working, with your kids, play – whatever you can think of)

Compare all costs
IF you truly want to compare multiple investment options, compare all the costs – implicit and explicit

It is foolish to look at some costs and declare a particular option as better. Maybe I value peace of mind and time with family more than returns – in that case an FD is better.  My own dad valued these attributes more than returns and spent his spare time with his kids and on his own hobbies (without ever depriving us of anything in life)

In addition to these costs and corresponding returns, I would say there are emotional and bragging benefits to various options which will be the subject of the next post.