Skin-in-the-game and accountability: Do Indian mutual funds and managers deserve tougher accountability?

Skin in the game is back in the spotlight for India's Mutual Funds scene, stirring a debate on tougher accountability. Can stronger alignment with investor outcomes actually help? ^[1]

Ten questions on skin-in-the-game in mutual funds

1. Should managers invest in the same AMC funds to align outcomes? ^[1]
2. Must investments be limited to funds managed by the same AMC, or can they be any Mutual Funds from the group? ^[1]
3. Should the rule cover all fund types, including debt funds? ^[1]
4. Could personal investments misalign if a team only handles debt funds? ^[1]
5. Is the rule more symbol than substance, potentially toothless in practice? ^[1]
6. What if personal investments in an AMC don’t fit a fund’s strategy? ^[1]
7. How much skin-in-the-game, in percentage terms, is reasonable? ^[1]
8. Do other incentives (bank targets, RSUs) muddy accountability for funds? ^[1]
9. Should there be independent oversight beyond a firm’s own mandate? ^[1]
10. Should accountability center on actual investor outcomes rather than manager intentions? ^[1]

Stock advisory reality check

For stock advice, the chatter warns against blind trust. The landscape shows both caution and opportunity. ^[2]

• Jarvis Invest is AI-driven and SEBI registered. ^[2]
• FnO advisory carries high risk for those who don’t know the terrain, with losses a real possibility. ^[2]
• If you don’t have time, Mutual Funds offer a safer path. ^[2]
• Blindly following any advisor can end in losses; do your homework. ^[2]

Ultimately, accountability in India's mutual fund ecosystem will hinge on real outcomes rather than slogans. ^[1]

References