At Yahoo: Taking Stock of Commissions

11 comments Written on December 30th, 2010 by
Categories: Yahoo

I write at Yahoo! about Taking Stock of Commissions:

On May 1, 1975, fixed commissions were abolished on Wall Street. From an era of charging fixed commissions on a per-share or percentage basis, the model moved to "negotiated" commissions - charge anything they wanted. The day was called "Mayday" - an indication of the distress the industry felt about losing the profitability of cartelized price control. On October 27, 1986, the same thing happened in the UK, and the day was called the "Big Bang Day". Losing fixed commissions seems equivalent, in the industry, to Armageddon; but in both the cases above, after a brief hiatus, the UK and US have only benefited with the reform. They are now the largest markets in the world.

India has only started down this route - let's see where the primary investment avenues lie with respect to commissions.

Buying Shares

In India, stock broker commissions are not fixed, but they are strangely convoluted. When you buy a stock, you usually get charged a percentage of the trade value - that is, quantity multiplied by the share price, usually between 0.1% and 0.5%. And that's just brokerage. My contract note - a sheet that has everything that's charged to me for each trade - has all these additional charges:

  • Service tax and Cess: a 10.3% tax on the brokerage, paid to the government.
  • Securities Transaction Tax (STT) : 0.25% of the trade value, only applicable when I sell, goes to the government.
  • Stamp Duty, Turnover Charges: Regulatory fees payable to the state, exchange or SEBI, usually a percentage of trade value - about 0.004%. This is so small they might only quote it as "400 rupees per crore".

In addition, some brokers charge a demat fee of about Rs. 15 per transaction and annual demat or account charges. To complicate matters further, brokerage, STT and exchange fees are different for intraday trading (buying and selling within the day), futures and options. Specifically in options, the brokerage is ridiculously high - upto 2.5% of premium paid or received with a minimum "per-lot" charge, usually Rs. 50 or so.

Trading then might cost more the advertised brokerage shows, and usually shocks first-time investors. But one question has to be asked - just why are commissions a percentage of trade value?

A long time ago, trading was done in the open-outcry format, where you found a crowd of (mostly) men in the well of a stock exchange, making strange hand signals and recording trades. That, anyone will agree, involves more work for more shares and proportionate fees are acceptable. All stock trading is electronic now, and the hard work of making strange signals is now the responsibility of silicon, not a carbon based life form. Then why should selling 1000 shares cost more than selling 10, especially when it comes to brokerage paid (one might understand STT or exchange fees)? Why is the "pay-per-trade" model, so prevalent in the US today, not popular among brokers to get market-share?

Some of the current efforts are half-baked - like a Rs. 5,000 for trades upto Rs. 7.5 crore, which is just another percentage brokerage concept, or a Rs. 1000 per month but the trading tools are unreliable. Others are in their infancy. (Disclosure: I'm advising a company offering fixed pay-per-trade rates.)

In order to move in this direction, technology needs to catch up at the broker and retail ends. You have absolutely fantastic trading terminals at brokerages in the US, but very little innovation seems to have happened in the area in India. The big players in this space in India are partly owned by companies who are owners of the stock exchanges themselves (NSE and MCX, for instance) and brokers have invested precious little in technology that lets investors gather data and make their own decisions. Lower commissions from competition might actually prompt innovation.

Mutual funds

SEBI cut out entry loads in 2009, from a fixed 2.25% to zero. The entry load went to compensate the "advisor", whose role had degenerated into very little actual advice and more filling forms properly. Again, a percentage hardly makes sense here - the service can't cost more for larger amounts; and SEBI's decision has forced distributors to charge customers directly. This is a dramatic shift from a business model that had become lazy - all you needed to do was tell a customer "Buy This Fund" - you would make your 2.25%, and the customer was none-the-wiser. Or, to get business, advisors would "rebate" commissions back to the investor, even though the practice could get them banned. This was silly - if both investors and advisors can negotiate a lower payment, why not let them?

Now, with no "loads", it is hardly likely that someone will pay Rs. 2,250 to an advisor just to fill a form for a 1 lakh investment - so either commissions will go down, or advisors will have to demonstrate that they can actually provide valuable advice. Filling forms with the same data, over and over again, is redundant -what works better is an electronic platform or exchange, which we are already moving towards, with the BSE and NSE opening up "MFSS" segments for transacting in mutual funds. (You'll still pay brokerage, though)

But until this happens, mutual funds will dip into their management fees, providing advisors with commissions anyway; but like we have learnt to pay stock brokers separate commissions, we'll learn to pay financial advisors separately.

Insurance

The insurance industry still builds-in commissions, with some charging as much as the entire first year's premium, on the flimsy excuse that this is a long-term product. (If it was a long-term product, why don't they spread the commissions over the term instead?) After the SEBI-IRDA turf war, rules are now in place to make investors more aware of the costs in ULIPs, but traditional endowment insurance remains an opaque product with loaded commissions.

Fixed Deposits

For fixed deposits at post-offices to banks, a small commission (0.5% to 1%) is paid to the intermediary, if you buy it from a bank The post office or bank will pay the intermediary, but will offer you the full interest rate on your deposit. The economy of scale works as well - for larger amounts, commissions are reduced and customers are offered higher rates.

Incentives shape behavior, and big distributors like banks will push customers towards products that give bigger commissions. For a while they pushed ULIPs, and now they focus on portfolio management schemes, traditional endowment insurance and structured products; but it's just a matter of time before investors get literate enough to feel betrayed. It's not like the banks shouldn't get paid, it's just that they seem to get a larger chunk than they deserve.

In financial investments, the percentage commission structures are strange, as the cost is very rarely dependant on the size of the transaction. Regulators are keen to push the intermediation cost directly to the consumer - ensuring that investors or institutions that do their own homework will get the best deal. Advise should be paid for separately anyway - because if you link it to a percentage of the transaction, what happens when the best advice is to do nothing? (This, in my experience, is true most of the time. Investing is a boring business.)

Financial players have the road-roller of change coming in their direction, in the form of lower commissions. They can stand where they are and protest, or prepare for the eventual smoother ride.

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Related posts:

  1. Mutual Fund Commissions on Tax Saving Schemes Since some of you will be investing in tax saving...
  2. In Defense of High Commissions Suresh Sadagopan questions SEBI’s regulatory actions in his article. (HT:...
  3. Hiding ULIP Commissions: Riding on Confusing Customers A friend recently told me about Birla Sun Life's Dream...
  4. Would you pay 65% commissions? Some people do, it seems - to buy this Birla...
  5. MIPs and Commissions [Warning: Long post] Reader A writes in, about my note...
About the Author: Deepak Shenoy
http://www.capitalmind.in
The man behind Capital Mind. Deepak is a co-founder at MarketVision, a financial knowledge company in Gurgaon. He also provides data research and consulting services in the financial markets space. Connect with him at deepakshenoy@gmail.com.

11 comments “At Yahoo: Taking Stock of Commissions”

>- for trading it is very expensive to setup the technology ie DB/software/maintenance/periodic patches/bandwidth/scalable infrastructure (ie more hardware/software licenses as per volume). so a %age is ok, they need profit to innovate. (but innovation is not happening much, at least for hdfcsec site)

>Its Wrong..

In USA If you buy one share of 10$ or 100 shares of 10$ = 1000$, you will pay the same trading chareges (5-15$ depending on brokerage)

It doesnt make sense to pay 5$ brokerage fees for 10$ trade or even 100$ trade.

In USA Costs and Trading platforms favour rich. In India equity participation is still low. People are mostly middle class and in order to encourage them to participate more, they should have the flexibility to accumulate stocks over a period of time. Like buying 10 shares every month of 100 Rs. They cant execute bulk trades like in USA.

USA Model is flawed not the Indian model.

I agree there are lot of taxes in India for an executed trade and those should be minimzed but our system is definitely not wrong.

>RRP: That's the thing, they don't innovate because tehy make too much money anyhow. We can lower costs tremendously, honestly.

Phani: I disagree here. Most brokerages have a Rs. 16-20 minimum per trade anyway. At 0.5% that means you have to buy Rs. 4,000 worth; at Rs. 1000 per trade, you will be paying nearly 2%! Technically the floor (lowest brokerage) is still Rs. 16-20, the ceiling is unlimited – that sucks.

If you charged Rs. 20-30 per trade regardless of size, the market will grow. Because that is how much even the smallest investor is paying nowadays, but he pays a lot more if he buys 10K worth of shares, or 100K. It hurts the person who saves a lot of money – say 25K a month or more – to have to pay that much more in brokerage.

I believe our system needs a correction in this regard.

>Phani,

There is a lot of choice in US brokerages for the rich and the not-so-rich. You can choose between

1) discount brokers (zecco, optionshouse, etc) for low flat rates in the sub $5 range.

2) You can choose interactive brokers, lightspeed or others with a per share charge (sometimes with pass through of ecn rebates) which would be cheaper if the number of shares are small. In your example; interactive brokers would be recommended. Per share charge is 0.5 cents so a 100 share order would have a commission of $0.50

3) And, then you have the larger more popular brokerages which might charge more (who you complain against, rightly). However, even they allow some good choices. Fidelity offers 25 broad based index etfs for free (0 commission) and lots of no load, no transaction fee mutual funds.

So I would disagree that the US model is flawed. In fact, I wouldn't just disagree, it so wrong that its laughable.

>Hmm.. never thought India has 16-20 Rs lower ceiling too.

I have used Karvy brokerage and executed trades in NSE, never noticed 16-20 rs minimum cap in the statements

I have even executed trades worth 100 Rs. Never paid more than what was intended.

>Whew,

Icicidirect charges me Rs95 plus taxes per lot.
Thats too much considering they charge me almost Rs1500 pa per trading account.

Greedy bastards.
Tho I use them as I see no better alternative in my case.
regards

>Anonymous,

I dont need free ETF trades I want to buy stocks… SOGO Trade allows me 3$ trade, but how many of them are really using that… most of the folks use Ameri Trade or Scott trade or Charles Schwab or Fidelity – all above 15$.. imagine buying 5$ share 10 shares and paying 15$ fee for buying and selling… rediculous it is… Not everyone can afford executing 500$ single trade every month..

The so called Speed trading has so high initial cost that its not worth for general folks.

A lot of my friends keep complaining about it.. You might be a rich guy so you want to laugh… but not everyone here is so rich dude…

>Phani: like Anon said, why wouldn't you use IB? They have a $1 minimum and 1/2 a cent per share commissions. Plus if you get free ETF trades, that might be enough for most people (like saying buy ETF for free, and when you make a larger chunk, buy stocks direct)

Secondly, I'm definite that there are not as many poor investors (Rs. 500 per month) as there are people with more than Rs. 5K per trade. While brokers tend to put 1 share orders (in their prop accounts) there are very few small lot orders at the retail level, even now. Heck, at Rs. 500 per month, just your demat fees (Rs. 400 per year?) will seem too high!

What I'm suggesting is that we need competition at the pay-fixed-per-trade-brokerage level. The very poor folk can continue with the percentage commissions, even though that business model will flop anyhow (you need the big traders). In that context, I'm not happy to subsidize the cost for a few people who want to buy for Rs. 500 a month – I'd rather get the best deal for my money, and I'm sure hundreds of others think similarly.

The weird thing is that till recently noone's really come with a fixed kind of model.

In either case, commissions are a problem for traders, not long term investors. Why do you care? My dad paid 2% on his purchases in the early 90s. They have gone up 200x since then, the commissions are insignificant. For a trading portfolio, commissions are a bigger issue.

>Hmm…. that makes some valid points… I agree with you now.. But there must some reason why this model is still not coming to Indian markets.. Have to dig deeper into this..

>@ Siddharth : Why are you paying so high brokerage to ICICI Direct.. What are the good things that you like in their services

>Phani,

1) Well, for your example, category two brokers were appropriate so your cribs with the other category brokers will remain valid. I would not dispute that.

2) Its interesting you bring up sogotrade. I know about them and did not mention them in my discount brokers list because as you say they don't have as solid a reputation as others. So, yes I would not go with Sogotrade either. However, there are others that are respectable in the discount broker category.

3) So are interactive brokers and lightspeed. Lightspeed doesn't even have the minimum that IB may have (as mentioned by Deepak although I'm not sure IB has a minimum for the US). Very few if any frequent traders would use Schwab/Ameritrade/Scottrade/Fidelity.

4) Interactivebrokers has also been in India since the last few months. Reliable software and decent brokerage structure (50 rs per lot and 0.05% and 0.03% for cash and futures). IB also introduced shorting stocks intraday recently. They have trading apis accessible for automated trading in NSE. I am also hopeful that they may soon introduce flat rates (echoing the point Deepak made). In fact, they might be open to negotiation on that front (but I don't have the money to negotiate better rates/structure). They have publicly stated that they will compete on the brokerage front and have reduced trade minimums and commissions (a tad) over the last 6 months.

5) However, I must caveat that IB was not all that respectable in the US when they started a few years back. But, they seem to have grown and gotten better at this point. So, you do have to keep an eye on the broker situation at all times and make sure that the brokerage (and the clearing house) are respectable and trustworthy. That may be less of an issue with Fidelity/Schwab, etc. Online trader communities like elitetrader.com help identify dicey brokerages and the more popular/reliable choices.


Leave a Reply