A Portfolio Management Service (PMS) asks for a ticket of \u20b950 lakh or more and full discretion over your money. The promise is that active management will beat the index by enough to more than cover a higher fee. That pitch has been made to India’s high-net-worth investors for two decades.<\/p>\n
The PMS industry is large, but its HNI and retail slice is smaller than the headline figure suggests. Total PMS assets stood near \u20b939 lakh crore in March 2026. Excluding EPFO and provident fund mandates, which are institutional, the figure is about \u20b98 lakh crore. Mutual fund assets were about \u20b974 lakh crore. Most of the PMS headline is institutional money; the book built on individual investors is a fraction of it.<\/p>\n
What happens to that \u20b950 lakh once fees, GST and tax are counted? The answer is less flattering than the gross returns suggest.<\/p>\n
Two investors each put \u20b950 lakh to work on 1 April 2021.<\/p>\n
Neither return is assumed. Each structure follows its index’s actual path over the five years to 31 March 2026. The broader index did better over this stretch, so the PMS starts with the larger gross gain.<\/p>\n
The costs follow how each product is charged and taxed today:<\/p>\n
| Item<\/th>\n | Mutual fund (direct)<\/th>\n | PMS<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Investment (1 April 2021)<\/td>\n | \u20b950,00,000<\/td>\n | \u20b950,00,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | |||||||||||||||||||
| 5-year CAGR of benchmark<\/td>\n | 9.75% (Nifty 50 TRI)<\/td>\n | 11.58% (Nifty 500 TRI)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | |||||||||||||||||||
| Gross value (31 March 2026)<\/td>\n | \u20b979,59,327<\/td>\n | \u20b985,69,540<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | |||||||||||||||||||
| Gross gain<\/td>\n | \u20b929,59,327<\/td>\n | \u20b935,69,540<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | |||||||||||||||||||
| Management fee \/ TER<\/td>\n | \u20b93,41,988<\/td>\n | \u20b95,35,564<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | |||||||||||||||||||
| Performance fee<\/td>\n | Nil<\/td>\n | \u20b92,06,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | |||||||||||||||||||
| GST at 18% on fees<\/td>\n | Embedded<\/td>\n | \u20b91,33,643<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | |||||||||||||||||||
| Transaction overheads<\/td>\n | Embedded<\/td>\n | \u20b985,690<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | |||||||||||||||||||
| STCG at 20% on churn-realised gains<\/td>\n | Nil<\/td>\n | \u20b94,28,345<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | |||||||||||||||||||
| LTCG at 12.5% on the remainder<\/td>\n | \u20b93,11,542<\/td>\n | \u20b91,62,852<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | |||||||||||||||||||
Total cost (5 years)<\/strong><\/td>\n| \u20b96,53,530<\/strong><\/td>\n | \u20b915,52,994<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Cost as % of gross gain<\/td>\n | 22.1%<\/td>\n | 43.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Net value<\/strong><\/td>\n | \u20b973,05,797<\/strong><\/td>\n | \u20b970,16,546<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | Net CAGR<\/strong><\/td>\n | 7.88%<\/strong><\/td>\n | 7.01%<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n | The PMS earned \u20b96.1 lakh more before costs. It then paid \u20b915.5 lakh in costs against the fund’s \u20b96.5 lakh. That is 43.5% of its gross gain against 22.1%, a bite nearly twice as deep, and it more than erased the head start. The fund investor ends \u20b92.9 lakh ahead.<\/p>\n Where the extra cost comes from<\/h2>\nThe fee is heavier and taxed.<\/strong> The fund charges a flat 1% that comes quietly out of the unit price. The PMS charges 1.5% plus a performance share, and GST at 18% is added to both.<\/p>\n The tax is earlier and at a higher rate.<\/strong> This is the line to read carefully. A mutual fund is taxed once, when you sell your units. Trading inside the fund does not create tax for you. A PMS sits in your own demat account, so every trade the manager makes is your trade, taxed in the year it happens.<\/p>\n At 60% annual turnover, most of the gain is booked within twelve months. It is taxed at 20% as short-term gain rather than 12.5% as long-term gain. In the table, the PMS investor pays \u20b94.3 lakh in short-term tax that the fund investor never pays.<\/p>\n The 60% assumption is conservative. Across 989 PMS approaches, the median scheme turns over 68% of its portfolio a year. Roughly a third churn more than 100%, which pushes almost every gain into the higher short-term tax bracket. For those schemes, the tax line in the table understates the real cost.<\/p>\n On cost alone, the fund starts ahead. So how much extra return must a PMS manager generate, above the benchmark, just to match the fund investor’s net outcome?<\/p>\n Modelled at a 12% common gross return, 1.5% management fee plus a 10% performance share over an 11% hurdle, 18% GST, 60% turnover, and 20% \/ 12.5% short- and long-term capital gains tax.<\/em><\/p>\n The hurdle eases with a longer holding period, but even over 15 years it is 1.3% a year. A PMS needs to beat its benchmark by about 2.1% a year, every year for five years, just to break even with a direct fund.<\/p>\n Of the 433 PMS schemes with a full five-year record, 169 beat their own chosen benchmark by more than 2.10% a year. That is 39%, or roughly two in five. Another 16% beat their benchmark but not by enough to cover the extra cost. The remaining 45% trailed even the index they picked for themselves.<\/p>\n A PMS can earn its fee. The point of the cost stack is that it has to earn a lot more than its benchmark first, and a direct mutual fund gives the same equity exposure from \u20b9500 a month.<\/p>\n Source: “How Often Does a PMS Beat a Mutual Fund”, 1 Finance Magazine, June 2026 (Issue 11). Data from the APMI scheme database, AMFI and SEBI monthly disclosures, and NSE Indices; as of 31 March 2026.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A PMS gave up 43.5% of its gross gain to fees and tax, against 22.1% for a direct fund. The full cost stack on \u20b950 lakh, and the 2.1% hurdle.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_updated_date":"","_blog_featured_landing":false},"blog-category":[274],"acf":{"alt_text":"","include_in_calculator_page":"","hash_tags":"","spotify-id":"","show_audio_player":false,"audio_title":"","audio_link":"","key_takeaway":"","article_sources":""},"yoast_head":"\n |