Ask any prolific investor in company stocks/shares why he does not take to mutual funds with the same ardour and enthusiasm, and the reply you are likely to get is that mutual funds are dull and boring. He is also likely to say that mutual funds lack the thrill that one gets by investing in stocks.
1) Mutual funds lack excitement
Who wants to invest in a staid investment like a mutual fund that probably grows half as fast as some 'exciting' stocks like Infosys, Satyam or Dr Reddy's during a bull run? The poser is relevant.
Underperformance almost always gets the thumbs down, no matter what the reason. After all, every investor wants his money to work for him and if a stock does that better, why invest in a mutual fund?
Mutual funds may lack the excitement of a stock, but it is the kind of excitement that investors can do without. If an Infosys posts 19.0% net profit growth as it did in March 2003 (FY03) and still crashes 40% over the next two days; how many investors want to live with that kind of 'excitement'?
And remember Infosys is not a Himachal Futuristic; it's a solid stock with solid fundamentals. Mutual funds may not scorch the investor's portfolio in a bull run like some 'exciting' stocks, but you can be sure they won't burn a huge crater in the investor's portfolio either, when individual stocks are crashing by 40%, for instance.
2) Mutual funds are too diversified
Mutual funds own too many stocks to be of any serious benefit to anyone. A focused portfolio of 8-10 stocks will generate a more attractive return than a mutual fund portfolio of 30-40 stocks.
We are not sure if there is any theory to prove or disprove that concentrated portfolios (8-10 stocks) do better than diversified portfolios (30-40 stocks in the Indian context). Of course, investment guru Warren Buffet has successfully managed a small portfolio


