+91 99244 53377 info@accuratefinserve.in

As valuations climb, the funds have chosen to stay light on Indian stocks and exposure to bonds and arbitrage has gone up.

Nikhil Walavalkar@nikhilmw

A look at the gravity defying move of Indian bellwether indices such as BSE Sensex and CNX Nifty over past year makes one believe that it is time to celebrate. But the value investors in Indian markets are turning cautious. Mutual fund schemes that use value investing as a cornerstone for their asset allocation and portfolio construction have cut their exposure to Indian stocks.

Parag Parikh Long Term Equity Value Fund has cut its net investments in Indian stocks to 46.76% as of July 31 from 57.22% a year ago. Raunak Onkar, Co-Fund Manager (Equity), PPFAS Mutual Fund, drives home this point. “On a percentage basis, the equity exposure has been reduced. Net exposure (excluding cash to futures arbitrage) to Indian stocks has not been cut, it has stayed the same in absolute terms. Whereas the international equity piece has grown a bit & there’s an addition in cash levels,” he said. The fund invests more than 65% of the money in equity and equity related instruments.

Quantum Long Term Equity Value Fund too has reduced its investments in Indian shares to 79.5% from 82.27%. Among asset allocation funds driven by valuations of asset classes, Franklin India Multi Asset Fund has reduced the equity exposure to 29.05% from 41.34%. DSP Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund too has reduced its exposure to stocks to 20.18% from 42%.

While explaining about the changes in asset allocation of DSPDAAF, Atul Bhole, VP and fund manager, DSP Investment Managers says, “The equity proportion of the scheme can vary between 10%-90%and depends on the Yield Gap Model which at its basic, takes into account differential between earnings yield of Nifty and the 10-year G-Sec yield. If we see on a year on year basis, equity yields have remained almost constant while fixed income yields have gone up from 6.46 to 7.77 (represented by the 10 year G Sec) which has made fixed income more attractive from a yield perspective and hence this warranted a cut in exposure to stocks from 40% to 20%.”