Mutual Fund Mastery puzzles, solved step by step

Puzzles
100
Traced to a firm
29
Topics
13
Hard
30
Topic
All topicsCompounding and time value9Statistics, correlation and diversification8Bond maths and duration10Performance measurement and returns8Costs and fee drag8Valuation riddles11Logic and numeracy brainteasers6Estimation and market sizing7Probability and expected value8NAV, units and fund mechanics7Risk, volatility and drawdown8Behavioural traps6Withdrawals and after-tax arithmetic4
Level
AnyWarm upCoreHard
Source
AnyReported at a firmStandard
Showing 1–4 of 4 · filtered from 100Clear filters
  1. 005An active large cap fund charges 1.8% a year and an index fund on the same index charges 0.2%. How much must the active manager beat the index by, before costs, just to tie? And on Rs 10 lakh over 15 years with the index returning 12% a year, what does zero skill cost the investor?Costs and fee dragCoreFranklin TempletonSan Mateo · 2017

    Try it first

    Over 15 years, how big is the wealth gap if the active manager has no skill?

    Show the worked solution

    The manager must beat the index by 1.6 points a year before costs just to tie, and with zero skill the investor ends about Rs 10.4 lakh behind. Both funds earn the index's 12% before costs. Net, that is 11.8% against 10.2%. Rs 10 lakh compounds to Rs 53.3 lakh in the index fund and Rs 42.9 lakh in the active fund, a gap of about 19% of the final wealth.

    Why is the break-even the whole cost gap and not the active fee?

    Two taxis to the same station, one charging Rs 18 per km and one Rs 2. The expensive one only wins if it is a much shorter route. The investor's alternative is not zero cost, it is the index fund, so the active manager has to earn back the difference in costs, 1.6 points a year, before adding anything. Beating the index by 1% before costs sounds like skill and still leaves the investor 0.6 points a year behind the cheaper fund.

    A 1.6 point cost gap, compounded for 15 years1020304050Rs lakh051015YearsIndex fund: 53.3Active, no skill: 42.9Gap: Rs 10.4 lakhIndex return assumed 12% a year11.8% net against 10.2% net
    Rs 10 lakh compounding at 11.8% after costs reaches Rs 53.3 lakh in 15 years, against Rs 42.9 lakh at 10.2%, so a 1.6 point cost gap becomes a Rs 10.4 lakh gap, about a fifth of the final wealth.

    Why does 1.6 points a year become a fifth of the money?

    Because the fee is charged on the balance every year, and the rupees it takes would themselves have compounded. A cost gap compounds exactly like a return gap: the ratio of final wealth is (1.102 over 1.118) to the 15th power, about 0.806, so the active investor keeps about 81% of what the index investor has. The longer the horizon, the larger that share becomes; over 30 years it would be over a third.

    The relationship
    10(1.118)15−10(1.102)15=53.3−42.9=10.4 lakh10(1.118)^{15} - 10(1.102)^{15} = 53.3 - 42.9 = 10.4 \text{ lakh}
    1.118one plus the index fund's return after its 0.2% cost
    1.102one plus the active fund's return after its 1.8% cost, assuming no skill
    15years held
    What it says in wordsCompound the Rs 10 lakh at each net return and subtract; the gap is the price of paying for skill that did not show up.

    The limitation: the 12% index return is an assumption for the arithmetic, and some active managers do beat their index after costs. The question is not whether active management can win. It is how large the hurdle is, and 1.6 points a year, every year, is a high bar to clear consistently.

    Where candidates lose it

    The common wrong answer to the first part is 1.8%, the active fund's fee. The investor's real choice is the index fund, which also costs something, so the hurdle is the gap, 1.6 points.

    The common wrong answer to the second part is simple interest: 1.6% of Rs 10 lakh for 15 years, Rs 2.4 lakh. Fees come out of a growing balance and compound; say that sentence and then give the Rs 10.4 lakh.

    What the interviewer asks next

    • What gross alpha does the active manager need for the investor to end Rs 5 lakh ahead of the index fund?
    • The index fund also lags its index by 0.3% a year through tracking difference. How does that change the hurdle?
    • How would you explain this gap to a client in one sentence without recommending either fund?

    Asked at Franklin Templeton, Risk Management, San Mateo, 2017 (Wall Street Oasis): explain the difference between actively managed and passively managed mutual funds

  2. 044An ETF charges 0.05% a year, plus 0.03% brokerage each way and a 0.10% bid-ask spread. An index fund on the same index charges 0.20% a year with no trading cost. After how long a holding does the ETF become the cheaper choice?Costs and fee dragCoreVanguardMalvern · 2026

    Try it first

    Roughly how long must you hold before the ETF is cheaper?

    Show the worked solution

    After about 1.1 years, roughly 13 months. The ETF's trading costs are paid once: 0.03% brokerage on the way in and out, 0.06%, plus the 0.10% spread, 0.16% in all. Its fee is 0.15% a year below the index fund's. Divide the one-off cost by the yearly saving, 0.16 over 0.15, and the ETF catches up after 1.07 years. Hold longer and it wins; trade in and out and it loses.

    How do you compare a one-off cost with a yearly one?

    Think of buying a monthly rail pass against paying per ride. The pass costs more up front and less per trip, so it only pays if you ride enough. The ETF is the pass: it costs 0.16% to get in and out, then saves 0.15% a year against the index fund, so the break-even holding period is the one-off cost divided by the yearly saving. Count both sides of the trade: brokerage is paid when you buy and again when you sell, and crossing a 0.10% spread means buying a little above the middle price and selling a little below it.

    The relationship
    T∗=2b+sfIF−fETF=0.06%+0.10%0.20%−0.05%=0.160.15≈1.07 yearsT^{*} = \frac{2b + s}{f_{IF} - f_{ETF}} = \frac{0.06\% + 0.10\%}{0.20\% - 0.05\%} = \frac{0.16}{0.15} \approx 1.07 \text{ years}
    bbrokerage each way, 0.03%
    sthe bid-ask spread crossed over a round trip, 0.10%
    f_IF, f_ETFthe yearly fees of the index fund and the ETF
    What it says in wordsThe holding period at which the ETF catches up is its round-trip trading cost divided by the yearly fee it saves.
    One-off trading costs against a yearly fee: who wins depends on how long you hold0.2%0.4%0.6%0.8%1.0%0y1y2y3y4y5yYears heldCumulative cost, % of money invested1.07 yearsIndex fund, 0.20% a year: 1.00% after 5yETF: 0.16% up front + 0.05% a year: 0.41%brokerage 0.06 + spread 0.10
    The ETF starts 0.16% behind because of brokerage and spread but adds only 0.05% a year, while the index fund adds 0.20% a year from zero; the lines cross at about 1.1 years, and after five years the ETF has cost 0.41% against 1.00%.

    What does the gap look like in rupees?

    On Rs 10 lakh held for five years, the ETF costs about Rs 4,100 and the index fund about Rs 10,000, ignoring the small effect of compounding. Held for six months, the order flips: the ETF costs 0.185% against the index fund's 0.10%. ETFs win on long holds and lose on short ones, so the answer depends on the investor, not on the product.

    Name what the simple sum leaves out. Spreads on a thinly traded ETF can be much wider than 0.10%, and the price can sit at a premium or discount to NAV. Some investors pay yearly demat charges that matter on small balances. An index fund may carry an exit load in the early months, and both products have tracking differences that can outweigh a few basis points of fee. Each of these moves the break-even, so the useful answer is the method, with the inputs confirmed for the actual products.

    Where candidates lose it

    The common slip is answering from the fee alone: 0.05% is a quarter of 0.20%, so the ETF must be cheaper from day one. That ignores the costs you pay to trade it, which the index fund does not charge.

    The second slip is counting brokerage once, or the spread twice. Brokerage is paid on the buy and the sell, 0.06% in all; the 0.10% spread is crossed once over the round trip, half on each side.

    What the interviewer asks next

    • The investor adds Rs 10,000 every month through the ETF, paying brokerage each time. How does that change the answer?
    • At what spread would the ETF need a five-year hold to break even?
    • Why might an index fund still suit an investor who will hold for ten years?

    Asked at Vanguard, Generalist, Malvern, 2026 (Wall Street Oasis): the difference between a ETF and Mutual Fund

  3. 056An equity fund has 120% annual portfolio turnover and pays about 0.4% round trip in impact cost and brokerage every time it replaces a holding. Roughly how much return does it lose each year that never appears in the expense ratio?Costs and fee dragCoreFund research and ratingsIndian AMCs

    Try it first

    How much does the trading cost take from the return each year?

    Show the worked solution

    About 0.48% a year, roughly half a percent. Turnover of 120% means the fund sells and rebuys 1.2 times its portfolio in a year. Each rupee replaced costs one sale and one purchase, 0.4% together, so the drag is 1.2 x 0.4%. That cost shows up as a lower NAV, never as a line in the expense ratio, so the investor pays it without seeing it.

    Why does a cost this size not appear on the factsheet?

    Think of a shopkeeper who keeps rearranging the stock. The rent is printed on the lease, but every time he returns goods and reorders, the supplier keeps a small handling margin, and that never appears on any bill he shows you. The expense ratioThe annual charge for running a fund: management fee, administration, distribution and similar costs, shown as a percentage of assets. is the rent. Trading costs are the handling margin: brokerage, taxes on trades and the impact costThe amount a price moves against a large buyer or seller while the order is being filled. It is paid through a worse price, never through a bill. of moving prices, all paid through the prices the fund gets, so they land in the NAV and not in the expense ratio. Which explicit trading charges may be loaded inside the expense ratio is set by regulation and should be checked for the market you are in; impact cost is never there.

    Two costs come out of the return; the factsheet shows one9%10%11%12%13%12.5%Gross return-1.2Expense ratio-0.48Trading cost10.82%What you getTurnover x cost120% of the bookreplaced each yearx 0.4% per round trip= 0.48% a yearNot in theexpense ratio29% of total costAxis starts at 9% so the small bars can be read; the bar heights above 9% are to scale.
    A fund earning 12.5% gross loses 1.2% to its expense ratio and a further 0.48% to trading, so the investor receives 10.82% and about 29% of the total cost never appears in the expense ratio.

    How do you turn turnover into a cost without double counting?

    Portfolio turnoverThe share of a portfolio replaced in a year, usually measured as the smaller of purchases or sales divided by average assets. counts how much of the book is replaced. At 120%, every rupee of assets is sold and rebought 1.2 times in the year. Because the 0.4% already covers both legs of a replacement, the cost is simply turnover times the round-trip cost: 1.2 x 0.4% = 0.48%. The common slip is to say a replacement has a buy and a sell and double it to 0.96%, counting each leg twice. A fund turning over 20% of its book pays only 0.08%.

    The relationship
    hidden drag=turnover×round-trip cost=1.2×0.4%=0.48%\text{hidden drag} = \text{turnover} \times \text{round-trip cost} = 1.2 \times 0.4\% = 0.48\%
    turnoverthe fraction of the portfolio replaced in a year, 1.2 here
    round-trip costbrokerage, taxes and impact cost for one sale plus one purchase, 0.4% here
    What it says in wordsMultiply how often the book is replaced by what one replacement costs, and you have the yearly drag that the expense ratio does not show.

    Put rupees on it, because half a percent sounds small. Rs 10 lakh compounding for 20 years at 11.3% grows to about Rs 85.1 lakh; at 10.82% it grows to about Rs 78.0 lakh. The gap is about Rs 7.0 lakh, paid quietly. The limit of the estimate: impact cost depends on how liquid the stocks are and how large the fund is, so the same turnover costs a small-cap fund of Rs 20,000 crore far more than a large-cap fund of Rs 2,000 crore.

    Where candidates lose it

    The first lost answer is zero, from a candidate who assumes the expense ratio is the whole cost of owning a fund. The interviewer is checking whether you know that trading costs travel through the NAV, out of sight.

    The second is 0.96%, from doubling a cost that was already quoted round trip. Ask, or state, whether the 0.4% is per side or per round trip before you multiply.

    What the interviewer asks next

    • Why would a larger fund with the same turnover usually pay a higher round-trip cost?
    • How could you estimate a fund's trading cost from its disclosed returns and its index?
    • An index fund has 8% turnover. Roughly what is its hidden drag at the same cost per trade?
  4. 094An equity fund keeps 8% of its assets in cash earning 6% a year, while the stocks it holds return 13%. How much does the cash cost investors each year, and in what kind of market does the cash pay for itself?Costs and fee dragCoreFund research and ratingsIndian AMCs

    Try it first

    What does the 8% cash holding cost the fund in a year when stocks return 13%?

    Show the worked solution

    About 0.56% a year when stocks return 13%, and the cash pays for itself only when stocks return less than 6%. The cash earns 6% instead of 13% on 8% of the fund: 0.08 x 7 points is 0.56%, so the fund returns 12.44%. If stocks fall 20%, the same cash means the fund loses 17.92%, a cushion of 2.08 points. Cash is a cost whenever stocks beat cash and a cushion when they do not.

    Why is the cost the gap and not the whole return?

    Keeping some money in a savings account rather than a share portfolio does not cost you the shares' return; it costs the difference between the shares' return and the interest the account pays. Cash drag is the cash weight multiplied by the gap between what the stocks earned and what the cash earned, not by the stocks' whole return. With 8% in cash, 13% on stocks and 6% on cash, the fund loses 0.08 x 7, or 0.56 points, against a fully invested version of itself.

    Cash costs in a rising market and cushions in a falling oneStocks up 13%13.00%-0.5612.44%StocksCash dragFundStocks down 20%-20%-17.92%+2.08 cushionStocksFundCash helps only when stocks return less than cash, here 6% a year
    With 8% in cash at 6%, the fund trails its stocks by 0.56 points when they rise 13% but loses only 17.92% when they fall 20%, a 2.08 point cushion, so the cash costs money in rising markets and saves it in falling ones.
    The relationship
    Rfund=(1−c) Rs+c Rc=0.92×13%+0.08×6%=12.44%drag=c (Rs−Rc)=0.56%R_{fund} = (1-c)\,R_s + c\,R_c = 0.92 \times 13\% + 0.08 \times 6\% = 12.44\% \qquad \text{drag} = c\,(R_s - R_c) = 0.56\%
    cthe share of the fund held in cash, 8%
    R_sthe return on the stocks held, 13%
    R_cthe return on cash, 6%
    What it says in wordsThe fund earns a weighted mix of the two returns, and the drag is the cash weight times how far stocks beat cash.

    When does the cash earn its keep?

    Whenever stocks return less than cash. The breakeven is exactly the cash rate, 6% here: above it the cash costs, below it the cash helps. In a year when stocks fall 20%, the fund falls only 17.92%, because 8% of it earned plus 6% instead of minus 20%. Over ten years of 13% stock returns, though, the drag compounds: Rs 1 lakh grows to about Rs 3.39 lakh fully invested and about Rs 3.23 lakh with the cash, a difference of about Rs 16,500.

    Say why funds hold cash at all before judging it. Some is needed to pay redeeming investors without forced selling; some is new money not yet invested; some is a deliberate call that prices are high. The first two are a cost of running an open-ended fund; only the third is a market view, and it should be judged like any other bet, by whether it paid over a full cycle. A fund that holds a lot of cash and calls it caution is making a market-timing bet, whatever it calls it.

    Where candidates lose it

    The common slip is 8% of 13%, or 1.04%, which treats the cash as earning nothing. Cash in a fund sits in short-term instruments and earns something, so only the gap is lost.

    The second loss is calling cash a pure cost. The interviewer wants the other half: in a falling market cash cushions, and the breakeven is the cash rate itself. Give the 0.56% and the 2.08 point cushion together.

    What the interviewer asks next

    • How would you tell whether a fund's cash is for redemptions or a market call?
    • If the fund's stocks have a beta of 1.1, what is its overall market exposure with 8% in cash?
    • A fund could hold index futures instead of cash. How would that change the drag?