Three Decades Of Market Wisdom Vetri Subramaniam Uti Mutual Fund

TITLE: Three Decades of Market Wisdom | Vetri Subramaniam, UTI Mutual Fund CHANNEL: MF Bharat URL: https://youtu.be/-nBcAIOnfOE PUBLISHED: 2026-06-06 ---TRANSCRIPT--- I would say everybody who is in the business of talking to investors should do the simple thing that an airline does which is when you get on that aeroplane the aostess tells you this is how you tie your seat belt there could be turbulence please use the mask if you want equity investors in this fashion I think they will handle the turbulence of both the markets and cycles and fund management performance better.

[music]

Welcome to this episode of MF BAT learn from the masters. Today we have a very special guest, Vetri Subramanyam. Vetri is the MD and CEO of UTI Asset Management Company Limited. He joined UTI AMC as head of equity in January 2017 and assumed the role of chief investment officer from August 2021. Vetri has over 30 years of experience. Prior to joining UTI, he was a chief investment officer at Invesco Asset Management Limited. He was also a co-founder of Sharekhan.com. Vetri is an MBA from IIM Bangalore and his investment career started with Kotak in 1992.

Welcome to the show Vetri.

Delighted to be here Amish. We started our careers together almost five years ago.

So you’ve been there in the market for this long, seen multiple cycles. What is the biggest investing lesson you’ve learned which you apply for your own investments as well as for the fund?

Sure. So you know, because we talked about where our career started, I consider myself very lucky in that sense because I think I had a skill set, had an interest in the area of investing, and you know both in terms of the whole move towards globalization after the fall of the Berlin wall and with liberalization in 91 — I think all of us were lucky. We started at that time, we were in the right place at the right time. So luck has played a very significant role in getting us onboarded right at that early stage. And therefore, while I have seen what I would consider a phenomenal growth story that India has enjoyed over the last 30-35 years, the other thing which really stands out is that while there is a structural trend, there are cycles around the trend. So to go back to very famous words that I think a wise man once apparently told Alexander — this too shall pass — is the best phrase that all investors should keep in mind in all parts of the cycle, not just when things are going poorly, but even when things are going extremely well. The nature of the markets as opposed to the trend line of growth for the economy is that the market has a lot more volatility and cyclicality associated with it. So as long as investors are able to consistently apply that phrase “this too shall pass” I think they will end up being a lot more prudent in the way that they conduct their affairs.

Yeah. Because in that case one should not be panicking on the way down and when it comes to euphoria don’t get carried away.

Absolutely.

We are today in the midst of a crisis. Although we are not directly linked in the sense we are not participating in the war, but we are having collateral damage — whether it’s the oil prices, whether it’s the rupee which is at the lowest, and supply chains have been disrupted. Now you also have the prime minister making a fervent appeal to reduce consumption, possibly foreign travel, now you have seen duty on gold, work from home. Are we prepared for the worst? Going ahead possibly the jolt may not be as big, you never know, or are we as investors underestimating the bigger risks going ahead?

Sure, that’s a multi-layered question and I’ll just peel it back at different levels. One is, I would say that actually when I think about it from the economy perspective, it is a challenging period but I think this economy has gone through cycles which have been far more challenging, where I would have used the word crisis. I don’t think the economy is at that level at this point of time simply because this time around the macro fundamentals have been in much better shape — whether you look at the fiscal deficit, whether you look at inflation. India is not what it was 20 years ago. Which is why I would not use the word crisis at this point. It is challenging, but it is not a challenge that we will not be able to tackle.

I think the bigger issue is really in the investor mindset as opposed to the economy itself. Because while the markets have corrected and you could say they’ve really gone nowhere over the last two years, I still think the level of optimism which is reflected in terms of the earnings growth outcomes in the near term are just too aggressive relative to what the economy is capable of delivering. Honestly I think this was true even before this challenge came about in the last 3 months, and this recent 3 months only accentuates that challenge further. So that to my mind is the bigger challenge. So far, touchwood, investors have actually held on to the faith. So the efforts of all of us including MF Bharat to handhold investors, I think that’s making a difference in terms of helping them right through the volatility. But I think it’s a bigger crisis in investor mindsets than it is for the economy at this point.

Finally, I think the PM is doing absolutely the right thing in terms of talking to the nation about the need for austerity, the need for managing your affairs better. At the same time, honestly Amish, it’s a bit disappointing because these are known pressure points for India. We’ve known that these pressure points existed for 20, 25, 30 years, and it is disappointing that we are having to resort to the same “we are challenged” mindset. We have not done enough to overcome some of these challenges. So that to my mind, when I look at the last 30 years, is disappointing. We’ve articulated this challenge in the ’90s. We articulated it in the mid-2000s. We knew about it a decade ago as well. But unfortunately once again we are saying oh my god we still don’t have things in place to have tackled this. I do hope that in the next 5 to 10 years we will double down on all the implementation and execution we need to do, particularly in terms of our energy dependence, to make sure that the next time it happens we will still be challenged but at least we will not be challenged for the same set of reasons.

Yeah. So possibly the shift to EVs should be much faster. Possibly what COVID did to digital payments, this war could do for EVs.

Yeah. And you look at the data, look at China — if you actually look at the countries which have some of the largest coal reserves, India would count among the three countries with the largest coal. Quality of coal reserves may not be as good as elsewhere. But we have been struggling to produce a billion tons of coal every year. Going back to what I remember in 2012-13, we used to talk about “oh when will we get to a billion” and we are just about still crushing that billion number. You look at the level of coal reserves we have and what China has. China is gasifying such a large quantum — we are just talking about it, and into the crisis we are once again saying hey we need to do this. So in the good times you forget and then in the bad times you come back to the same. I think that is disappointing in terms of our execution about the things we need to do to manage our energy dependence on global oil. So I just hope — I think a 34, 35,000 crore budget allocation is decided, I just hope they spend that.

I see global investors seem to be preferring those markets which are linked to the AI chain, for example Korea or Taiwan, even Latin America. What’s your take on AI and what’s India missing out on that AI ecosystem? In fact we would no doubt be the consumers of AI, maybe among the largest consumers of AI going ahead, but where would we be as co-creators going ahead since government is supporting the AI mission? The budget allocation is about 10,000 crores, it was announced in 2024 for 5 years, and the last 2 and a half years we just spent about 2 and a half thousand. So what’s your take on this?

So again many layers to that, but I’ll start at the first one and that’s a good one to start because I write a monthly commentary and I just wrote about this yesterday. Everybody talks about the fact that oh foreigners would rather buy AI-driven markets than buy India. Please go look at the data. In the last 12 months foreigners have sold more equities in Korea than they have sold in India. Foreign money is not reallocating out of India into Korea. Foreigners have been net sellers in India. They have been net sellers in Korea. Very marginal net sellers in Taiwan. So we can’t use this as a logic to say oh foreigners took their money out of here and put it there. Those companies are just going through a mind-boggling profit surge. If you look at a company like Samsung, they made $30 billion I think in 2025, they are on track to make $240 billion next year. So it is that profit surge which is causing that stock to go ballistic. And therefore, the net buying in Korea is happening by domestic investors, not by foreigners. Just like India. So first of all, this belief that foreigners want to go there because they have AI and we don’t have AI — it is not correct. That is not showing up in the data, because foreigners are net sellers everywhere.

Secondly, I hear this logic that oh India is very old world market, we have lots of financials in our benchmark index. So I went and looked at some of the other benchmark indexes. Nifty50 is 35% financials, five financials in the top 10 stocks. By the way — Poland, Greece, Brazil, all these markets have four to five financials in their top 10 stocks. Two to three of their top 10 stocks are utility and oil and gas companies, very much like India. But those markets are up 30 to 40%. So I think these are all narratives. They don’t explain what has happened. To my mind, India’s challenge in terms of market performance stems from the fact that you just had very aggressive expectations discounted in the stock prices, and as there have been challenges in terms of single-digit earnings growth for 2 years and challenges potentially to the 27 earnings growth, the market has struggled. We haven’t had that lift coming from a few stocks which causes earnings growth.

So basically the gap between expectation and delivery.

Absolutely. Now your other point on AI spending — all I will say is, same point like gasification, it’s good to have plans but if you don’t execute they are worth nothing. Steve Jobs used to always say this, that ideas are worth a lot but the true multiplier is execution. So you have to get it done. But I think we are looking currently at only the spending which is happening in AI which is the spending on what people would call the picks and the axes and the shovels — these are the tools which people need to be able to run AI. And just looking at what some of the other leaders that we have like Nandan etc have been talking about, India’s ability to use AI as a tool to create solutions is where we will come in in this chain. So maybe our position in the chain is slightly different as compared to where these other economies are positioned because they are doing the actual picks and shovels.

So we would be more into the services.

Absolutely. So I think it’s just a question of where that scheduling happens. In my own experience, when I look back at it, I’m quite optimistic because I have not seen a single technology change happen, at least in my career in 35 years, where you would say that oh India got left behind. We have eventually figured out which part of that cycle we will be able to benefit from and we’ve built our capability. There are a lot of good entrepreneurs and business leaders looking at what we can do. So eventually those benefits will also accrue to us. In the early 2000s you’ll remember there used to be all this talk about the digital divide, and India will miss the whole internet bus because we will not be on the internet. Today more Indians transact digitally to do things like payments which you don’t see in any country in the world other than China. So 20 years ago this was a fashionable discussion — digital divide. Today we say India has done as well. So I’m not pessimistic about that. Lead-lags can be there but I’m quite optimistic that eventually a lot of our business leaders will figure out what is the opportunity to use AI for productivity, and equally how it can become eventually a job creation and an income generation engine.

Now tell me, in UTI have we started integrating AI, utilizing AI for your decision making?

So simple answer to that — AI cannot be used to take decisions at this time given the way the regulatory architecture is written. Decision making has to be driven by individuals who are charged with taking decisions. So AI does not take any decisions, just to put that clear. Having said that, what we’ve done is made a lot of the AI tools available to the analysts, because this has, in our opinion and we’ve already experienced this, significant benefits in terms of their ability to analyze data over long periods of time. If you just wanted to analyze what XYZ company has said in its analyst meeting over the last 10 years, AI is far better at giving you that summary of those 10 years with clear pointers, as compared to the analyst trying to read all of them. So the way we approach AI at this point is that it is your personal assistant. How can you as an analyst use it to improve your productivity and your turnaround times? How can you use it to standardize your Excel templates, your documentary templates? How can you use it to enhance your turnaround time on looking at a new company? How can you use it to look at our own internal time series data or time series reports that we have, because we’ve had analysts who are covering companies dating back 10 years. So this is the first time that using AI we are able to analyze our own reports to say hey what is the thing that we got right, what did we get wrong. So that is where we are using it — AI as a personal assistant to each individual particularly in the research team. Decision making at this point given all the regulatory construct is still in the hands of individuals, but what it is doing is enhancing productivity. So if you ask me the question will I need the same number of analysts down the road as I do today — maybe, maybe not, we’ll have to see how that pans out. But productivity will significantly improve and therefore we will be able to use the workforce to enhance productivity in other ways.

Irrespective of the uncertainty around us, the focus is clearly on Viksit Bharat 2046-47, which means we should see growth over the next two decades. So which sectors are looking structurally strong for the next 5 to 10 years and which sector or sub-sector would be on your caution list?

So that’s an interesting question, but I would still say the minute you start thinking about this as a 10 year and 20 year journey, my recommendation to people and investors in general is just go with a simple diversified fund. There will be some part of the cycle where banks will look more interesting, some part of the cycle where pharma may look more interesting, some part where consumer may look more interesting. Any one individual’s ability to keep chasing these themes over time is very very limited. It’s both timing and decision which you have to get right to get the benefit. So the minute you say 10 year, 20 year horizon, I would say just stick to simple diversified portfolios.

Let the fund manager do his work.

Yeah, fund manager will do his work and they’re also not going to dramatically reposition portfolios overnight. But the value of staying diversified in my opinion beats trying to be concentrated for most investors. You will find those one or two investors — somebody will point to a Warren Buffett or a Rakesh Jhunjhunwala and say “oh, it worked for him.” But that is a wrong interpretation of the data. They are two successful people. What you need to see is how many people started that same journey and how many were unsuccessful. So this is a wrong way to look at the data and interpret that oh it worked for them, it can work for us.

I see you must have been asked a number of times how you pick a specific sector or a stock, what are your parameters. But today I’m not asking you that. The main question which I ask you is how can a mutual fund investor identify the right fund manager, because when it comes to mutual fund the pick is the fund manager. What are those parameters one should look at other than the recent performance, because you get a lot of past information on fund performance but nothing is readily available about the fund manager’s lifetime performance?

So I would actually define this slightly differently, Amish, which is to say that to my mind it’s always a combination of investment process and individual. When you start thinking about lifetime journeys that the investor will experience — I’m at UTI and we’ve had investors who’ve been with us for 50 years. Even today I meet an investor who will say “oh wow great to meet you, I’ve had money with UTI for 50 years.” And my simple takeaway from that is that eventually the investor’s journey with a particular fund will actually far exceed the lifetime or contribution that any one fund manager will make. Which is where to my mind investment process becomes very very important — which is institutionalized. So whether it is the iPhone or the Android phone, the versions can keep changing, but it is that iOS software and the Android software which keep it running and give it that continuity. So to my mind, for that investor journey, don’t look only at the fund manager. What is equally important is does the firm have a well-structured investment process. Then you combine that with does it have fund managers with tenure.

I would say one thing that I’ve seen change, and I think that’s a good development, is compared to 20 years ago I think we now have fund managers with a longer track record that we can evaluate. Very simple cheat sheet to evaluate fund managers: one, make sure there’s also a process; you want to have tenure. The biggest errors that people make in selection is just to look at point-to-point returns. So one, look at a fund manager with tenure. Second, check for rolling returns as opposed to point-to-point returns. Don’t look just at hey what was the last 5-year return because that just picks up a particular cycle — as we said at the beginning there are cycles in the market. So you need to see how they are performing. Why rolling returns? Because that will tell you how people do through the cycle.

The other one — one is quantitative, one is more qualitative. Buy a fund manager only if they’ve gone through a difficult time and they’ve come out of that and they are able to again demonstrate performance. Because, and Warren Buffett says this as well, eventually successful investment is not about IQ, it is more about EQ. And therefore when you pick a fund manager who’s gone through a difficult cycle and come out of it, they’ve already learned how to deal with challenges. So the quantitative part of that could be looking at something like rolling returns and performance during up-cycles and down-cycles. But the qualitative part is just to say has this fund manager ever gone through a downturn. Somebody said this very nicely: find a fund manager who’s got a great track record but invest in him only after he goes through a downturn, because that’s when they really get tested. So tenure is important, or at least consistency of the kind of track record. These to my mind are the consistent parameters to look at — rolling returns, the upside-downside capture, and whether they’ve gone through a difficult time.

And now with so much volatility and the timelines getting compressed, I think even fund managers with lesser years of experience have gone through these cycles.

Absolutely. And just to add to that, the critical thing that people don’t realize is that the market has cycles, and fund performance has a cycle which sits on top of that. Now to presume that you will find a fund and a fund manager who is outperforming in all cycles — I’d love to find that magic formula. My 35 years of experience, everybody experiences cycles. I think we need to prepare investors for this thing. When you invest in a fund, please understand there will be a point in the cycle where this will look like an extremely unwise decision — because I can look back in history and tell you that the same thing happened to this fund and fund manager in the past as well. One of the challenges that I see is that we are not preparing the investor well enough. We have to prepare investors for volatility. We have to prepare them for cycles. When you prepare them in advance, their ability to handle it is better because they’ve been told that this can happen.

So I would say everybody who is in the business of talking to investors should do the simple thing that an airline does, which is when you get on that aeroplane, the air hostess tells you this is how you tie your seat belt, there could be turbulence, please use the mask. If you warn equity investors in this fashion, I think they will handle the turbulence of both the markets and cycles and fund management performance better. When you only give them this narrative of Viksit Bharat, you have avoided the topic of volatility, then they are unprepared, because you told them there is this beautiful journey to a golden civilization 20 years out but you never told them there will be volatility. It is not linear. So that is where the problem comes. So I think as an industry we have to adopt the same principle like the airline industry in the way that we conduct our conversation.

Basically you set the expectations right. Again, what are the common mistakes you think investors make while selecting mutual funds?

Well the most common one I have seen — going back to our vintage, a very famous TV brand called Onida. I still remember the Onida ad used to say “owner’s pride, neighbor’s envy.” 90% of investors’ problems that I’ve seen is the envy they feel about how their neighbor is performing, because there’s the sense of “oh he picked that fund, he’s doing so well, I don’t have that fund, I’m not doing well, maybe I should go there.” And I always tell people that look, everybody is going to have a different journey, there will be points in time where you will be faster. Just for example, if you are an investor in an equity mutual fund and you are an investor in an FD, when the market is going up you will be doing better than that FD investor; when the market is going down that person will do better. So you just have to accept this. But this to my mind is the most common mistake, and this is nothing to do with Indian investors, this is a global phenomenon. There is nothing which upsets any human being more than seeing his neighbor getting rich faster than him.

Because in a good market you’ve made tons of money, but your neighbor has made more than you, you’re unhappy. And the same thing on the way down — although you may be losing, in case your neighbor’s losses are higher than yours, you’re happy.

So why do you think investors still fail despite investing through mutual funds?

That’s a tricky one. Some of it we’ve already talked about. The other one, and I sometimes think about this, is that the whole construct of the MF industry is built around this idea of open-ended funds. You’ve got a wonderful product — you can come in, you can go out at any time. And then at the same time we are trying to tell them to use this product which allows this amazing ease of entry and exit, and use it for 30 years. That straight away is opening up a conflict in the person’s mind. And when you look at a lot of that data, it’s interesting — I’m not saying people in the US don’t switch, but a lot of that wealth creation happened because they were locked into the 401k which didn’t allow them to access the money. So this is one of the challenges I find, and this is a behavioral issue, it has to do with the mutual fund structure being open-ended, or the fact that our communication to the investors is long-term but they are finding it a challenge. So this is something we still have to think through in terms of the regulatory architecture — how is it that we incentivize the investor to actually stay for the long term. There is a disconnect between a product which says come anytime, go anytime, but oh by the way please think about this for 30 years. There’s a dissonance in the investor’s mind and I think we need to find more ways to tackle this.

And this also I think is due to digitalization, because earlier if I had to redeem I had to go to a broker or to the fund office, now it’s on my laptop.

People joke about this all the time that the best performing investment in their portfolio is the one that they lost access to, because they had some physical share and they didn’t manage to demat it and then it turned out to be the best performer in their portfolio. So maybe one thing investors would do well to do is to sleep better and not react or want to track the market at every point or track the news flow at every point.

I see this industry is witnessing an evolution towards specialized investment funds. And SIFs now are capable of investing more than 10 lakhs. How should that investor choose between a SIF and a regular mutual fund?

Okay, so let me roll it back, because I think what we need to first understand is what is the flexibility which has been given to a SIF which is not available to the mutual fund. At one level it is the flexibility to go both long and short as compared to the traditional mutual fund product which is a long-only product — which means you only buy stocks or you buy bonds and you just remain invested in that category, you don’t go short.

What percentage of portfolio can you go short, 20-30?

It depends on the definition but theoretically you could be fully hedged out as well. You could go short. And indirectly the SIF structure actually allows you to create an exposure which is in excess of 100. So there is an element of leverage which is also built into it. So this allows you to create the classic sort of hedge fund thing. The only point that I would have over here is that yeah it sounds very interesting, but when you look at the history around the world, the best hedge funds which have delivered strong returns over cycles have typically tended to be multi-asset, multi-geography, multiple asset classes. A single country, single asset class long-short fund is not something which has worked very well over longer terms in most geographies. And even if you look at some of the most storied short-side managers in the US, actually the track records have not been anything to write home about, they’ve gone through very difficult cycles. So to my mind therefore we have to see how these SIFs can be used to create something which can be of interest to an investor in a risk-reward combination that makes sense. But the classic long-short, to my mind, is unproven in terms of the data set which tells you that a single country long-short has been a very very challenging animal to run.

So what can you use it for? I would say you can use it perhaps for strategies which try to bridge between fixed income and equity returns by using a combination of arbitrage strategies loaded on with some exposure and hedging using the short-side book. But they are strategies which are intended to give you a slight improvement in return, rather than being a classical hedge fund which is run on an absolute return basis. So we are still in a stage of evolution. Past data suggests a single country long-short strategy which can give you absolute returns through the cycle — very few fund managers globally have managed to demonstrate that. It is only the multi-manager, multi-asset class, multi-geography. There are hedge funds which have 200 managers managing $50 million each, very differentiated strategies, tight risk control. But that’s a very different approach. That is not what the SIF is trying to do. So I think it’s still evolving. I don’t necessarily think of it as some very sophisticated pure alpha product. We’ll see how the product evolves. But perhaps you can use it to create this product which sits somewhere in between the equity and the fixed income, to create a slight improvement in return using the fact that you can now use hedging to reduce volatility.

Again going back to my question on the fund manager. Now SIF — is it more dependent on the fund manager as compared to the process, or is it similar to the mutual fund?

So let me answer it this way. I’ve been actually on the short side because I ran a long-short India fund way back almost 20 years ago. The short side is a very different cup of tea. I went from being a traditional long-only manager to trying to run long-short money and I realized the short side required, again, not just the intellectual side of the challenge but the emotional challenge was at a different level. I was used to the emotional challenge of being a long-only fund manager, but being a short-side fund manager the emotional challenge went at a completely different level. So to that point I would say when it comes to the short side, I would like to see fund managers who have actually experienced running short-side money. If they have not experienced that it is going to be a challenge, unless you use the process to tighten them into a very narrow corridor of saying use the short side along with the hedge but only to soup up returns marginally, and outside that corridor we are not interested in souping up returns. So you’re not running it as a classic absolute alpha product.

Now there are some rapid fire questions. Active versus passive investing — where do you stand today?

So let me answer it this way. I like my nimbu pani with both salt and sugar. So both should be there in your portfolio.

How should retail investors react during periods of extreme volatility, like what we’re seeing now?

Best would be don’t react. If you’ve already set your financial goals, you’ve got your asset allocation, you’ve diversified, then please understand that that is what will get you through the volatility. Trying to interpret the news flow creating the volatility and responding to that in your portfolio is actually counterproductive.

So basically cut out all the noise.

Cut out all the noise.

Is SIP investing truly safe or is that perception oversimplified?

Okay, that’s a very tough one. I think it’s been oversimplified in the sense that all that the SIP is trying to do is overcome the behavioral challenge of getting people to invest irrespective of whether the market is doing well or doing poorly. It is creating a discipline. That is what it is intended to do. Eventually the return will be an outcome of what the market does over that period. All we are solving for is the behavioral angle. So it is not lying independent of what that market does. If that market, just for argument’s sake, has a terrible 20-year, 30-year period, doing SIP in that is not going to help you. So all that the SIP is doing is a behavioral fix to give you discipline. But the returns will come because the equity market performs.

Again, what are the two or three metrics that actually matter while evaluating a mutual fund?

As I said, look at the rolling returns, and particularly I’m a big fan of checking whether the fund manager has gone through a difficult period and come out of it. That to my mind is the test of whether the process and the individual are working well together.

Lumpsum versus SIP — when does a strategy make sense?

I think that’s very context-sensitive. A few weeks back I had somebody who called up and said look, I sold my house, I have some money now, what do I do? I can’t tell him you do a SIP. You can still stagger that money around. So those are context-sensitive, and as long as you bring the lens of asset allocation into it, I think you’ll be okay. If the pitch is saying you’ve got this big chunk of money, then you’ve got to deal with the intellectual challenge of saying how do I fit it into my asset allocation. You can still stagger it, but then SIP is not the answer.

And if you had to explain wealth creation in one sentence to Gen Z investors, what would you say?

In the context of investing in equity — the simple way to explain it to Gen Z is, this is the simple way to make money even while you’re sleeping. Because even while you’re sleeping that money is going to compound, since somebody else is running the business.

And are investors overwhelmed today because of too many fund options? I think there are about 55-56 mutual funds today.

Mutual funds are almost 58-60, I won’t be surprised if you’re at 100 within the next two years. So that is a challenge. Very similar, Amish, to my experience with talking to individual investors way back in 1992-2000 — every time they heard a new stock they would add it into their portfolio. So then when you looked at the portfolio they had 200 companies lying in it. I see that now on the mutual fund side. Honestly if you have five funds which have 50 stocks each, take the overlap, you already own something like about 150 stocks. So your returns are going to now be a function of that collective. So I do see portfolios where people have become over-diversified, and I would also say people have gone too much into thematics and sectoral. I will reiterate my point of view, which is to say that the classic diversified schemes need to be the structure which holds your portfolio together. Sector and thematic is like icing on the cake. But I see too many portfolios where that icing has now become the core of the portfolio, because they ignore everything else saying oh this is too boring. To my mind that’s the wrong way to go. Your cake won’t hold or stay firm if it doesn’t have that structure, and that structure comes from the core diversified schemes — whether you call it flexi cap, multicap, or even if you assemble it yourself as large cap, midcap, small cap. That’s the core of your diversified portfolio.

This brings me to the end of all the questions. Thanks Vetri for such an insightful interaction.

Thank you, great to have this conversation.

Thank you viewers for watching this episode and do subscribe to MF Bharat for such interesting conversations going ahead.

[music]