![]() Indian Express |
![]() Express India |
![]() Screen |
![]() Loksatta |
![]() Express Cricket |
![]() Kashmir Live |
![]() Biz Publications |





: It’s been a bittersweet month for the Employee Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO). On one hand it held a spectacularly successful competitive bidding for fund management that gives them good names at an unbeatable price of 0.01% of assets. On the other hand the amendment to include employers with more than ten employees (the previous limit was twenty) under PF coverage represents a tragic triumph of hope over experience and has the potential to fatally undermine EPFO’s already questionable financial sustainability.
Let’s talk about the fund management issue first. Upset with its earlier fund manager, the EFPO put up the management of its fund for competitive auction. Given tight investment guidelines (mostly sovereign but some corporate debt), fund managers quoted various fees but the final four will be paid 1/100th of 1% of incremental assets. This is a bargain and has huge implications for the proposed national pension scheme (NPS). There is much unfinished agenda (individual account asset allocation flexibility, linking and capping the employee interest credit to earnings, etc) but the auction and free choice of fund managers (unlike earlier unstated restrictions on private managers) represent policy innovation and change at its best for which the EPFO and its leadership must receive credit.
But if the decision to end the earlier fund manager monopoly will revolutionise fund management, why not apply this magic of competition to the overall cost of administration? All employers that pay their contributions into the EPFO are required to pay separate administrative fees for 1.16% of salary. This amounts to 4.64% of contributions i.e. 464 basis points. Is the cost of administration really 464 times cost of fund management? Employers that manage their own trusts are required to pay 0.18% of salary as “inspection charges”. This amounts to 0.72% of contributions i.e. 72 basis points. Does mere inspection really cost 72 times fund management? As the fund manager auction has shown, the important question is not public or private but competition versus monopoly. Why not allow the record keeping agency for NPS i.e. NSDL to bid for EPFO administration? Better still, why not give employers a choice to pay their PF contribution to the individual anchored NPS? A benefits plan like EPFO that is anchored to employers (rather than employees) has not kept up with the morphing of the “mai baap relationship” to the current “taxicab transaction”. Organising record keeping for benefits like EPFO, ESI,...
| Single Page Format | 1 - 2 - 3 - Next |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |

© 2008: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All rights reserved throughout the world