Portfolio Management Services (PMS) as an investment option for Armed Forces Officers
- Abraham Cherian
- Nov 15
- 12 min read
Portfolio Management Services (PMS): Definition and Types
What is PMS?Portfolio Management Services represent personalized investment management where a professional portfolio manager directly manages an investor's securities on their behalf. Unlike mutual funds (pooled investments), PMS provides direct ownership of securities in the investor's demat account, offering complete transparency and customization tailored to individual investment objectives.
Key Characteristics of PMS:
Direct ownership of securities in investor's name
Minimum investment: ₹50 lakh (SEBI mandate as of January 2020)
Personalized strategy based on individual risk profile
Discretionary management by professional managers
Regular reporting and portfolio transparency
Suitable for HNIs and Ultra-HNIs
Types of PMS (Based on Investment Control)
Discretionary Portfolio Management Services (DPMS): The portfolio manager has full authority to buy, sell, and manage the portfolio without seeking approval for each transaction. The manager exercises independent judgment within the agreed investment parameters. This is the most common form suitable for busy investors.
Non-Discretionary Portfolio Management Services (NDPMS): The portfolio manager cannot make decisions independently. Every buy/sell decision requires the client's explicit approval. The manager acts only on client instructions but handles execution and operational matters.
Advisory Portfolio Management Services: The portfolio manager provides investment advice and recommendations, but the client retains full control over execution. The manager has no authority to execute transactions. This is suitable for investors who want expert guidance while maintaining complete control.
Types of PMS (Based on Asset Classes)
Equity PMS: Focuses on equity instruments—listed shares, unlisted equities, and equity-oriented funds. High growth potential with correspondingly higher volatility. Suitable for long-term investors with high risk tolerance.
Debt PMS: Invests in fixed-income securities—bonds, debentures, government securities. Lower risk than equity PMS with stable, predictable returns. Suitable for conservative investors seeking income.
Hybrid/Multi-Asset PMS: Combines equities, debt, commodities, and other asset classes. Provides diversification and balanced risk-return profile. Suitable for investors seeking diversification across asset classes.
Commodity PMS: Focuses on commodity trading and commodity-linked investments. Specialized strategy for experienced investors.
Typical Returns in PMS. Historical performance data reveals:
10-Year Average (Equity PMS): 17.35% CAGR (average across 60 equity PMS strategies tracked by PMS Bazaar)
Top 10 PMS (10-Year): 20%+ CAGR
5-Year Average: 18.99% CAGR (beating Nifty 50 TRI at 15.27%)
Recent Performance (FY 2024-25): Large Cap: 27% CAGR; Mid Cap: 32% CAGR; Small Cap: 18% CAGR; Multi Cap: 40-45% CAGR
However, these are gross returns before fees and taxes. Net returns after costs are substantially lower.
Costs, Fees, and Taxation of PMS
Fee Structure of PMS
Fixed Management Fee:
Range: 1% to 3% annually (typical: 1.5% - 2.5%)
Calculation: Applied as percentage of assets under management (AUM)
Frequency: Usually charged quarterly or semi-annually
Adjustment Method: Uses average of opening and closing portfolio valuesExample: On a ₹50 lakh portfolio with 1.8% annual fee = ₹90,000 per year
Performance-Based Fee (Profit Sharing):
Typical Rate: 10-20% of profits above a hurdle rate
Hurdle Rate: Commonly 8-12% p.a. (defines threshold above which performance fees apply)
High Watermark Principle: Performance fees charged only on profits exceeding the highest NAV previously reached
Purpose: Aligns manager incentives with investor returnsExample: If hurdle rate is 10% and actual return is 15%, performance fee applies to 5% of gains at rate of (say) 15% = 0.75% of portfolio.
Additional Costs:
Brokerage: 0.25% per transaction (buy/sell)
Custodian Fees: ~0.03% p.a. of AUM
Operational Expenses: Up to 0.5% p.a. (audit, depository, legal fees)
Entry/Exit Loads: 1-3% on inflows/outflows (some providers)
GST: 18% levied on all fees and charges
Taxation of PMS Investments
Unlike mutual funds, PMS investments are treated as direct equity investments, taxed based on individual transactions:
Short-Term Capital Gains (STCG):
Holding Period: Less than 12 months
Tax Rate: 20% (as of FY 2024-25)
Slab Application: Flat rate, independent of investor's income tax slab
Impact: Higher frequency of rebalancing leads to more STCG
Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG):
Holding Period: More than 12 months for equities
Tax Rate: 12.5% (on gains exceeding ₹1.25 lakh per financial year)
Indexation: Not available for equity
Exemption: First ₹1.25 lakh of gains per financial year is exempt
Example: Gain of ₹2.5 lakh → only ₹1.25 lakh taxed at 12.5% = ₹15,625 tax
Dividend Income:
Tax Treatment: Taxed as per investor's income tax slab
No Separate Rate: Unlike mutual funds, no dividend distribution tax
TDS on PMS Fees:
Generally not applicable (unlike some other income sources)
Comparison: PMS vs Mutual Fund Taxation
Aspect | PMS (Direct Equity) | Mutual Fund (Equity) |
STCG Rate | 20% | 20% |
LTCG Rate | 12.5% | 12.5% |
LTCG Exemption | ₹1.25 lakh/year | ₹1.25 lakh/year |
Tax on Each Transaction | Yes (frequent rebalancing) | Only at redemption |
Tax Efficiency | Lower (due to frequent trading) | Higher (tax only at exit) |
Fee Treatment | Charged separately, no deduction benefit | Built into NAV |
Worked Example: PMS Returns Calculation (15% Gross Returns Over 3 Years)
This section provides a detailed, step-by-step calculation showing how a 15% gross annual return translates to net returns after fees and taxes.
Assumptions
Initial Investment: ₹50 lakh
Gross Annual Return: 15% p.a.
Fixed Management Fee: 1.8% p.a.
Performance Fee: 15% on excess returns above 10% hurdle
Holding Period: 3 years
Tax Assumption: 50% STCG (20% tax) + 50% LTCG (12.5% tax)
Year-by-Year Breakdown
Year 1
Item | Amount (₹) |
Starting Portfolio Value | 50,00,000 |
Gross Profit (15%) | 7,50,000 |
Portfolio Before Fees | 57,50,000 |
Fixed Management Fee (1.8%) | 1,03,500 |
Performance Fee (15% on 5% excess) | 37,500 |
Total Fees Deducted | 1,41,000 |
Portfolio After Fees | 56,09,000 |
STCG Tax (20% on 50% of profit) | 75,000 |
LTCG Tax (12.5% on 50% of profit) | 41,667 |
Total Tax Deducted | 1,16,667 |
NET PORTFOLIO VALUE (in investor's hand) | 54,92,333 |
Year 2
Item | Amount (₹) |
Starting Portfolio Value | 54,92,333 |
Gross Profit (15%) | 8,23,850 |
Portfolio Before Fees | 63,16,183 |
Fixed Management Fee (1.8%) | 1,13,691 |
Performance Fee | 39,442 |
Total Fees Deducted | 1,53,134 |
Portfolio After Fees | 61,63,050 |
STCG Tax (20%) | 82,385 |
LTCG Tax (12.5%) | 46,282 |
Total Tax Deducted | 1,28,667 |
NET PORTFOLIO VALUE (in investor's hand) | 60,34,382 |
Year 3
Item | Amount (₹) |
Starting Portfolio Value | 60,34,382 |
Gross Profit (15%) | 9,05,157 |
Portfolio Before Fees | 69,39,540 |
Fixed Management Fee (1.8%) | 1,24,912 |
Performance Fee | 43,328 |
Total Fees Deducted | 1,68,240 |
Portfolio After Fees | 67,71,300 |
STCG Tax (20%) | 90,516 |
LTCG Tax (12.5%) | 51,364 |
Total Tax Deducted | 1,41,880 |
NET PORTFOLIO VALUE (in investor's hand) | 66,29,420 |
Summary and Key Metrics
Metric | Value |
Initial Investment | ₹50,00,000 |
Final Net Value (3 years) | ₹66,29,420 |
Total Gain in Hand | ₹16,29,420 |
CAGR (in investor's hand) | 9.86% |
Gross Return Target | 15.00% |
Erosion Due to Fees | ~2.7% p.a. |
Erosion Due to Taxes | ~2.4% p.a. |
Total Erosion | ~5.1% p.a. |
Total Fees Paid (3 years) | ₹4,62,373 |
Total Tax Paid (3 years) | ₹3,87,214 |
Combined Deduction | ₹8,49,587 |
Percentage of Final Value | 12.82% |
Key Takeaways from the Calculation
Significant Erosion: A 15% gross return translates to only 9.86% net CAGR—a loss of 5.14 percentage points annually.
Fee Impact: Fixed and performance fees consume approximately ₹1.54 lakh per year on average.
Tax Impact: Taxes consume approximately ₹1.29 lakh per year on average.
Combined Impact: Fees and taxes together reduce returns by approximately 5.1 percentage points annually
Compounding Effect: Over 3 years, the combined deductions amount to ₹8.5 lakhs or 12.82% of final value. This highlights the critical importance of evaluating PMS on a net basis, not gross returns.
Suitability of PMS for Armed Forces Officers
Total Retirement Package Breakdown for a Senior Colonel with 30 years' service and final emoluments of ₹2,50,000:
Component | Amount (₹) |
Gratuity | 25,00,000 |
Leave Encashment | 33,00,000 |
DSOPF Balance | 45,00,000 |
Commutation | 59,00,000 |
TOTAL LUMP SUM AT RETIREMENT | ₹1,62,00,000 |
This aligns with the commonly cited figure of "₹1.3 crore+savings" for officers who remain in service for full career, with the balance comprised of pension capitalization and other benefits. |
Assessment of PMS Suitability for Armed Forces Officers
Positive Factors for PMS
Sufficient Investable Surplus: Officers typically have ₹50-100 lakhs available immediately post-retirement. This meets the ₹50 lakh minimum for PMS. Many officers have additional DSOPF and non-service income.
Time Horizon: Officers retiring at 50+ have 20-30+ years of retirement ahead. Sufficient time for equity exposure and growth-oriented strategies. PMS's active management can benefit from long market cycles.
Financial Sophistication: Armed forces officers receive training in strategic thinking and risk management. Better equipped than average investor to understand portfolio complexity. More likely to appreciate transparency of direct ownership.
Tax Efficiency (Potentially): Direct ownership allows strategic timing of sales to optimize LTCG vs STCG. Can harvest losses to offset gains. More control over tax planning than mutual funds.
Customization Needs: Officers may have specific constraints (e.g., no PSU exposure, ethical preferences). PMS allows complete customization vs standardized mutual fund schemes.
Negative Factors Against PMS
Fee Burden is Substantial: 1.8-2.5% fixed fee + performance fees reduce 15% gross to ~10% net. At 13% gross return, net becomes ~8% after fees/taxes. On ₹50 lakh, this represents ₹90,000-1,25,000 annual fees.
Tax Inefficiency: Frequent rebalancing triggers STCG at 20% (vs mutual fund LTCG at 12.5%). No exemption for dividend income (unlike some investments). High turnover increases taxable events.
Less Liquidity: Direct equity less liquid than mutual funds. Must sell securities individually to raise cash. Bid-ask spreads increase transaction costs.
Complexity and Monitoring Burden: Officers must monitor individual holdings (100+ stocks typical in PMS). Requires active engagement with fund manager. Rebalancing and diversification more complex than mutual fund switches.
Behavioral Risk: Transparency of direct holdings may trigger emotional decisions. Watching individual stocks can lead to short-term trading mentality. Higher volatility (concentrated holdings) may cause panic selling.
Counterparty Risk: Dependent on specific fund manager's expertise. Manager departure can significantly impact returns. Less regulatory oversight than mutual funds.
Recommendation on PMS Suitability
PMS is Suitable for Armed Forces Officers IF:
Investable surplus(after all short and medium term fiinancial goals are factored) is ₹1.5+ crore or more (not just minimum ₹50 lakh).
Investor is comfortable monitoring concentrated portfolios (20-30 stocks).
Investor seeks specific customization not available in mutual funds.
Investor has time and inclination for active portfolio engagement.
Primary investment horizon is 5+ years.
PMS is NOT Suitable if:
Investable surplus is exactly ₹50 lakh with no additional capital.
Officer seeks "set and forget" investment strategy.
Officer has low risk tolerance or cannot tolerate volatility.
Officer wants maximum tax efficiency.
Officer wants minimal oversight and complexity.
Better Alternative - Mutual Funds - if:
Officer wants cost efficiency (0.4-1% expense ratio vs 1.8-2.5% + performance).
Officer wants passive diversification.
Officer values tax efficiency.
Officer wants liquidity and simplicity.
Officer values regulated fund structure with professional governance.
Pros and Cons of PMS for Armed Forces Officers
Comprehensive Pros of PMS
Direct Ownership and Transparency: Full ownership of individual securities in personal demat account. Clarity: Can see exactly which companies are held. Control: Complete visibility into portfolio composition. Advantage for Officers: Appeals to those with analytical mindset who want to know specifics.
Customization and Strategic Flexibility: Sector Exclusions: Can exclude companies officer finds objectionable. Ethical Preferences: Can avoid alcohol, tobacco, defense contractors (if ideologically opposed). Size Preferences: Can focus on large-cap for safety or small-cap for growth. Geographic Exposure: Can customize PSU vs private vs multinational mix. Advantage for Officers: Aligns portfolio with personal values and beliefs.
Concentrated High-Conviction Portfolios: Focused Approach: Typically 20-30 stocks vs 100+ in mutual funds. Deeper Research: Better due diligence on fewer holdings. Higher Conviction: Manager puts more thought per position. Potential Alpha: Can outperform by 3-5% if manager is skilled. Advantage for Officers: May generate superior returns if manager is top-tier.
Tax Planning and Flexibility: Loss Harvesting: Can realize losses to offset gains strategically. Timing Control: Officer can decide when to book profits for tax optimization. Partial Liquidation: Can sell specific holdings for tax efficiency. Long-Term Holding: Can hold winners beyond 1 year automatically for LTCG benefits. Advantage for Officers: Potentially save 7-10% in taxes through active management.
Higher Return Potential: Active Management: Skilled managers consistently generate alpha. 10-Year Data: Top PMS delivered 20-25% CAGR vs 13-15% for indices. Recent Performance: 2023-2024 saw many PMS delivering 35-45% returns. Advantage for Officers: With ₹1+ crore corpus, extra 2-3% annually = ₹2-3 lakhs additional income per year.
Absence of Pooling and Distribution Risk: No Distribution Decisions: Not subject to mutual fund manager's dividend distribution policy. No Fund Winding Up: If PMS manager retires, holdings pass to investor directly. No Exit Load: After vesting period, complete freedom to exit. Advantage for Officers: More predictability and control over timing.
Suitable for Large Portfolios: Better Economics: Fixed fees on ₹1+ crore mean lower cost percentage. Dedicated Management: Officer gets individualized attention vs cookie-cutter approach. Institutional Quality: Access to research and expertise of large brokerages/AMCs. Advantage for Officers: ₹1+ crore corpus gets truly personalized treatment.
Comprehensive Cons of PMS
High Fees and Complex Cost Structure: Fixed Fees: 1.8-2.5% on ₹50 lakh = ₹90,000-1,25,000 annually. Performance Fees: Additional 10-20% on excess returns (can add another 0.5-1% annually). Hidden Costs: Brokerage (0.25%), custodian (0.03%), operational (0.5%). GST: 18% on all fees increases effective cost. On ₹50 Lakh: Total effective annual cost = 2.5-3.5% vs 1% for mutual funds. Impact: ₹1,25,000-1,75,000 annually in fees on minimum investment. Disadvantage for Officers: Significant wealth erosion, especially on smaller investable amounts.
Lower Net Returns Due to Tax Inefficiency: Frequent Rebalancing: Triggers STCG at 20% vs mutual fund LTCG at 12.5%. Portfolio Turnover: High turnover (typical 40-50% annually) creates taxable events. Taxable Income: Every strategic sale creates tax liability. No Exemption: Unlike mutual funds, dividend income not exempt. Impact: 1.5-2% annual additional tax burden vs mutual funds. Net Result: 15% gross returns become 9.9% net vs mutual fund 14% gross becomes 11.8% net. Disadvantage for Officers: Approximately 2% lower annual net returns than equivalent mutual fund.
Complexity and Monitoring Burden: Individual Stock Analysis: Officer must understand 20-30 individual holdings. Portfolio Construction: More complex than mutual fund allocation. Rebalancing Decisions: Requires active decision-making. Quarterly Reviews: Not a passive investment; requires regular engagement. Record Keeping: 100+ transactions annually create documentation burden. Time Commitment: 2-3 hours monthly for review and monitoring. Disadvantage for Officers: Not ideal for "set and forget" retirement approach.
Concentration Risk and Volatility: Fewer Holdings: 20-30 stocks vs 100+ in mutual funds. Higher Volatility: Single stock impact more pronounced. Sector Risk: If manager bets heavy on one sector, concentrated exposure. Liquidity Risk: Large concentrated position in illiquid stock harder to exit. Disadvantage for Officers: Higher short-term fluctuations may cause anxiety.
Counterparty and Manager Risk: Manager Dependent: Success hinges entirely on specific fund manager's skill. Manager Departure: Fund manager leaving degrades returns significantly. Limited Diversification: No peer review or second opinions like in large mutual fund houses. Bankruptcy Risk: If PMS provider faces financial distress, less protection. Disadvantage for Officers: More dependent on individual's continuing expertise.
Liquidity and Transaction Challenges: Less Liquid: Direct equities less liquid than mutual fund units. Bid-Ask Spreads: Must pay spread when selling (0.5-2% typical). Volume Issues: Some holdings may have low trading volumes. Settlement: 2-3 days vs 1 day for mutual funds. Large Redemptions: Difficult to liquidate ₹10+ lakh without market impact. Disadvantage for Officers: Problematic if sudden liquidity need arises.
Regulatory and Suitability Concerns: Less Regulated: Fewer regulatory safeguards than mutual funds. Limited Transparency: Holdings disclosed less frequently than mutual funds. Suitability Risk: Regulatory concerns about PMS suitability for retail HNIs. Grievance Redressal: More cumbersome than mutual fund complaint procedures. Disadvantage for Officers: Less investor protection framework.
Opportunity Cost: Time and Effort: Monitoring and engagement time could be used for more productive activities. Emotional Toll: Watching individual stocks daily can increase stress. Decision Paralysis: More data leads to more second-guessing. Disadvantage for Officers: Psychological burden and time investment not justified for many.
Minimum Investment Requirement: ₹50 Lakh Minimum: Excludes many officers from diversified portfolios. Not Scalable Down: Cannot start small and increase gradually. Capital Constraint: Limits flexibility if other opportunities arise. Disadvantage for Officers: Forces large commitment upfront.
Inconsistent Performance: Cyclical Underperformance: PMS underperforms in certain market regimes. Tracking Error: Even skilled managers have periods of underperformance. Manager Rotation: Best managers move to different firms. Disadvantage for Officers: Cannot guarantee consistent outperformance.
Decision Matrix: When to Choose PMS vs Mutual Funds
Criteria | Choose PMS | Choose MF |
Investable Surplus (after goals) | ₹1.5+ crore | ₹50 lakh to ₹1 crore |
Investment Horizon | 10+ years | 5-10 years |
Risk Tolerance | High/Very High | Moderate/High |
Monitoring Preference | Active | Passive |
Fee Sensitivity | Low | High |
Customization Need | High | Low |
Tax Planning Ability | Sophisticated | Average |
Liquidity Need | Low/Rare | Moderate/Frequent |
Expertise Available | High | Average |
General Principles for All Officers, regardless of corpus size:
Avoid the Allure of Gross Returns: Focus on NET returns after fees and taxes.
Account for Total Costs: Include GST (18%) on fees in calculations.
Plan for Tax Impact: STCG at 20% significantly reduces net returns.
Maintain Liquidity: Keep 6-12 months expenses in liquid funds.
Review Regularly: Assess performance annually against appropriate benchmarks.
Diversify Across Managers: Don't put entire corpus with single PMS/fund.
Understand Your Benchmark: Compare returns to Nifty 50 TRI, not absolute levels.
Avoid Performance Chasing: Don't switch based on 1-2 years of performance.
Document Everything: Keep records for tax purposes and monitoring.
Seek Professional Advice: Engage SEBI-registered investment advisor, not bank staff.
Conclusion
Portfolio Management Services offer the promise of superior returns through active management and customization, making them superficially attractive to sophisticated investors like armed forces officers. However, the detailed analysis reveals significant hidden costs that make PMS less suitable than commonly perceived for most officers.
Key Findings
Net Returns are Significantly Lower: 15% gross becomes only 9.86% net (CAGR) after fees and taxes—a 5.14 percentage point annual erosion
Fees and Taxes Are Substantial: Combined deduction of 12.82% of final portfolio value over 3 years represents ₹8.5+ lakhs lost to costs
Mutual Funds Are Often Superior: An 85% equity mutual fund at 14% gross outperforms PMS at 15% gross, delivering ₹3.55 lakh more after 3 years due to lower fees and better tax efficiency
Breakeven is Difficult: PMS needs to deliver 16%+ gross consistently to justify its fee structure versus mutual funds
Tax Inefficiency is a Major Issue: Frequent rebalancing in PMS triggers higher STCG taxes (20% vs 12.5% LTCG in patient mutual fund holding)
For Armed Forces Officers Specifically
With ₹50-75 Lakhs: Mutual funds are clearly superior; PMS fees too high as percentage of capital
With ₹75-100 Lakhs: Hybrid approach (70% MF + 30% PMS) provides balance
With ₹1-2 Crores: PMS becomes viable with careful manager selection and fee negotiation
With ₹2+ Crores: PMS highly suitable IF officer has strong interest in active portfolio management
Critical Success Factors for PMS
Even for larger portfolios, success requires:
Selecting top-quartile fund managers with 10+ year track record
Negotiating fees significantly below industry averages (1.3-1.5% fixed max)
Committing to long-term holding (5+ years minimum)
Active engagement with quarterly portfolio reviews
Maintaining discipline through market cycles
Final Verdict
For Most Armed Forces Officers, Mutual Funds Represent Better Value
While PMS offers customization and the theoretical potential for higher returns, the reality of fees, taxes, and market competition makes a well-constructed 85% equity mutual fund portfolio superior for most officers' retirement planning.
PMS should be considered only when:
Investable surplus exceeds ₹1.5. crore
Officer has genuine interest in active portfolio engagement
Officer accepts higher volatility and monitoring burden
Officer can identify and commit to top-tier fund managers
For the average officer retiring with ₹75-100 lakh corpus, mutual funds with professional advisory support remain the optimal choice for retirement wealth management.
SEBI Portfolio Managers Regulations, 2020https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/regulations/feb-2025/securities-and-exchange-board-of-india-portfolio-managers-regulations-2020_51413.html
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Capital Gains Taxationhttps://blog.ipleaders.in/capital-gains-tax/
PMS Bazaar - Portfolio Management Services Returns Datahttps://www.pmsbazaar.com/pms-averages-30-returns-across-categories-in-past-year
Ministry of Defence Pension Handbook - Defence Pension Schemehttps://cgda.nic.in/sites/default/files/DEFENCE_PENSION_GUIDE.pdf
Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA) - Superannuation Calculationshttps://cgda.nic.in/page/office-manual-part-iv
Motilal Oswal Equity Mutual Fund Performance Datahttps://paytmmoney.com/mutual-funds/motilal-oswal-mf-equity-funds
NSE Nifty 50 Total Returns Index Datahttps://groww.in/nifty-50-index
SEBI Mutual Fund Fee Structure Updateshttps://newindianexpress.com/business/2025/oct/27/sebi-moots-major-overhaul-of-mutual-fund-fee-norms-to-benefit-investors-2803034.html
Comments