Back then, only regular plans existed, since direct plans were introduced only in 2013, you did not have a choice but to go for a regular plan.
A lack of choice/alternative back then, shouldn’t be a default reason to give undue credit to a regular plan, also the number of funds available too would have been less.
So instead of crediting them for the growth in corpus, it is the markets and your long term investment that generated those returns not a just a regular plan.
A proper comparison would be to check the performance of similar funds in the same time period and then conclude if the fund recommended by the agent was one among the top performers in that category.
And as your are aware the stocks in a given fund don’t remain unchanged, so even if they pointed u towards a fund, it is not as if the performance was guaranteed because this agent verified the stocks which are part of the fund. Funds rebalance their portfolio and what could be a great fund at the time of investing, may not be that great a few years later and vice versa.
This was exactly the point I was trying to make. They don’t provide any value addition later on, but still happily want to charge a commission as long u r Invested, that too on your accumulated wealth.
I don’t know if that is justifiable.
Am not against charging commission, I am against charging unfair commission, that too perpetually.
They don’t take responsibility, but want to have a share in the spoils
I don’t know how u came to this conclusion that commissions are miniscule.
I would like to draw your attention to this post
They can certainly create a big hole in your pocket.
Anyways, i just expressed my opinion in the above posts, there can be disagreements.
Ppl are free to choose what suits them, i only wish that they make an informed decision, rather than getting into a false marketing trap.