Until 1 February 2018, mutual fund schemes in India benchmarked their performance against Price Return indices - indices that track only capital appreciation and leave out every dividend paid by the companies inside them. SEBI’s circular of 4 January 2018 (SEBI/HO/IMD/DF3/CIR/P/2018/04) required every scheme to switch to the Total Return Index version of its benchmark instead - the same index, with dividends reinvested - from that date forward.
The gap this closed was not small. Over the Sensex’s last 43 years:
- Price Return CAGR: 15.5% - capital appreciation only.
- Total Return CAGR: 16.9% - the same index, dividends reinvested, roughly a 1.4-point annual gap.
A fund that exactly matched the Sensex’s price movement over that period - no stock-picking skill relative to the market at all - would, under the old rule, have been reported as matching its benchmark. Against the market’s actual total return, that same fund was trailing by 1.4 percentage points every year.
₹1,00,000 compounded at the Sensex’s 43-year price-return CAGR (15.5%) versus its total-return CAGR (16.9%, dividends reinvested) over 20 years.
Compounded, that 1.4-point gap is not a rounding error. ₹1,00,000 growing at 15.5% for 20 years reaches ₹17.85 lakh. The same ₹1,00,000 growing at 16.9% reaches ₹22.71 lakh - a ₹4.86 lakh difference, on the identical market, arising purely from dividends the old benchmark never counted.
No fund was manipulating anything here. The price index itself was the flawed yardstick that every scheme, and every investor comparing schemes, was using. A fund that beat its price benchmark by less than roughly 1.4 percentage points a year was, on a true total-return basis, still behind the market it claimed to have beaten.
SEBI’s fix was structural rather than retroactive - it corrected the yardstick going forward, from 1 February 2018, without restating performance reported before that date. The 1.4-point figure here is a 43-year Sensex average, not a fixed constant - dividend yields move with the market and differ by index and period. But the direction holds for any period before 2018: outperformance measured against a price index was only real outperformance once that gap was added back in.
Back to Writing