Systematic Investment Plans (SIPs) are promoted as the safest, smartest way for ordinary savers to participate in the stock market. The advertising is relentless: glowing charts, smiling retirees, happy families, and promises of wealth “no matter what the market does.” To back this up, fund houses and distributors circulate SIP performance reports — glossy documents filled with graphs, CAGR numbers, and “proof” of consistent wealth creation.
But behind the polished presentations lies a troubling reality: SIP performance reporting is often manipulated. The manipulation isn’t always outright falsification — instead, it relies on selective data, cherry-picked timeframes, and reporting tricks that paint a far rosier picture than reality. Investors believe they are making informed decisions, but in truth, they are often being nudged by carefully engineered illusions.
This article unpacks how SIP performance reports are manipulated, why the practice persists, its consequences for retail investors, and how savers can cut through the fog to see the truth.
Why SIP Performance Reports Matter
- Investor Trust: Retail investors rely heavily on performance reports before committing to long-term SIPs.
- Marketing Tools: AMCs and distributors use them as sales brochures disguised as “research.”
- Regulatory Loopholes: While regulators require disclaimers, they do not standardize how data must be presented.
As a result, SIP reports often blur the line between analysis and advertising.
The Tricks of Manipulation
1. Cherry-Picking Timeframes
- How it works: Reports show returns from start dates that favor performance — for example, beginning just after a market crash and ending at a bull market peak.
- Effect: Investors see inflated CAGR numbers that don’t reflect average investor experience.
2. Ignoring Bear Markets
- Reports often omit or downplay stretches where SIPs underperformed. Instead, they highlight recovery periods.
3. Survivorship Bias
- Only successful funds are included in performance reports, while underperforming or merged schemes vanish from the dataset.
- Investors get the impression that SIPs “always” work.
4. Selective Benchmarking
- Funds are compared to weak or inappropriate benchmarks (e.g., comparing a mid-cap fund against a broad market index).
- This makes outperformance appear greater than it really is.
5. CAGR Illusions
- Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) is presented without context. SIP returns depend on cash flows, but reports show “lump sum equivalent” numbers that exaggerate results.
6. Excluding Inflation & Taxes
- Reports show nominal returns, avoiding the uncomfortable truth that real, post-tax returns can be much lower.
7. Glossy Visuals
- Bar charts and line graphs highlight steep upward trends, smoothing volatility.
- Downturns are visually minimized.
Case Studies of Manipulation
Case 1: The 2008 Crash Whitewash
Post-2008, many SIP reports began from March 2009 — the bottom of the market. Investors who had actually started SIPs in 2006–07 saw much poorer results, but this reality was absent from official reports.
Case 2: Mid-Cap Mania (2014–2018)
Reports during India’s mid-cap boom highlighted stellar SIP returns. After the 2018 crash, underperformance was hidden in “rolling return” averages that masked volatility.
Case 3: The Silent Fund Closures
Dozens of weak-performing sectoral funds were merged into broader funds over the years. SIP reports excluded these histories, giving the impression that no SIP investor had ever lost money long term.
Why Manipulation Happens
1. AMC Incentives
- More inflows = higher Assets Under Management (AUM).
- Higher AUM = more fee income for AMCs.
2. Distributor Incentives
- Trail commissions depend on SIP flows. Reports act as ready-made sales pitches.
3. Regulatory Loopholes
- SEBI mandates disclaimers like “Past performance is not indicative of future returns” but does not regulate how SIP data is calculated or presented.
4. Investor Psychology
- Investors want to see reassurance. Reports are designed to provide comfort, not complexity.
The Human Consequences
- Misguided Trust
Investors believe SIPs guarantee positive returns, often committing money they can’t afford to lose. - Financial Losses
When markets stagnate or crash, investors discover their portfolios don’t resemble the glowing charts they were shown. - Erosion of Confidence
Discovering manipulation damages trust in the entire mutual fund industry. - Misallocation of Savings
Money that could have been diversified into safer instruments remains locked in equity SIPs.
The Psychology of SIP Reports
SIP performance reporting thrives on behavioral biases:
- Recency Bias: Highlighting recent bull markets makes investors expect the same ahead.
- Confirmation Bias: Investors already believe SIPs are safe; reports reinforce this belief.
- Authority Bias: Reports issued by AMCs and banks carry institutional credibility.
Global Parallels
- 401(k) Reporting in the U.S.: Similar cherry-picking has been observed in retirement fund reports, overstating historical returns.
- UK Unit Trust Ads: Regulators cracked down on selective performance data in the 2000s.
- Asian Insurance-Linked Products: “Illustrated returns” routinely assumed unrealistic growth.
The issue is global: financial firms consistently shape data to favor sales.
Warning Signs for Investors
- Reports that begin right after a crash.
- Charts showing smooth upward trends with minimal volatility.
- Benchmarks that don’t match the fund’s actual strategy.
- Absence of real-world examples of poor-performing SIPs.
- Numbers presented without inflation or tax adjustments.
What Regulators Should Do
- Standardize SIP Return Reporting
Mandate uniform methods for calculating SIP returns (e.g., XIRR instead of CAGR). - Rolling Period Analysis
Require SIP performance to be shown across multiple start and end dates. - Full Fund Histories
Include merged or closed funds to avoid survivorship bias. - Prominent Risk Warnings
Reports should show maximum drawdowns and worst-case scenarios. - Audit and Penalties
Independent audits of SIP performance reporting with penalties for misleading data.
How Investors Can Protect Themselves
- Look Beyond AMC Reports
Use independent financial portals or data aggregators for unbiased SIP return analysis. - Ask for Rolling Returns
Demand to see performance across multiple periods, not just cherry-picked ones. - Focus on Risk, Not Just Returns
Understand maximum drawdowns and volatility, not just CAGR. - Adjust for Inflation & Taxes
Real wealth creation matters, not just nominal numbers. - Diversify
SIPs should not be your only investment strategy.
Could This Become a Scandal?
Yes. If a prolonged downturn hits, millions of investors who were shown manipulated SIP reports may realize their returns were oversold. The backlash could mirror scandals like the mis-selling of ULIPs in India or PPI in the UK, leading to regulatory crackdowns and lawsuits.
Conclusion
SIP performance reports are not neutral documents — they are marketing tools masquerading as analysis. Through cherry-picked timelines, selective benchmarking, and survivorship bias, they mislead investors into believing SIPs always deliver strong results.
The reality is more complex: SIPs can underperform for long stretches, lump sums sometimes beat SIPs, and inflation plus taxes erode actual gains.
The solution lies in transparency: regulators enforcing standard reporting, AMCs presenting risks honestly, and investors learning to question glossy charts.
Until then, SIP performance reports will remain less about truth and more about persuasion — another tool in the industry’s arsenal to secure inflows, regardless of investor outcomes.
ALSO READ: Why Bond Auctions Aren’t Always Fair
