Systematic Investment Plans (SIPs) are promoted as the safest, most disciplined way for ordinary savers to access stock markets. With as little as ₹500 per month, retail investors get exposure to diversified mutual funds managed by professionals.
The promise is simple: professional fund managers pick quality companies, while you focus on consistent investing.
But this promise has been repeatedly tested. In several high-profile cases, mutual funds holding scam-tainted companies ended up passing the losses to unsuspecting SIP investors.
From corporate frauds to accounting scandals and political-linked corruption cases, SIP investors often discover — too late — that their hard-earned money was funneled into companies that later collapsed under allegations of misconduct.
This article investigates how SIP investments get entangled with scam-linked companies, the consequences for investors, and what can be done to protect portfolios.
How SIPs Get Exposed to Scam-Linked Companies
1. Index Inclusion
- Many SIPs track indices (Nifty, Sensex).
- If a scam-linked company is part of the index, SIP money flows into it automatically.
2. Fund Manager Decisions
- Active fund managers sometimes chase high-growth stories without deep scrutiny.
- Scam-linked companies often show inflated numbers before collapse.
3. Credit Ratings Trap
- Debt SIPs rely on credit ratings to choose bonds.
- Fake or inflated ratings of scam-tainted firms mislead fund managers.
4. Political and Corporate Influence
- Companies with strong lobbying power remain in portfolios despite red flags.
Famous Cases of Scam Exposure
Case 1: The Infrastructure Mirage
Several mutual funds invested in infrastructure firms later accused of siphoning public money. SIP investors suffered double-digit losses when stock prices crashed.
Case 2: The NBFC Collapse
Debt-oriented SIPs held bonds of non-banking finance companies that later defaulted due to governance issues. Investors who thought debt SIPs were “safe” lost capital.
Case 3: The Pharma Accounting Scandal
A major pharma company inflated revenues for years. Multiple equity funds had large holdings. When the fraud surfaced, SIP investors saw their NAVs fall sharply.
Case 4: The Political Connection
Corporate houses linked to political scams managed to attract mutual fund investments. When investigations began, stocks tanked — and SIP portfolios went with them.
Why Scam Exposure Persists
- Short-Term Outperformance
Scam-tainted companies often show rapid growth — attractive to fund managers seeking alpha. - Slow Regulatory Response
Fraud investigations in India take years. By the time scams surface, SIP investors already hold exposure. - Incentive Misalignment
Fund managers are rewarded for short-term returns, not for avoiding governance risks. - Weak Due Diligence
Over-reliance on ratings agencies and auditors who may themselves be compromised.
The Investor’s Blind Spot
SIP investors assume:
- Fund managers filter out risky companies.
- Diversification protects from fraud.
- Regulators will prevent scam-tainted firms from entering portfolios.
But reality shows otherwise: diversification reduces impact, but exposure to scams is unavoidable when industry checks fail.
The Human Cost
- Small Savers: School teachers, pensioners, and first-time investors lost faith when SIP portfolios fell due to scam-linked companies.
- Retirees: Debt SIPs in defaulting NBFC bonds eroded retirement savings.
- Young Professionals: Early career SIP investors faced discouragement after losses tied to fraud cases.
Global Parallels
- Enron (U.S.): Mutual funds worldwide held Enron before its collapse. Investors lost billions.
- Wirecard (Germany): Fraudulent fintech darling was included in major indices. Funds tracking them pulled SIP investors into losses.
- Chinese Property Firms: SIP-like investment plans in Asia got hit by real estate defaults tied to governance failures.
Scam-linked exposure is not unique to India — it’s a global systemic weakness.
Why SIP Investors Rarely Realize It
- Complexity of Portfolios
Most SIP investors don’t check fund fact sheets or portfolio holdings. - Lag in Disclosure
Mutual funds disclose holdings quarterly, often after damage is done. - Technical Language
Fund fact sheets use jargon that hides red flags from ordinary savers. - Marketing Distraction
SIP campaigns emphasize discipline and long-term wealth, downplaying risks.
The Role of Rating Agencies and Auditors
- Rating Shopping: Companies secure favorable ratings to stay attractive to debt SIPs.
- Audit Failures: Scam-tainted companies often had clean auditor reports until collapse.
- Conflict of Interest: Rating agencies and auditors depend on fees from the same companies they evaluate.
Warning Signs for Investors
- Funds chasing “story stocks” with rapid unexplained growth.
- Heavy allocation to politically connected firms.
- Repeated debt exposure to NBFCs with liquidity concerns.
- Past record of AMCs investing in companies that later collapsed.
- Lack of clear risk disclosures in scheme documents.
What Regulators Should Do
- Stronger Due Diligence Norms
AMCs must conduct governance checks beyond ratings. - Real-Time Disclosure
Monthly, not quarterly, fund holdings disclosure for transparency. - Penalize Negligence
Fund houses that repeatedly hold scam-linked firms should face penalties. - Independent Risk Oversight
SEBI should create a watchdog for governance red-flag detection. - Investor Education
Campaigns must highlight governance risks in SIPs, not just compounding benefits.
How Investors Can Protect Themselves
- Read Fact Sheets
Check for exposure to scandal-prone sectors or firms. - Diversify Across AMCs
Don’t put all SIPs with one AMC. Spread risk. - Track News Alongside Investments
Watch for governance red flags in companies your funds hold. - Prefer Transparent Funds
Some funds prioritize governance and ESG filters — these may reduce scam risk. - Don’t Over-Rely on “Safe” Debt SIPs
Even debt funds can collapse if they hold scam-tainted bonds.
Could Scam Exposure Break SIP Trust?
Yes. If too many high-profile scams hit mutual fund portfolios, SIPs could face a credibility crisis. Just as ULIPs became infamous for mis-selling, SIPs risk reputational damage if they continue to funnel investor money into tainted companies without accountability.
Conclusion
SIP investors believe they’re buying discipline, diversification, and safety. But when scam-tainted companies slip through the cracks of indices, fund houses, auditors, and rating agencies, investors end up footing the bill.
The lesson is harsh: SIPs are only as safe as the governance of the companies inside them.
Until regulators tighten oversight and AMCs prioritize integrity over short-term returns, SIP investors will remain vulnerable to the fallout of corporate scams.
ALSO READ: Microsoft’s antitrust battles
