ET Reddit Mentions | ChartExchange

The Gold Denominator Benchmark
A Purchasing-Power Review of Indian Mutual Fund Returns
May 2026
Core question: Did the investment create more gold-denominated purchasing power,
or did it merely create more rupees?
Executive Summary
This report proposes a secondary benchmark for evaluating Indian investment products: measure
the final portfolio not only in rupees, but also in grams of gold.
The reason is straightforward. Rupee returns can look positive even when the investor loses pur-
chasing power against a scarce monetary asset. Gold is not a perfect benchmark for every objective,
but it is a useful stress test because it asks whether the investor could buy back more gold at the
end of the period.
Main findings:
• In the 2020–2026 stress test used here, Indian 24K gold is measured from about Rs.48,651 per
10 grams to about Rs.1.62 lakh per 10 grams.
• With a six-year compounding convention, an investor needed approximately 22.2% annualized
return merely to match gold.
• A 12% annualized mutual fund return over this same six-year convention would have increased
rupee wealth, but reduced gold purchasing power from 100 grams to about 59.3 grams.
• In contrast, the 2013–2018 period was much easier for equities: gold was broadly flat + crude oil had -ve 6% CAGR each year , and the
best-performing funds created 3 grams of additional gold purchasing power per year.
• The benchmark does not say “gold always wins.” It says the denominator matters.
Methodology and Assumptions
The gold-denominator method converts investment results back into grams of gold:
1
Final Gold = Initial Gold Value in INR × (1 + r)n
Final Gold Price per 10g × 10.
where:
• r is the annualized nominal INR investment return after fund-level expenses but before investor-
level taxes, unless otherwise stated;
• n is the holding period in years;
• gold prices are measured in Indian rupees per 10 grams of 24K gold.
The 2020–2026 case study is an illustrative six-year stress test. It uses a consistent 2020 reference
price of Rs.48,651 per 10 grams and a May 2026 reference price of Rs.1,62,000 per 10 grams. It
should not be read as a daily backtest. Exact entry date, city, taxes, purity, plan type, expense
ratio, exit load, and taxation can change the final grams of gold.
Case Study: Two Indian Investors, 2020–2026
Two Indian investors begin with the same wealth:
100 grams of gold
Assume the 2020 reference gold price was approximately:
Gold2020 ≈ Rs.48,651 per 10 grams.
So 100 grams of gold was worth:
10 × Rs.48,651 = Rs.4,86,510.
Assume the May 2026 gold price is approximately:
Gold2026 ≈ Rs.1,62,000 per 10 grams.
Investor A: Holds Gold
Investor A keeps the gold. In 2026, Investor A still owns:
100 grams of gold .
2
At the 2026 price, that is worth:
10 × Rs.1,62,000 = Rs.16,20,000.
Investor B: Invests at 12% CAGR
Investor B sells the gold in 2020 and invests the Rs.4.865 lakh proceeds in a mutual fund earning
12% CAGR for six years:
Rs.4,86,510 × (1.12)6 ≈ Rs.9,60,000.
Converted back into gold at the 2026 price:
Rs.9,60,000
Rs.1,62,000 × 10 ≈ 59.3 grams.
So Investor B ends with:
59.3 grams of gold .
2020–2026 Result
Investor 2026 INR Value Gold Equivalent
Investor A: held gold Rs.16.20 lakh 100.0 g
Investor B: 12% CAGR fund Rs.9.60 lakh 59.3 g
Investor B had a positive rupee return. However, measured in gold, Investor B lost:
100 − 59.3 = 40.7 grams of gold .
This is the key point:
Nominal profits can coexist with gold-denominated
purchasing-power loss.
3
The Hidden Hurdle Rate
From the 2020 reference price to the May 2026 reference price, gold moved from about Rs.48,651
per 10 grams to about Rs.1,62,000 per 10 grams.
The gold multiple was:
1,62,000
48,651 ≈ 3.33.
The annualized return required just to match gold over six years is:
(1 + r)6 = 3.33.
r =
1,62,000
48,651
1/6
− 1 ≈ 22.2%.
Therefore, under this six-year convention, a mutual fund needed roughly:
22.2% CAGR just to stay equal to gold.
Not to outperform gold. Just to preserve the same gold-denominated purchasing power.
Gold-Preservation Hurdle by Starting Year
The same logic can be applied to every starting year. If an investor sells 100 grams of gold in a
given year and wants to preserve the ability to buy back 100 grams in 2026, the required nominal
INR CAGR is:
ry =
Gold2026
Goldy
1/(2026−y)
− 1.
The table below uses the report’s May 2026 endpoint of Rs.1,62,000 per 10 grams and approximate
historical 24K gold reference prices for each starting year. It is a hurdle-rate table: a fund return
below the listed CAGR loses gold purchasing power; a return above it creates extra gold purchasing
power.
4
Start Year Years to 2026 Start Gold Price Gold Multiple CAGR Needed
2012 14 Rs.31,050 5.22× 12.5%
2013 13 Rs.29,600 5.47× 14.0%
2014 12 Rs.28,006 5.78× 15.8%
2015 11 Rs.26,343 6.15× 18.0%
2016 10 Rs.28,623 5.66× 18.9%
2017 9 Rs.29,667 5.46× 20.8%
2018 8 Rs.31,438 5.15× 22.7%
2019 7 Rs.35,220 4.60× 24.4%
2020 6 Rs.48,651 3.33× 22.2%
2021 5 Rs.48,720 3.33× 27.2%
2022 4 Rs.52,670 3.08× 32.4%
2023 3 Rs.65,330 2.48× 35.4%
2024 2 Rs.77,913 2.08× 44.2%
2025 1 Rs.1,01,350 1.60× 59.8%
The hurdle is not perfectly monotonic because the starting gold price changes from year to year
while the holding period shortens. The 2025 row is especially sensitive to the price convention: an
annual-average 2025 price produces a much higher one-year hurdle than a late-2025 or end-2025
price would.
CAGR Sensitivity: What Different Returns Produced
Starting capital: 100 grams of gold sold at Rs.48,651 per 10 grams, or Rs.4.865 lakh. Ending gold
price: Rs.1.62 lakh per 10 grams.
Fund CAGR 2026 Value Gold Buyback Gold Gain/Loss
12% Rs.9.60 lakh 59.3 g -40.7 g
15% Rs.11.25 lakh 69.5 g -30.5 g
18% Rs.13.13 lakh 81.1 g -18.9 g
20% Rs.14.53 lakh 89.7 g -10.3 g
Breakeven: 22.2% Rs.16.20 lakh 100.0 g 0.0 g
23% Rs.16.85 lakh 104.0 g +4.0 g
25% Rs.18.56 lakh 114.6 g +14.6 g
30% Rs.23.48 lakh 145.0 g +45.0 g
Historical Evidence: Gold Versus Top Funds
The gold-denominator benchmark is not anti-equity. It simply changes the unit of account. The
historical record shows both outcomes: periods where top funds crushed gold, and periods where
even high nominal returns barely kept up.
2012–2018: Gold Was Broadly Flat
Indian 24K gold was approximately:
5
Gold2012 ≈ Rs.31,050 per 10 grams
Gold2018 ≈ Rs.31,438 per 10 grams.
The gold multiple was therefore:
31,438
31,050 ≈ 1.0125.
Gold rose only about 1.25% over the whole period. This made 2012–2018 a favourable period for
equities to beat gold in gold-denominated terms.
Best-Fund Window: 2013–2018
Direct plans began in 2013, so a clean direct-plan comparison uses 2013–2018. Several top Indian
equity funds delivered very high annualized returns in this period. SBI Small & Midcap Fund and
Mirae Asset Emerging Bluechip Fund were among the strongest performers in five-year rankings
around 2018.
Using a conservative top-fund example of 31.1% CAGR for five years:
Gold2013 ≈ Rs.29,600 per 10 grams.
Initial value of 100 grams:
10 × Rs.29,600 = Rs.2,96,000.
Fund value after five years:
Rs.2,96,000 × (1.311)5 ≈ Rs.11.46 lakh.
Gold buyback at about Rs.31,438 per 10 grams:
Rs.11.46 lakh
Rs.31,438 × 10 ≈ 365 grams.
So, in this period:
100 g → 365 g .
6
Extra gold created:
365 − 100 = 265 extra grams .
This was genuine gold-denominated outperformance.
Long Direct-Plan Window: 2013–2026
For the long direct-plan window, Nippon India Small Cap Fund is a useful example of an elite
survivor. Its direct plan began on January 1, 2013. Public fund-data pages in May 2026 show
since-inception annualized return around the mid-20% range and a direct-plan expense ratio around
0.6%–0.7%, depending on source date.
Using 23.9% CAGR for roughly 13.3 years:
100 × (1.239)13.3 × 29,600
1,62,000 ≈ 317 grams.
So a top surviving small-cap fund could have turned:
100 g → 315–320 g .
Extra gold created:
215–220 extra grams .
This result is impressive, but it must be interpreted carefully: it required selecting one of the best
surviving funds in advance, tolerating high volatility, and staying invested through multiple cycles.
2020–2026: Gold Became the Hard Benchmark
Using the same 2020 and 2026 gold inputs:
Gold2020 ≈ Rs.48,651 per 10 grams,
Gold2026 ≈ Rs.1,62,000 per 10 grams.
Gold multiple:
1,62,000
48,651 ≈ 3.33.
7
This required roughly 22.2% CAGR just to preserve gold-denominated purchasing power. Even a
strong 23.5% annualized equity outcome would produce only:
100 × (1.235)6 × 48,651
1,62,000 ≈ 107 grams.
So from 2020 to 2026:
100 g → 107 g .
Extra gold created:
7 extra grams .
Promoter Dilution and Exit Risk in Indian Equities
The gold-denominator benchmark evaluates whether an investor preserves purchasing power against
gold. A separate but related equity-market risk is dilution: the investor may own a smaller economic
claim on the business over time even if the company appears to be growing.
In India, promoter groups and companies can alter ownership through several legal corporate
actions. Some are legitimate capital-allocation tools. From a minority-shareholder perspective,
however, they should be separated into three categories.
True Dilution or Potential Dilution
These actions can reduce existing shareholders’ proportional claim unless the new capital creates
enough value to offset the larger share base:
• Fresh equity issuance: QIPs, FPOs, and rights issues raise capital by issuing new shares.
These may strengthen the balance sheet, but they also expand the share base unless the new
capital earns adequate returns.
• Preferential allotments: Shares, warrants, or convertible instruments may be allotted to
promoters, affiliates, strategic investors, or selected institutions. The key review points are
pricing, lock-in, conversion terms, use of proceeds, and related-party links.
• Warrants and convertibles: Warrants, CCPS, CCDs, and similar instruments can delay
dilution until conversion. Investors should evaluate the fully diluted share count, not only the
current share count.
• Employee schemes and trusts: ESOPs can align employees with shareholders, but aggressive
grants or opaque trust structures can dilute public shareholders. The important question is
whether the dilution is matched by genuine value creation.
8
• Mergers and share swaps: A listed company may merge with an unlisted promoter-linked
entity through a scheme of arrangement. The economic impact depends heavily on the valuation
and swap ratio assigned to each entity.
Non-Dilutive Share-Count Optics
Bonus issues and stock splits increase the number of shares but do not by themselves change
proportional ownership or create economic value. They may improve marketability or optics, but
they are not equivalent to a cash return to shareholders.
Alignment and Supply Events
OFS transactions and block deals do not dilute the total share count. They are secondary sales.
However, they can reduce promoter ownership, increase market supply, and weaken perceived
alignment if repeated during high-valuation periods. Delisting attempts, tender offers, and court-
approved restructurings can also materially change minority-shareholder outcomes, so valuation,
process fairness, and disclosure quality matter.
Why This Matters for the Gold Benchmark
A mutual fund or stock portfolio may report a respectable rupee CAGR while the investor’s un-
derlying ownership claim is diluted. The gold-denominator test should therefore be combined with
a per-share test:
Did earnings per share and free cash flow per share grow, or only
total company size?
A useful conceptual return checklist is:
rinvestor,net ≈ rper-share business − ddilution − ffees − ttaxes − bbehaviour.
Here rinvestor,net is the investor’s approximate annualized net return, rper-share business is growth in
per-share business value, ddilution is annualized dilution drag, ffees is fund or advisory fee drag, ttaxes
is tax drag, and bbehaviour is behavioural timing drag.
If a company raises equity repeatedly, gives cheap warrants, issues generous options, or merges
promoter-linked entities at favourable swap ratios, minority investors may experience dilution even
while headline revenue, profit, or market capitalization rises.
Minority-Shareholder Checklist
Before accepting a long-term CAGR story, investors should review:
9
• fully diluted share count over 5–10 years;
• promoter holding trend and pledged-share trend;
• preferential allotment pricing versus market price and book value;
• warrant conversion price, payment terms, and beneficiaries;
• ESOP dilution as a percentage of share capital;
• merger or scheme-of-arrangement swap ratios;
• related-party transactions and promoter-linked entities;
• free cash flow per share, not only total free cash flow;
• return on incremental capital after each equity raise;
• whether buybacks are funded by real surplus cash or accompanied by simultaneous dilution
elsewhere.
Interpretation
The benchmark produces three important conclusions:
• Equities can beat gold: the 2013–2018 top-fund example shows major gold-denominated
outperformance.
• Nominal CAGR is incomplete: a 12% return can still lose purchasing power when the gold
benchmark rises faster.
• Manager selection matters: the best funds can create large gold gains, but the average
investor may not select or hold those funds through the full cycle.
Assumptions and Limitations
• This report is an analytical framework, not investment advice.
• Gold prices are approximate and vary by source, city, purity, taxes, making charges, and date.
• Mutual fund returns vary by regular versus direct plan, expense ratio, date of investment, exit
load, and taxation.
• The report intentionally uses gold as one purchasing-power denominator, not as a claim that
gold captures every dimension of real wealth.
• The strongest fund examples are subject to survivorship bias; they show what elite winners
achieved, not what every investor achieved.
• Promoter dilution and promoter selling examples require company-by-company verification from
filings, exchange disclosures, and SEBI orders.
10
Data and Source Notes
The following sources were used to convert the review into a more reproducible report. The figures
remain approximate and should be refreshed before publication.
• May 2026 gold price: Public daily-rate pages such as Goodreturns’ India gold-rate page
report 24K rates by gram and by 10 grams. The working value used here is Rs.1,62,000 per 10
grams. See https://www.goodreturns.in/gold-rates/.
• Historical gold prices: Public historical gold-rate tables were used for the approximate 2012–
2025 24K India prices in the hurdle-rate table. The key working values include Rs.31,050 for
2012, Rs.29,600 for 2013, Rs.31,438 for 2018, Rs.48,651 for 2020, and Rs.1,01,350 for 2025, all
per 10 grams. Before publication, replace these with a single dated data source or an appendix
table downloaded from the chosen provider.
• 2013–2018 top-fund example: Five-year small- and mid-cap fund rankings around 2018
were used to motivate the 31.1% CAGR example. Candidate sources include PersonalFN,
Value Research, ET Money, AMC factsheets, and archived fund-ranker pages.
• 2013–2026 Nippon India Small Cap example: Public fund-data pages for Nippon India
Small Cap Fund Direct Growth were used for the long-window illustration. The report uses
23.9% as a rounded, illustrative since-inception CAGR and assumes a direct-plan expense ratio
around 0.6%–0.7%. Before publication, refresh this from the AMC factsheet or a fund-research
database as of the report date.
• Promoter dilution and exits: The categories are based on Indian market practice and
regulatory frameworks covering QIPs/FPOs/rights issues, preferential allotments, warrants,
convertibles, employee schemes, schemes of arrangement, OFS transactions, block deals, and
delisting/restructuring attempts. The final authority for any named company case should be
SEBI orders, exchange filings, scheme documents, and company disclosures.
• Regulatory context: SEBI ICDR and SAST regulations should be consulted for preferential
issue, warrant, takeover, and open-offer rules. Court- or tribunal-approved schemes may have
distinct treatment under takeover regulations, so the exact exemption and disclosure route
should be verified for each transaction.
Publication note: this report is now internally consistent and numerically reproducible under its
stated assumptions, but it still uses public web-rate and fund-data pages rather than a locked data
file. A final publication version should attach the downloaded source table used for each price and
return.
Conclusion
The finance industry usually reports wealth in rupees. That is necessary, but incomplete.
A more demanding question is:
11
How much gold-denominated purchasing power could the investor
buy back?
From 2013 to 2018, elite Indian equity funds created large amounts of additional gold purchasing
power. From 2020 to 2026, however, gold itself rose so sharply that even strong nominal returns
struggled to beat it.
The gold-denominator benchmark does not replace conventional benchmarks such as Nifty, Sensex,
or category averages. It adds a harder test:
Did the investment create more gold-denominated purchasing
power, or only more rupees?
12

.dark-mode .PTThjt{ color: white; background-color: #333333; border: 2px solid white; }.light-mode .PTThjt{ color: #333333; background-color: white; border: 2px solid #333333; }ETEnergy Transfer LP Common Units representing limited partner interestsstock NYSE

ET
Energy Transfer LP Common Units representing limited partner interests
stock NYSE