Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth PMS Review
You’ve held Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth for a while, or you’re weighing whether to add it to a satellite sleeve.
Either way, you’re here because trailing returns on a factsheet only tell you so much.
You want to know if the fee is earning its place, and whether the concentration and disclosure gaps behind the headline numbers should worry you.
We’re not going to cheerlead this one, and we’re not going to talk it down either.
We’re going to walk through the data as it stands and let you draw your own conclusion.
Quick Summary
| What Works | What Doesn’t |
|---|---|
| Positive alpha versus the Nifty 50 TRI across nearly every disclosed trailing period — 1-year, 2-year, 3-year, 5-year, 10-year, and since inception | Fee model is a flat 2% AMC charge with no hurdle or profit-share mechanism — you pay it whether the year is strong or weak |
| An 18-year-plus live track record spanning the 2008 crisis, 2020 pandemic crash, and multiple market cycles | Top 5 sectors account for 91% of the portfolio — a meaningfully concentrated sector footprint for a “Multi Cap & Flexi Cap” mandate |
| Meaningfully smaller drawdowns than the benchmark through the recent correction (6-month and 1-year returns both fell far less than the Nifty 50 TRI) | Individual top-5 stock weights remain undisclosed, so stock-level concentration can’t be independently verified |
| Genuine cap-wise diversification in practice — roughly 40% large cap, 40% mid-cap, 15% small cap, 5% cash | Category (Multi Cap & Flexi Cap) overlaps meaningfully with a segment most investors already hold through mutual funds |
| Zero exit load across the first three years — full flexibility to leave without penalty | Public visibility of the fund management team is more limited than some peers reviewed on this platform |
The verdict, in two sentences: On the data available, Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth has generated real, sustained alpha over the Nifty 50 TRI across nearly every period that matters, and its fee looks genuinely earned rather than merely charged.
The open questions aren’t about whether it has worked — they’re about sector concentration, fee-model design, and whether it’s adding something your existing Flexicap mutual fund allocation doesn’t already give you.
Here’s the lens we use for every PMS review:
Gross Alpha > Fee = Value Added | Gross Alpha ≈ Fee = Break-Even | Gross Alpha < Fee = Value Destroyed
Where does this strategy sit? On the evidence here, comfortably in the Value Added zone.
Even on the toughest read — the 1-year window, where net alpha was +2.71 percentage points over the Nifty 50 TRI — the fund cleared its flat 2% fee.
Over 3 years, gross alpha was roughly 8.5 percentage points ahead of the benchmark; over 5 years, roughly 3.5 points ahead; since inception, just over 2 points ahead.
In every case shown, what the manager generated in excess of the benchmark meaningfully exceeds what you paid to access it.
That’s a genuinely different picture from many PMS reviews on this platform, and it’s worth saying plainly: the data supports that this fee has been earned, not just charged.
That doesn’t mean the strategy is free of things worth scrutinising — it means the scrutiny here is about structure and concentration, not about whether the returns are real.
| Key Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| PMS Provider | Dalal and Broacha Stock Brocking Pvt Ltd (Dalal & Broacha Portfolio Managers Pvt Ltd) |
| Category | PMS – Multi Cap & Flexi Cap |
| Investment Approach | Invest in good businesses with decent management at reasonable prices |
| Benchmark | Nifty 50 TRI |
| Inception Date | 24 August 2007 |
| Fund Managers | Milind Karmarkar (Director & Senior Fund Manager); Nawaz Sarfaraz (Fund Manager) |
| Strategy AUM | ₹1,241.12 Cr (as on 30 June 2026) |
| Minimum Investment | ₹50,00,000 |
| SIP / STP | Not Available |
| Fixed Fee | 2.00% AMC |
| Variable Fee | Not applicable (no performance-fee option) |
| Exit Load | Nil (Years 1, 2 and 3) |
The stated investment objective is to capture India’s long-term growth story — demographic dividend, rising per-capita income — by investing in companies and sectors positioned to benefit from it.
It’s a broad, conviction-driven mandate rather than a narrowly defined style box, run out of a firm with a five-decade history in Indian financial services (Dalal & Broacha was founded in 1961).
The strategy itself has been live for over 18 years — through the 2008 financial crisis, the 2020 pandemic crash, and everything since.
That’s not a small thing. A lot of PMS track records only span a single bull cycle. This one has been tested by more than one.
Note: the trailing returns below are sourced from the strategy’s most recent published performance table (data as on 31 May 2026), which offers the closest available read to current performance.
| Period | Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth | Nifty 50 TRI | Alpha (+/-) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Month | 1.84% | -1.72% | +3.56% |
| 3 Months | 4.62% | -6.30% | +10.92% |
| 6 Months | -0.95% | -9.87% | +8.92% |
| 1 Year | -1.13% | -3.84% | +2.71% |
| 2 Years | 6.18% | 3.35% | +2.83% |
| 3 Years | 18.00% | 9.53% | +8.47% |
| 5 Years | 13.42% | 9.87% | +3.55% |
| 10 Years | 13.72% | 12.54% | +1.18% |
| Since Inception | 13.21% | 11.03% | +2.18% |
Read that table twice. There isn’t a single window — not one month, not ten years — where this strategy has trailed the Nifty 50 TRI on the data disclosed.
That’s genuinely uncommon.
Most active strategies show at least one period of underperformance somewhere in the mix; this one doesn’t, at least not in what’s been published.
The most telling number here might be the 6-month and 1-year figures.
The Nifty 50 TRI fell 9.87% and 3.84% respectively over those windows — a real correction.
This strategy was down only 0.95% and 1.13% over the same periods.
That’s the kind of downside cushioning active management is supposed to provide, and on this evidence, it did.
| Calendar Year | Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth |
|---|---|
| CY22 | Modest decline, low single digits negative* |
| CY23 | 35.48% |
| CY24 | 33.23% |
| CY25 | -4.88% |
| CY26 (YTD) | 9.91% |
*Approximate read from published calendar-year chart data.
Two strong years (CY23, CY24) followed by a negative CY25 is worth sitting with.
It could simply reflect a broad market correction that hit most equity strategies — the Nifty 50 TRI itself was down sharply over the 6-month and 1-year windows shown above.
On a relative basis, this strategy still held up better than its benchmark through that stretch.
But a 35%-plus year followed by a negative year is also a reminder that the return profile here is not smooth — you should expect real volatility around the average, not a steady glide path.
There’s no performance fee here. No hurdle, no profit share.
Just a flat 2% AMC charge, and no exit load in years one, two, or three.
That’s a genuinely simple structure — you always know exactly what you’re paying, and you’re never surprised by a profit-share deduction after a strong year.
The trade-off is alignment.
A hurdle-and-profit-share model means the manager earns more when you earn more, and less when you don’t.
A flat 2% fee means you pay the same whether the strategy is up 35% or down 5%.
On the evidence here, that hasn’t been a problem — the strategy has cleared its 2% cost by a wide margin in most periods.
But it’s worth naming as a structural feature, not just a number.
| Scenario | Net Return Assumed | Corpus After 5 Years | Corpus After 7 Years |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dalal & Broacha Long Term Growth (Net, 5-Yr Trailing Basis) | 13.42% | ₹93.8 Lakh | ₹1.21 Crore |
| Passive Index Fund (Net of 0.15% fee, Nifty 50-linked, 5-Yr Basis) | ~9.72% | ₹79.5 Lakh | ₹95.7 Lakh |
| Dalal & Broacha Long Term Growth (Net, Since-Inception Basis) | 13.21% | ₹93.0 Lakh | ₹1.19 Crore |
| Passive Index Fund (Net of 0.15% fee, Since-Inception Basis) | ~10.88% | ₹83.8 Lakh | ₹1.03 Crore |
On both the 5-year and the since-inception basis, the gap in your favour is substantial — roughly ₹14 lakhs after 5 years and over ₹18 lakhs after 7, using the 5-year figures; a similar magnitude using the longer-run since-inception numbers.
That’s not a marginal, break-even edge. That’s a real, compounding difference that comfortably justifies the 2% fee on the data available.
The caveat worth holding onto: this is a backward-looking illustration, not a promise.
An 18-year track record with consistent alpha is meaningful evidence, but it isn’t a guarantee that the next 5 years will look like the last 5.
Here’s the question worth sitting with: knowing everything you know today, if you were starting fresh with this ₹50 lakh right now, would you choose to put it into Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth?
On the data reviewed here, a reasonable investor could genuinely answer yes — consistent alpha across nearly every period, a long track record through multiple cycles, real downside cushioning in the recent correction, and a fee that’s been comfortably earned.
This is one of the more straightforward “yes” cases we’ve reviewed on this platform.
But say yes for the right reasons, not the easy ones. If your yes is really “it’s been going up, so why think about it” — that’s not the same as having actually weighed the 91% sector concentration, the undisclosed stock-level holdings, or the fact that a flat 2% fee doesn’t self-correct if performance ever does flatten out.
A genuine zero-based yes accounts for those factors and still says yes. An inertia-driven yes just skips past them.
If your honest answer is no — perhaps because you already hold a comparable Flexicap mutual fund, or because the sector concentration doesn’t sit right with you — that’s also a legitimate, defensible position on this data.
Strong historical returns don’t obligate you to stay; they just make the decision a genuinely closer call than it would be with a weaker track record.
| Decision Factor | Rating | Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Uniqueness vs existing MF portfolio | 🟡 Mixed | The Multi Cap & Flexi Cap category overlaps with a segment most investors already hold through mutual funds. Without disclosed top-5 stock holdings, genuine differentiation from your existing Flexicap fund can’t be fully verified, even though the return pattern itself has clearly differed. |
| Alpha consistency across all periods | 🟢 Pass | Positive alpha versus the Nifty 50 TRI across every disclosed trailing window — 1 month through 10 years, and since inception. This is a genuinely consistent pattern, not a result driven by one or two strong years. |
| Justification for PMS fee | 🟢 Pass | Gross alpha has comfortably exceeded the flat 2% fee in every period shown, including the toughest recent windows. The rupee-terms comparison against a passive alternative shows a substantial, not marginal, gap in the strategy’s favour. |
| Downside protection in market corrections | 🟢 Pass | Through the recent correction (6-month and 1-year windows), the strategy fell meaningfully less than the Nifty 50 TRI — a real demonstration of the downside cushioning active management is meant to provide. |
| Portfolio complement for MF investor | 🟡 Mixed | The category overlaps with common mutual fund exposure, but the execution — cap-wise mix, sector tilts, and realised returns — has diverged meaningfully from a typical index-hugging Flexicap fund. Whether that holds for your specific existing holdings needs a direct comparison. |
| Mandate purity and discipline | 🟢 Pass | The stated approach — good businesses, decent management, reasonable price — has been consistently applied across an 18-year-plus live history spanning multiple market cycles, with no visible evidence of style drift. |
| Fund manager transparency | 🟡 Mixed | Milind Karmarkar brings over 35 years of equity experience and Nawaz Sarfaraz adds a further 17-plus years, but public media visibility for this team is more limited in available sources than for some peers reviewed on this platform. |
| Investment horizon suitability | 🟢 Pass | An 18-year, 10-month live track record spanning the 2008 crisis and the 2020 crash is about as strong a case for medium-to-long-term suitability as a PMS review can find. |
| Market cap flexibility utilisation | 🟢 Pass | Genuine cap-wise diversification — roughly 40% large cap, 40% mid-cap, 15% small cap, and 5% cash — suggests real, active positioning across the cap curve rather than a large-cap fund wearing a multi-cap label. |
| Concentration vs diversification balance | 🔴 Concern | Top 5 sectors account for 91% of the portfolio, with Consumer Discretionary and Financials alone making up 55%. That’s meaningful correlated risk if either sector faces a sustained downturn. Individual stock-level weights remain undisclosed, limiting further scrutiny. |
| AUM size and strategy capacity | 🟢 Pass | At ₹1,241.12 Cr, AUM is manageable for a multi-cap mandate with meaningful mid and small-cap exposure, without obvious signs of capacity strain. |
| Manager tenure and continuity risk | 🟡 Mixed | Milind Karmarkar’s decades of experience are a real strength, but a strategy this long-tenured, anchored heavily around one very senior individual, raises a fair question about succession over a long horizon. Nawaz Sarfaraz’s presence as a second fund manager offers some redundancy, but the depth of the bench beyond that isn’t disclosed. |
| Fee model design (strategy-specific) | 🟡 Mixed | A flat 2% fee with no hurdle or profit-share component is simple and predictable, and it has clearly been earned on this data. But it also means the manager’s economics don’t automatically adjust if performance ever cools — worth watching, even though it hasn’t been an issue historically. |
Your core portfolio — the bulk of your equity allocation — should be built with low-cost, diversified instruments: index funds, flexi-cap funds, multi-asset funds.
Your satellite allocation is where PMS and AIF strategies belong, but only the ones that genuinely add something your core doesn’t already give you.
Here’s the honest question this raises for Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth: with a Multi Cap & Flexi Cap category tag, is this strategy functioning as a true satellite — reaching into concentration and conviction bets your diversified core structurally avoids — or is it, category-wise, doing a more expensive version of what your existing Flexicap mutual fund already does?
The answer, on this data, leans genuinely favourable: the return pattern has diverged meaningfully from a typical benchmark-hugging Flexicap fund, and the fee has clearly been earned.
But the category overlap is real enough that this is worth checking directly against your specific existing holdings, not assumed away.
If you’re deciding whether this strategy earns its place in your satellite sleeve alongside what you already own, here’s what to look for in general:
There’s no exit load in years one, two, or three — genuine flexibility if you decide to reduce or exit this position.
That removes one common friction point PMS investors run into elsewhere.
On taxation: because a PMS holds securities directly in your own Demat account, each stock sold within the portfolio — and any final liquidation — is a separate taxable event for you individually, at your applicable capital gains rate for that specific holding period.
This differs from a mutual fund, where you’re taxed only on redemption of your units, not on the fund’s internal trades.
Factor this into your timing if you’re planning a reduction or exit.
A staggered exit, spread across two or three tranches, can help manage the tax-event timing rather than crystallising everything in one transaction.
Worth a conversation with whoever manages your tax planning alongside your investment planning.
There’s no external deadline forcing a decision here, which is genuinely useful — it means you can work through this calmly, based on the data, rather than under time pressure.
Q1: Is Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth PMS good or bad?
On the data available, the Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth PMS performance case is strong — consistent alpha over the Nifty 50 TRI across nearly every disclosed period, with real downside cushioning in the recent correction. The genuine questions are around sector concentration (91% in the top five) and a fee model that isn’t performance-linked, not around whether the returns are real.
Q2: What is the investment strategy of Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth?
It invests in good businesses with decent management at reasonable prices, aiming to capture India’s long-term growth story through companies and sectors positioned to benefit from rising per-capita income and the demographic dividend.
Q3: What are the fees for Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth PMS?
A flat 2% AMC fee for Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth PMS, with no performance fee, hurdle, or profit-share component, and no exit load in years one, two, or three.
Q4: What is the AUM of Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth?
Approximately ₹1,241.12 Cr as on 30 June 2026.
Q5: What is the minimum investment for this PMS?
₹50,00,000, in line with SEBI’s minimum investment threshold for portfolio management services.
Q6: How has this PMS performed versus the Nifty 50?
Ahead of the Nifty 50 TRI across every disclosed trailing window — 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, and since inception.
Q7: Is a flat PMS fee better than a performance-linked fee?
Neither is universally better. A flat fee is simpler and more predictable but doesn’t adjust if performance weakens. A performance-linked fee aligns the manager’s incentives more closely with yours but can be harder to forecast and, in some structures, still charges a base fee regardless of outcome.
Q8: How concentrated is the Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth portfolio?
The top 5 sectors account for 91% of the portfolio, with Consumer Discretionary (30%) and Financials (25%) the two largest. Individual stock-level top-5 weights are not publicly disclosed.
Q9: Is PMS better than a mutual fund for multi-cap exposure?
It depends on the specific fund and strategy. Where a PMS demonstrates real, sustained differentiation and downside protection — as the data here suggests — the case for it is stronger. Where a PMS largely mirrors an existing mutual fund category without disclosed proof of differentiation, the additional cost is harder to justify.
Q10: How do I exit this PMS, and what does it cost?
There’s no exit load in years one, two, or three. Because a PMS holds stocks directly, each sale is a separate taxable event at the stock level, different from redeeming mutual fund units. A staggered exit can help manage this.
We aren’t recommending Dalal and Broacha Long Term Growth as a fit for your portfolio through this review.
What we do recommend is checking any PMS — this one included — against what you already hold, before you add to it or walk away from it.
As CFPs, we can sit down with your existing mutual fund portfolio alongside this strategy and map out where it genuinely complements your holdings and where it simply overlaps.
If that’s useful, we’re glad to walk through it with you.
Listen to this article You're looking at a PMS with a track record most strategies…
Listen to this article Artificial Intelligence has become the biggest investment story of this decade.…
Listen to this article "Retiring at 45? Isn't that only for millionaires, start-up founders, or…
Listen to this article Filing an Income Tax Return (ITR) often finds its way onto…
Listen to this article When stock prices start falling and headlines scream "Market Crash!", what…
Listen to this article Starting a Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) is one of the smartest…