Unifi Capital BCAD2 Breakout 20 PMS Review: Performance, Fees & Should You Stay Invested?

Quick Summary Box

What Works	What Doesn’t
Genuine small-cap differentiation — 56% small-cap weight gives access mutual funds cannot always replicate efficiently	Negative alpha over 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year trailing periods against the BSE 500 TRI
A clear, well-articulated investment thesis (unorganized-to-organized consolidation) backed by real macro data	Since-inception alpha is essentially flat at +0.26% — propped up almost entirely by one strong year, FY24
A strong FY24 (+38.2%) that shows the strategy can deliver when its thesis plays out	FY25 and FY26 both decelerated sharply — FY26 is down 9.04% for the year as of April 2026
Transparent monthly MIS, quarterly newsletters, and half-yearly performance webinars	A 2.00% fixed fee that keeps compounding against you regardless of whether the thesis is working in a given year
No exit load after the first year, giving you a genuinely clean way out if you choose to leave	At just over 4 years old, the strategy doesn’t yet have a 5-year track record — you are being asked to judge it on a shorter runway than its own stated horizon

Our verdict:

This is a strategy with a real, differentiated idea — and it executed that idea well in its first two years.

But the data over the last three years is unambiguous: the strategy has trailed its own benchmark on the 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year trailing returns, and the since-inception number that looks acceptable on paper is being carried almost entirely by one strong year, FY24, that is now four years behind it.

You should know exactly what that number is built on before you decide whether to keep paying 2% a year for it.

Table of Contents:

1. Who Should Read This
2. Who This PMS May Still Suit
3. Who Should Likely Avoid This PMS
4. What Is BCAD2 Breakout 20?
5. Performance Review
6. The Fee Reality
7. The Zero-Based Thinking Test
8. Decision Factor Scorecard
9. Summary Scorecard Table
10. The Core Portfolio Architecture Question
11. What a Genuinely Complementary PMS Looks Like
12. Exit Considerations
13. Key Takeaways
14. FAQ Section
15. Our Approach

The PMS Value Framework

Before anything else, here is the lens we use for every PMS review — and we are going to apply it honestly to this one, not selectively.

Gross Alpha > Fee = Value Added — the manager’s skill, before costs, exceeds what you pay for it. You keep a genuine edge.

Gross Alpha ≈ Fee = Break-Even — the manager has skill, but the fee consumes most of what that skill produces. You are paying an active fee for what nets out close to indexing.

Gross Alpha < Fee = Value Destroyed — you are paying an active fee for sub-benchmark, or barely-benchmark, net returns.

Where does BCAD2 Breakout 20 sit?

On the most recent 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year trailing data, this strategy sits in the value-destroyed zone — negative alpha across all three of those windows, before you even subtract the 2% fee from what’s left.

The since-inception number is closer to break-even, but you should know that figure is being carried almost entirely by a single exceptional year that is now four years behind you.

That is the uncomfortable part of this review, and we are not going to soften it.

Who Should Read This

• You are currently invested in BCAD2 Breakout 20 and want an honest, numbers-first view of whether to stay
• You are evaluating this PMS for a fresh allocation and want to see the recent trend before committing ₹50 lakh or more
• You want to understand whether a strategy built on a genuinely sound macro thesis can still be the wrong investment right now
• You are building a core-and-satellite portfolio and want a framework for judging whether a small-cap PMS allocation is actually earning its place
• You want to understand PMS fee structures, performance-fee triggers, and tax treatment before your next move

Who This PMS May Still Suit

• An investor who has independently studied the unorganized-to-organized consumption thesis, believes in its multi-year timeline, and is comfortable holding through a multi-year drawdown for the thesis to play out again
• Someone who genuinely lacks small-cap exposure elsewhere in their portfolio and wants a manager actively screening this segment with governance filters, rather than buying a broad small-cap index
• An investor whose horizon is closer to 7–10 years than 3–5, and who can treat the FY24 spike and the FY25–FY26 drawdown as two data points in a longer cycle rather than judging the strategy on either alone
• Someone who values the transparency of monthly MIS and direct fund manager access enough to accept a higher fee for it, having weighed that against the recent return data honestly

Who Should Likely Avoid This PMS

• If your investment horizon is under 5 years, the strategy’s own stated minimum holding period works against you precisely when the trailing 1-year and 2-year numbers are negative
• If you already hold small and mid-cap mutual funds with consumption, healthcare, or financials exposure, you may be paying a premium fee to duplicate sector bets you already have through a cheaper wrapper
• If you are uncomfortable holding through a stretch where the strategy has trailed its own benchmark for three consecutive years on a trailing basis, this is not the moment to add fresh capital
• If fee sensitivity matters to you, a 2% fixed fee on a strategy currently delivering negative alpha is a difficult number to defend, however sound the underlying thesis may be

What Is BCAD2 Breakout 20?

Key Facts

Parameter	Detail
AMC	Unifi Capital Private Limited (SEBI Reg. No. INP000000613)
Strategy Name	BCAD2: Breakout 20
Fund Manager	Aejas Lakhani
Inception Date	14 January 2022
Benchmark	S&P BSE 500 TRI
Minimum Investment	₹50,00,000
AUM	₹1,944.74 crore
Category	Mid Cap PMS
Fixed Fee	2.00% per annum
Performance Fee	Charged at the end of 5 years, or on the strategy achieving a 200% absolute return, whichever comes first
Exit Load	Nil — no entry or exit loads at any point
Recommended Holding Period	5 years (no regulatory lock-in)

Investment Approach

The strategy’s thesis — Business Consolidation After Disruption, or BCAD — is built on a real and well-documented structural story: GST implementation and demonetization made life harder for unorganized, cash-dependent businesses, and that disruption has been quietly shifting market share toward organized, compliant players across categories the strategy groups as Roti (food, beverages), Kapda (apparel, personal care), Makaan (home, building materials), and “Plus 1” (financialization, healthcare, logistics, travel).

The mandate looks for companies with consistent volume growth ahead of their industry, improving operating leverage, and better capital efficiency, screened through governance filters and bought at what the manager considers reasonable value.

The honest framing here: the thesis itself is not in question. Demonetization and GST did happen.

Formalization of India’s economy is a real, ongoing trend, and the household income data behind this strategy — showing the “next 20%” income quintile breaking out faster than the bottom three — is grounded in actual survey data, not speculation.

The question this review has to answer is narrower: has the execution of that thesis, over the period the strategy has actually existed, delivered returns that justify what you are paying for it?

On the data available, the answer right now is no — and you deserve to see exactly why.

Performance Review

Here is the part of this review that requires you to slow down and read the numbers carefully — because the headline since-inception figure tells you almost nothing about what has actually happened recently.

Trailing Returns Vs Benchmark (as on 31 May 2026)

Period	BCAD2 Breakout 20 (Net)	S&P BSE 500 TRI	Alpha (+/-)
1 Month	1.36%	-0.17%	+1.53%
3 Months	-1.32%	-2.34%	+1.02%
6 Months	-6.67%	-5.39%	-1.28%
1 Year	-5.19%	-0.07%	-5.12%
2 Years	0.34%	4.14%	-3.80%
3 Years	9.20%	13.46%	-4.26%
5 Years	Not Available (strategy not yet 5 years old)	—	—
Since Inception (~4.4 years)	9.85%	9.59%	+0.26%

When did you last actually sit down and check whether this PMS is beating its benchmark, net of fees, across every period that matters to you — not just the one number the fund manager leads with?

Here is what this table is telling you, plainly.

Over 1 month and 3 months, the strategy has actually outperformed — a genuinely positive sign in the very short term.

But move to 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years, and the picture turns consistently negative — and the gap widens the further back you look, from -1.28% at 6 months to a meaningful -4.26% on a 3-year trailing basis.

That is not a single bad quarter. That is a multi-year pattern.

The since-inception number of +0.26% alpha is real, but it is worth being honest about what it is built on.

Calendar / Financial Year Performance

Year	BCAD2 Breakout 20
FY22 (partial, from inception)	-2.44%
FY23	+7.99%
FY24	+38.20%
FY25	+1.71%
FY26	-9.04%
FY27 (April only)	+11.01%

So what changed? Was it the market, the fund manager, or just the thesis running out of road for now?

The honest answer, based on what the data shows, is this: FY24 was an exceptional year — a 38.2% return that did most of the heavy lifting for the entire since-inception track record.

Every year since has been materially weaker. FY25 barely broke even relative to where the strategy started the year, and FY26 has been a genuine drawdown, down over 9% for the financial year as of the most recent disclosure.

Is there a legitimate explanation? Yes, and you should weigh it fairly.

Small and mid-cap strategies with a consumption and financialization tilt go through periods where the broader market favours other themes — large-cap defensives, export-led sectors, or commodity cycles unrelated to domestic consumption.

The strategy’s own sector mix (Financials at 26.5%, Healthcare at 19.0%, Consumer at 14.0%) and its heavy 56% small-cap weight mean it will naturally be more volatile than the BSE 500 TRI, which is dominated by large caps.

Some of the FY26 drawdown likely reflects a broader small and mid-cap correction rather than anything specific to this strategy’s stock selection.

But here is the part that needs your attention regardless of that context.

A volatile, small-cap-heavy strategy is supposed to compensate you for that volatility with higher returns over a full cycle.

On the 3-year trailing number — the only multi-year window with real data, since the strategy isn’t yet 5 years old — it has not.

It has delivered both higher volatility and lower returns than simply holding the benchmark.

Is the underperformance pattern temporary or structural?

Based on what is in front of us, it looks more like a strategy whose one truly strong year is increasingly distant, and whose more recent years have not replicated that performance — not proof that the thesis has failed, but real evidence that you should not assume FY24 is coming back on schedule.

The Fee Reality

Let us be honest about what this means in rupees, because a 2% fee sounds small until you watch it compound against you, year after year, regardless of whether the thesis is working.

BCAD2 Breakout 20 charges a 2.00% fixed annual fee, with a performance fee that only triggers at the 5-year mark or on a 200% absolute return — whichever comes first.

Because the strategy is only around 4.4 years old, you have been paying that 2% fee every single year without yet reaching either performance-fee trigger.

The 3-year net return of 9.20% you see in the table above is already net of this fee — here is what that fee costs you in absolute terms, and what it costs you relative to a simple, low-cost alternative.

Fee Drag on ₹50 Lakhs: The Rupee Picture

Scenario	Gross Return Assumed (Estimated)	Corpus After 5 Years	Corpus After 7 Years
BCAD2 Breakout 20 (Net, at disclosed 3-Yr CAGR)	9.20% (net) / ~11.20% (gross, fee-adjusted)	₹77,63,958	₹92,58,241
Passive Index Fund (BSE 500 TRI, net of 0.15% fee)	13.31% (net)	₹93,39,233	₹1,19,90,787
Fee Drag (Gross vs Net on BCAD2 alone)	2.00% pa fixed fee	₹7,37,510	₹12,54,199

Here is the thing. On a ₹50 lakh investment, the 2% fixed fee alone is estimated to cost you roughly ₹7.4 lakh over 5 years and ₹12.5 lakh over 7 years in foregone compounding — money that would otherwise have stayed in your corpus and kept working for you.

That is before you even compare this PMS to a simple alternative.

Now look at the gap that actually matters: BCAD2’s net corpus against a low-cost index fund tracking the same benchmark, net of a realistic 0.15% expense ratio, projected forward at each option’s own recent trailing trend.

On this basis, the index fund alternative is projected to be ahead by roughly ₹15.8 lakh after 5 years and ₹27.3 lakh after 7 years on the same ₹50 lakhs — a gap that is real, structural, and growing the longer the current trend holds.

The numbers do not lie — but they do require context.

This is an illustrative projection based on the most recent 3-year trend, not a guarantee that the next 3 years will look the same.

If FY24-style performance returns, the gap closes quickly.

But you are not investing in what happened in FY24.

You are deciding, today, whether to keep paying 2% a year for a strategy whose most recent multi-year trend is running meaningfully behind a passive alternative that costs a fraction as much.

The Zero-Based Thinking Test

Here is the question that matters more than any number on this page: knowing everything you now know — the 3-year negative alpha, the FY26 drawdown, the 2% fee, the fact that the strategy isn’t yet old enough to have a 5-year track record — if you were starting fresh today with this same ₹50 lakhs, would you sign this same contract?

This is not a question about whether the thesis is wrong.

The unorganized-to-organized consolidation story is real, and the strategy’s FY24 performance shows it can work when conditions align.

The question is narrower and harder: would this specific structure, at this specific fee, with this specific recent track record, be your first choice today — knowing that a low-cost index fund has done more, with less risk and a fraction of the cost, over the only multi-year window this strategy has actually completed?

This is exactly where sunk cost bias works against you.

If you invested near inception in January 2022 and rode the FY24 high, there is a natural pull to keep holding — partly because exiting now, after a drawdown year, can feel like locking in a loss rather than making a forward-looking decision.

But the decision in front of you is not about the past. It is about whether the next 5 years, paying the same 2% fee, are likely to look like FY24 or more like FY25 and FY26.

Nobody — not us, not the fund manager — can answer that with certainty.

What the data can tell you is that the most recent multi-year trend does not currently support paying a premium fee for this exposure.

Frame it this way: staying invested is the choice that now requires justification — not exiting.

Every year you continue to hold this PMS, you are making a fresh decision to pay 2% for a strategy that has trailed its benchmark on a 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year trailing basis.

If you would not sign this exact contract today, starting fresh, that is meaningful information — not a verdict on your original decision, which was reasonable given what was knowable in 2022, but a signal about what makes sense for your portfolio now.

You deserve clarity here, not guilt. Exiting a PMS after a difficult multi-year stretch is not a failure of judgment.

It is portfolio discipline — the same discipline that led you to invest in the first place.

Decision Factor Scorecard

Decision Factor	Rating	Analysis
Uniqueness vs existing MF portfolio	🟡 Mixed	At 56% small-cap and 18% mid-cap, this portfolio does reach into territory most diversified large-cap and flexi-cap mutual funds cannot efficiently access — genuine differentiation at the market-cap level. But the sector concentration in Financials (26.5%) and Healthcare (19.0%) means if you already hold dedicated small-cap or mid-cap mutual funds with similar sector tilts, the overlap at the thesis level may be higher than the market-cap differentiation alone suggests.
Alpha consistency across all periods	🔴 Concern	This is the clearest finding in this review. Negative alpha at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years — a consistent, multi-period pattern, not an isolated bad quarter. The only positive alpha windows are 1 month and 3 months (too short to draw conclusions from) and since inception, where the entire positive figure is attributable to one exceptional year, FY24, that is now well behind the portfolio.
Justification for PMS premium fee	🔴 Concern	On the only multi-year trailing window with real data — 3 years — the net return (9.20%) trails a low-cost index fund equivalent (an estimated 13.31% net) by a wide margin, even before considering that the PMS itself already deducts a 2% annual fee from the lower number. The fee is difficult to justify against the most recent multi-year track record, however reasonable it may have looked in FY23 or FY24.
Downside protection in market corrections	🟡 Mixed	The data available does not show clear evidence of downside protection. FY26 has been a meaningful drawdown year (-9.04%), and the 1-year trailing return (-5.19%) is notably worse than the benchmark’s -0.07% over the same window — the opposite of the downside cushioning you would want from active management in a falling market. The 1-month and 3-month numbers show some recent relative resilience, but it is too early to call this a pattern.
Portfolio complement for MF investor	🟡 Mixed	The strategy’s genuine small-cap weight and its specific consumption-formalization thesis do offer something most core mutual fund holdings do not replicate stock-for-stock. The complementarity is real at the structural level. Whether it has translated into complementary returns over the period it has existed is the open question this review cannot answer favourably right now.
Mandate purity and discipline	🟢 Pass	There is no visible evidence of style drift. The portfolio’s sector mix — Financials, Healthcare, Consumer, KPO/BPO, Automobiles — sits squarely within the stated BCAD universe (Roti, Kapda, Makaan, Plus 1), and the manager has not chased unrelated themes during the recent drawdown. The strategy appears to be executing its stated mandate faithfully; the issue is the mandate’s recent results, not its discipline.
Fund manager transparency	🟢 Pass	Aejas Lakhani’s background and sector coverage are clearly documented, and the firm provides monthly MIS, quarterly investor reports and newsletters, half-yearly performance review webinars, and quarterly tax reporting — a genuinely high disclosure standard. This is a strategy where you can ask informed questions and expect a substantive answer.
Investment horizon suitability	🔴 Concern	The strategy recommends a minimum 5-year holding period, but is itself only about 4.4 years old — meaning no investor has yet completed a full recommended holding cycle, and the 5-year trailing return column in the strategy’s own disclosures reads “Not Available.” If your horizon is anywhere close to the stated minimum, you are being asked to commit to a period the strategy itself hasn’t yet completed once.
Market cap flexibility utilisation	🟢 Pass	At 56% small-cap, 18% mid-cap, and 25% large-cap, this portfolio is genuinely skewed toward the smaller end of the market — there is no ambiguity here, and no sense of a flexible mandate behaving like a disguised large-cap fund. The strategy is doing exactly what its stated small/mid-cap orientation implies.
Concentration vs diversification balance	🟡 Mixed	The strategy is structured as a 20-stock concentrated portfolio (per its “Breakout 20” naming), with all disclosed holdings carrying a minimum 0.5% allocation and collectively representing 93% of the portfolio. This is a meaningfully concentrated approach for a small-cap strategy, which can amplify both the upside (as seen in FY24) and the downside (as seen in FY26) relative to a more diversified small-cap fund.
AUM size and strategy capacity	🟢 Pass	At ₹1,944.74 crore in a small and mid-cap-heavy strategy, AUM is large but has not shown obvious signs of capacity strain in the disclosed data — liquidity constraints typically become a bigger concern at significantly higher AUM levels for small-cap-focused mandates than this.
Manager tenure and continuity risk	🟢 Pass	Aejas Lakhani has managed this strategy since its inception in January 2022, providing continuity over the full track record available. With around 12 years of broader experience across asset management, governance advisory, and credit rating, there is no evidence of key-person turnover risk specific to this strategy.
Strategy maturity and track record depth (strategy-specific)	🔴 Concern	This factor matters enough for this specific strategy to call out separately. At just over 4 years old, BCAD2 Breakout 20 has not yet been tested across a genuine multi-year market cycle the way a 10 or 15-year-old strategy has. The since-inception number is dominated by a single year. You are being asked to evaluate — and pay a premium fee for — a strategy with meaningfully less evidence behind it than its category peers with longer histories.

Summary Scorecard Table

Decision Factor	Rating
Uniqueness vs existing MF portfolio	🟡
Alpha consistency across all periods	🔴
Justification for PMS premium fee	🔴
Downside protection in market corrections	🟡
Portfolio complement for MF investor	🟡
Mandate purity and discipline	🟢
Fund manager transparency	🟢
Investment horizon suitability	🔴
Market cap flexibility utilisation	🟢
Concentration vs diversification balance	🟡
AUM size and strategy capacity	🟢
Manager tenure and continuity risk	🟢
Strategy maturity and track record depth	🔴

Five greens, four yellows, four reds.

If you are looking for one sentence to take away from this table: the manager has been disciplined and transparent about a mandate that, over the only complete multi-year window available, has not delivered returns that justify its fee — and four of the thirteen factors point directly at that gap between effort and outcome.

The Core Portfolio Architecture Question

Here is a question worth asking yourself directly: what job is this PMS actually doing in your portfolio that justifies its fee right now?

Our own approach is built around a core-and-satellite structure.

The core — the majority of an equity allocation — sits in low-cost, diversified mutual funds: index funds, flexi-cap funds, multi-asset funds.

This is the part of the portfolio designed to capture broad market growth efficiently, without unnecessary cost drag.

The satellite — a smaller, deliberate portion — is reserved for strategies that genuinely complement the core, by reaching into opportunities the core structurally cannot access: concentrated small-cap ideas, thematic plays, special situations, or strategies with a fundamentally different return driver than what is already sitting in your mutual fund NAVs.

A satellite allocation earns its place by doing two things at once: accessing something genuinely different, and delivering a return that compensates you for the extra cost and risk of that access.

BCAD2 Breakout 20 passes the first test clearly — its small-cap weight and thesis are genuinely distinct.

It has not, on the data available, passed the second test over its only completed multi-year window.

A satellite holding that adds differentiation without adding net return after fees is not doing its job, however sound its underlying idea may be.

What a Genuinely Complementary PMS Looks Like

Not every PMS in this position is in trouble, and it is worth knowing what a strategy clearing this bar looks like before your next allocation decision — to this fund or any other.

A satellite-worthy PMS typically:

• Demonstrates a track record across at least one full market cycle — ideally 5-plus years — so a single exceptional year cannot single-handedly define its since-inception number
• Shows alpha that holds up across multiple trailing windows, not just one favourable period buried inside a longer average
• Maintains downside protection broadly in line with or better than its benchmark during corrections, especially important for higher-volatility small and mid-cap mandates
• Charges a fee structure where the net, after-cost return clearly and consistently exceeds what a comparable low-cost index fund or category-median mutual fund delivers for the same risk taken
• Operates at an AUM size genuinely matched to its strategy’s capacity, with continued evidence that the manager’s stock selection — not just market beta — is driving returns

This is a general framework, not a recommendation for any specific alternative — that decision depends entirely on what you already hold and what gap, if any, genuinely exists in your portfolio.

Exit Considerations

If, after reading this, you decide to exit, here is exactly what it costs you and how it works.

Exit load: There is no exit load on this strategy, at any point — redemption carries no penalty in year one, year two, year three, or beyond. This is one of the cleanest exit structures you will find in the PMS category, and it removes one common objection to leaving: there is no fee charged simply for choosing to walk away.

Performance fee timing: Because the performance fee on this strategy only triggers at the 5-year mark or on a 200% absolute return, whichever comes first, and the strategy is currently around 4.4 years old, most investors have likely not yet crossed either trigger. This means your decision to exit now is not complicated by a looming performance-fee crystallisation event — a genuinely simpler exit calculation than many PMS structures.

Tax treatment: PMS investments are taxed at the stock level, not at the fund level, because you directly hold the underlying shares in your own Demat account. Each stock sale within the portfolio is taxed individually — short-term capital gains apply to shares held under 12 months, and long-term capital gains apply beyond that. If you exit the strategy entirely, the portfolio manager’s liquidation of your holdings will trigger capital gains based on your actual purchase price and holding period for each stock, combined with your other investments for tax computation purposes.

Staggered exit strategy: Given the strategy’s 56% small-cap weight, consider a staggered exit over two to three months rather than a single redemption request, particularly if overall market liquidity is thin at the time. This reduces the risk of exiting into unfavourable pricing on less liquid small-cap positions and allows the portfolio manager the orderly liquidation window — typically 7 business days per tranche — without forcing concentrated selling into a single window.

Timing note: There is no tactically “right” month to exit a PMS. What matters is whether your decision reflects a considered reassessment of fit, as this review has tried to lay out, rather than a reaction to the most recent month’s number alone. The 1-month and 3-month figures in this review were both positive even as the 1-year and 3-year figures were negative — a reminder that any single short window, in either direction, can mislead you if you let it.

Key Takeaways

1. BCAD2 Breakout 20 has shown negative alpha against the S&P BSE 500 TRI on 6-month, 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year trailing windows — a consistent, multi-period pattern.
2. The since-inception alpha of +0.26% is real but fragile — it is built almost entirely on one exceptional year, FY24 (+38.20%), with every subsequent year delivering materially weaker results.
3. The 2.00% fixed fee is a meaningful drag — an estimated ₹7.4 lakh over 5 years and ₹12.5 lakh over 7 years on a ₹50 lakh corpus, isolating the fee cost alone.
4. Projected forward at recent trends, a low-cost index fund alternative is estimated to outpace this strategy’s net corpus by roughly ₹15.8 lakh over 5 years and ₹27.3 lakh over 7 years.
5. The strategy is genuinely differentiated at the market-cap level — 56% small-cap, 18% mid-cap — offering real access mutual funds cannot always replicate, even though that access has not yet translated into superior net returns.
6. At just over 4 years old, the strategy has not yet completed its own recommended 5-year minimum holding period, and its 5-year trailing return data does not yet exist.
7. There is no exit load at any point, and the performance fee has likely not yet triggered for most investors, making this a genuinely clean and uncomplicated exit if you choose it.
8. The decision in front of you is not about whether the consolidation thesis is sound — the data suggests it is. It is about whether this specific structure, at this specific fee, with this specific recent track record, is still the best use of this capital today.

FAQ Section

Q1. Is Unifi BCAD2 Breakout 20 PMS good or bad?

Based on the disclosed data, the strategy has shown negative alpha over its benchmark on 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year trailing windows, with a since-inception alpha close to flat once your account for the outsized contribution of a single strong year. It has not been a clearly successful strategy on a multi-year basis to date.

Q2. What is the minimum investment for Unifi Capital PMS?

The minimum investment for BCAD2 Breakout 20 is ₹50,00,000, in line with SEBI’s regulatory minimum for portfolio management services.

Q3. What are Unifi Capital BCAD2 Breakout 20 PMS fees?

The strategy charges a 2.00% fixed annual management fee, with a performance fee that is charged at the end of 5 years or upon the strategy achieving a 200% absolute return, whichever occurs first. There is no exit load at any point.

Q4. How has BCAD2 Breakout 20 PMS performed compared to its benchmark?

Since inception (14 January 2022 to 31 May 2026), the strategy has delivered a 9.85% CAGR against the S&P BSE 500 TRI’s 9.59% CAGR — a marginal outperformance. However, the 3-year trailing return of 9.20% has trailed the benchmark’s 13.46% by a meaningful margin.

Q5. What is BCAD2 Breakout 20 PMS’s current AUM?

As of the most recent disclosure, the strategy manages approximately ₹1,944.74 crore.

Q6. Is PMS good or bad compared to mutual funds for small-cap exposure?

PMS can offer genuine small-cap differentiation that mutual funds, with their regulatory diversification requirements, may not replicate as precisely. However, that differentiation only adds value if the manager’s stock selection translates into net, after-fee returns that exceed a comparable index fund or category-median small-cap mutual fund — which this strategy has not consistently done over its available track record.

Q7. How do I exit BCAD2 Breakout 20 PMS?

You can redeem your holdings by submitting a written redemption request to your Relationship Manager or branch office. There is no exit load at any holding period. The portfolio manager will initiate an orderly liquidation typically within 7 business days, with proceeds transferred to your registered bank account after applicable taxes and charges.

Q8. Why has BCAD2 Breakout 20 PMS underperformed recently?

Part of the recent underperformance likely reflects a broader small and mid-cap market correction during FY26, given the strategy’s 56% small-cap weight. However, the underperformance also follows a pattern where FY24’s exceptional 38.20% return has not been repeated, and the strategy has trailed its benchmark on 2-year and 3-year trailing bases independent of any single month’s volatility.

Q9. What sectors does Unifi BCAD2 Breakout 20 PMS invest in?

As per the most recent disclosed holdings, the Unifi BCAD2 Breakout 20 PMS portfolio is weighted toward Financials (26.5%), Healthcare (19.0%), Consumer (14.0%), KPO/BPO (6.5%), Automobiles (5.5%), Fee-based Financials (5.0%), Logistics (4.0%), Fertilizers & Chemicals (4.0%), Tech Product (3.5%), and IT/ITes (1.5%), with the remainder in cash and other holdings.

Q10. Who manages the BCAD2 Breakout 20 PMS?

Aejas Lakhani manages this Unifi BCAD2 Breakout 20 PMS strategy, with sector coverage across consumption, pharmaceuticals, logistics, retail, and capital markets, and has been the fund manager since the strategy’s inception in January 2022.

Our Approach

We do recommend PMS strategies to clients where the data supports it.

This is not one of them, for the reasons laid out above.

Our process is straightforward: we map what you already own, evaluate any PMS — this one or another — against your existing mutual fund portfolio as a CFP would, and tell you plainly whether it complements your core holdings or simply duplicates them.

If you would like a complimentary portfolio review to see exactly how this PMS, or any PMS you are considering, sits against your existing mutual fund investments, we are glad to walk through it with you.