MIN is meaningless

It seems that government agencies work mindlessly. Check out this news about introduction of MIN (Mutual Fund Identification Number).

Investors putting in 50,000 rupees or more in a mutual fund from Jan. 1, 2007 will have to provide a mutual fund identification number (MIN) or apply for one, the Association of Mutual Funds in India (AMFI) said on Wednesday.

The idea of MIN is that "investors dont have to fill forms everytime they invest in various MF schemes and just quoting MIN is enough". On the first appearance it seems like a good step by AMFI to reduce paperwork and ease the investment process. Currently the MFs have to follow the Know Your Customer (KYC) norms which mandates them to ask for photographs, address proof and identification proof like passport or PAN. So the once a MIN is established, any investment in MF in any scheme can be done by just quoting MIN.

But I feel that it will just add more headache in allocating and maintaining the MINs. All investors usually provide a PAN number which is fast becoming synonymous with the social security number of developed countries (at least in terms of financial transactions). The PAN is obtained after proper identification of an individual after submission of photographs, residence proof and other such details. So I fail to understand what extra is achieved by introducing MIN. All major banking transactions need PAN number, any income tax details need PAN number, so I think all transactions can be cross-verified and checked using PAN alone. I feel that quoting a PAN number should be good enough to identify a person.