performance of mutual fund

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 38 | Comments: 0 | Views: 413
of 16
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content


IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 19
http://www.mairec.org
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF INCOME SCHEMES OF
MUTUAL FUNDS IN INDIA - A PUBLIC PRIVATE COMPARISON
Sumninder Kaur Bawa*
Smiti Brar **

ABSTRACT
Using various statistical measures the present study aims to evaluating the performance of a
few selected income or debt mutual funds schemes of India on the basis of their daily NAV
recorded in the period starting on 1
st
April 2000 upto 31
st
March 2010. The paper also
compares the results of public sector sponsored schemes with that of private sector schemes.
Popularity of income schemes has only increased in the last decade. Income mutual funds
they have seen tremendous growth in their number of schemes from 91 on 31
st
march 2001 to
330 on 31
st
march 2010. 506 in 2008 was the maximum ever in terms of total schemes
floating in the market. This category has seen a decline only twice in the last decade. First
fall was posted in the year 2003 and the second fall was reported in the year 2010. One
striking fact which comes to light is the huge percentage contribution of income schemes
towards the total AUM of the Indian mutual funds industry. On the basis of the facts and
figures it can be easily concluded that looking at the parameter of average annual NAV and
its percentage growth rate, private sector leads the race. As per the data collected it can be
said that private sector mutual fund ICICI Prudential Income Fund (growth option) gave the
maximum return as compared to other schemes considered in the study. Another conclusion
which can be derived keeping in view the standard deviation is that public sector income
schemes are more unpredictable when it comes to assessing returns.
Keywords: Debt funds, Income Schemes, Mutual Funds, Performance Evaluation.




*Senior Lecturer, Department of Commerce & Business Management, Guru Nanak Dev
University, Amritsar, Punjab, India.
** Research Student, Department of Commerce & Business Management, Guru Nanak Dev
University
Amritsar, Punjab, India.
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 20
http://www.mairec.org
INTRODUCTION
Our society is full of wealth finders today who have idols like Donald Trump, Ratan Tata and
Bill Gates; people are desperate to join the Billionaire’s Club. Like these rich role models,
such wanting to be rich people anticipates to attain their supercilious financial objectives by
lynching their victory on a specific industry, product or idea. Other opportunists are seeing
their own finances grow by providing what appears to be a fast track to earning big bucks.
Choosing one of these ‘wealth building systems’ as they are known, requires a level of
commitment that is equal to starting a small business. That commitment can be financial, as
well as physical. One of these is the income schemes provided by mutual funds in India. They
require commitment of funds for a longer period of time and in return give limited but steady
returns in form of dividends. These are those mutual funds which are planned to bring into
being current income for its unit holders. Several kinds of equity-oriented funds also can have
income as their primary investment objective, such as utilities income funds and equity
income funds. All distributions from income funds are taxable in the year received by the
investors. These fund types seeks to primararily generate income and capital appreciation
upto a limited extent by investing in a diversified portfolio of debt and money market
securities. However, there can be no declaration that the income will be generated, regular or
otherwise, or the investment objectives of the Scheme will be achieved. The Scheme does not
providing any assured or guaranteed returns. Following tables predict the overall status of
income scheme mutual funds in India.

Chart -1 show the growth of income schemes of mutual funds in India in the period starting
from 1
st
April 2000 upto 31
st
march 2010. All the above figures are at the end of each
financial year within the study period.









IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 21
http://www.mairec.org
Chart – 1
Growth of income schemes in India in terms of no. of schemes

(As on 31
st
March) Source- www.amfi.com

The data is given in the form of no. of open ended schemes, no. of close ended schemes.
Number of open ended schemes has always been more than the no. of close ended schemes
except in the years starting from 2006 upto 2008. This was because in 2006 close ended
schemes saw a huge increase in their no. from 28 in 2005 to 112 in 2006; such an
amplification could not be matched by the open ended category. Where on 31
st
march 2001
the no. of open ended schemes were double the no. of close ended schemes, by the end of the
study on 31
st
march 2010 both the categories were just at a difference of 40 schemes. Coming
to the overall performance of income mutual funds they have seen tremendous growth in their
number of schemes from 91 on 31
st
march 2001 to 330 on 31
st
march 2010. 506 in 2008 was
the maximum ever in terms of total schemes floating in the market. This category has seen a
decline only twice in the last decade. First fall was posted in the year 2003 and the second fall
was reported in the year 2010.






Graph -2
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 22
http://www.mairec.org
Growth of income schemes in India in terms of AUM (Rs. Cr)
(As on 31
st
March)

Source- www.amfi.com
AUM of the open end category has always been much higher than the close ended types.
When on 31
st
March 2001 the AUM of open ended income schemes was Rs. 22769 crores,
the AUM of close ended income mutual funds was merely Rs. 6413 crores. At the end of the
study period on 31
st
march 2010 the AUM of close ended schemes was Rs. 213213 crores
less than that of open ended funds. The least AUM of close ended has been Rs 617 crores in
the year 2003 and in case of close ended the least AUM recorded was Rs. 22769 crores in the
year 2001. The open ended schemes have seen a fall in their AUM twice in the last decade in
2005 and 2006. Whereas on the other side open ended have seen a decline four times in the
years 2002, 2003, 2009 and 2010.





Chart - 3
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 23
http://www.mairec.org
Income schemes as % of total AUM of Indian Mutual Fund Industry
(As on 31
st
March)

Source- www.amfi.com
One striking fact which comes to light is the huge percentage contribution of income schemes
towards the total AUM of the Indian mutual funds industry. This after seeing the lowest level
of 26% in the year 2006 bounced back to 51 % on 31
st
March 2010 which was almost at par
with its value of 53% on 31
st
March 2001. This proves that income schemes are the most
popular in the Indian mutual funds industry.

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
The period of study selected is 2000-2010 because of the availability of the data. The
criterion for the scrutiny of Income Funds is their assets under management, net asset value,
returns, standard deviation and Sharpe’s ratio. Source of data is purely secondary in nature
which will include journals, websites and factsheets of the selected mutual funds. Income
schemes of those AMCs have been selected that have maintained highest levels of AUM
throughout the study period in their respective fields. Two schemes from public sector two
from private sector and one purely private have been studied.
Depending upon these criterion following five mutual funds are under scrutiny in this study:
1) ICICI Income Fund – PRIVATE SECTOR FUND
2) HDFC Income Fund – PRIVATE SECTOR FUND
3) Reliance Income Fund - PURELY PRIVATE SECTOR FUND
4) SBI Magnum Income Fund - PUBLIC SECTOR MUTUAL FUND
5) UTI Bond Fund - PUBLIC SECTOR MUTUAL FUND
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 24
http://www.mairec.org
The point to be noted here is that the AUM of all these five schemes has always ranged
between 40 – 50 % of the total AUM of the entire Indian mutual funds industry during all the
years of our study starting from 2000-01 up to 2009-2010. This makes the selection of these
schemes as representatives of public and private sector funds for the study more compelling.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Average Annual NAV
In table 1, features like, date of inception, minimum investment required, NAV of the
schemes in the beginning of the study and the end of the study. Three features which make
these schemes comparable are their fund type, options available and fund category. All the
mutual funds discussed in this study are debt oriented, open ended and have two options
available in them i.e. growth and dividend.

Table 1
D = dividend option G = growth option Source:
Key features of the selected schemes
www.mutualfundsindia.com


Annual Average NAVs
Table 2 gives an elaborate picture regarding the annual average NAVs of all the selected
income Schemes of mutual funds for the period starting from 1st April 2000 upto 31st March
2010 on 31st march of every financial year. Also mentioned are the percentage growth rates
in all the values, which is over and above the previous year’s value.
Scheme Name
Date Of
Inception
Min
Invest-
ment
(Rs.)
NAV in beginning of
study
D G
NAV at the end of
the study
D G
HDFC
Income Fund
Aug. 2000 5000 10.13 10.13 10.83 21.46
ICICI
Prudential
Income
J une 1998 5000 10.26 12.54 11.40 29.79
Reliance
Income Fund
Dec. 1997 5000 10.22 13.10 12.27 30.85
SBI Magnum
Income Plan
Nov. 1998 1000 10.41 11.94 10.52 22.42
UTI
Bond Fund
J une 1998 2000 12.55 12.55 11.23 26.58
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 25
http://www.mairec.org



Table – 2

Comparative table for Yearly Average NAV of the schemes
D = dividend option G = growth option (% growth =% growth over the previous year NAV)

Source: author’s own calculation
Year HDFC Income Fund ICICI Prudential Income Reliance Income Fund SBI Magnum Income Plan UTI Bond Fund
G
%
growth

D
%
growth
G
%
growth
D
%
growth
G
%
growth
D
%
growth
G
%
growth
D
%
growth
G
%
growth
D
%
growth
2000-
01
10.48 10.44 13.05 10.43 13.75 10.67
12.41

10.55

13.08

13.1

2001-
02
11.81 12.69 10.47 0.29 15.05 15.33 10.7 2.59 15.72 14.33 10.93 2.44 14.18 14.26 10.62 0.66 14.89 13.84 14.94 14.05
2002-
03
13.6 15.16 10.72 2.39 17.13 13.82 10.68 -0.19 17.82 13.36 10.81 -1.10 16.14 13.82 10.62 0.00 16.77 12.63 12.09 -19.08
2003-
04
15.28 12.35 10.87 1.40 19.1 11.50 10.73 0.47 19.82 11.22 11.24 3.98 17.95 11.21 10.45 -1.60 18.29 9.06 10.98 -9.18
2004-
05
15.61 2.16 10.42 -4.14 19.47 1.94 10.4 -3.08 20.6 3.94 10.7 -4.80 18.15 1.11 9.98 -4.50 18.74 2.46 10.5 -4.37
2005-
06
16.08 3.01 10.22 -1.92 20.14 3.44 10.37 -0.29 21.65 5.10 11.25 5.14 18.75 3.31 10.14 1.60 20.19 7.74 10.86 3.43
2006-
07
16.45 2.30 10.2 -0.20 21.06 4.57 10.47 0.96 22.67 4.71 11.78 4.71 19.42 3.57 10.2 0.59 21.22 5.10 10.89 0.28
2007-
08
17.44 6.02 10.41 2.06 22.76 8.07 10.7 2.20 24.5 8.07 12.89 9.42 20.5 5.56 10.26 0.59 22.66 6.79 11.06 1.56
2008-
09
18.70 7.22 10.47 0.58 25.33 11.29 11.06 3.36 26.97 10.08 12.61 -2.17 20.9 1.95 10.29 0.29 24.35 7.46 11.18 1.08
2009-
10
21.02 12.41
10.34 -1.24 29.94 18.20 11.8 6.69 30.33 12.46 12.71 0.79 21.87 4.64 10.38 0.87 26.01 6.82 11.31 1.16
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 26
http://www.mairec.org
The maximum average NAV recorded by a private sector income scheme mutual fund during
the study period was 30.33 by Reliance Income Fund (growth option) in the financial year
2009-2010. Whereas in case of public sector income schemes the highest average NAV of
26.02 recorded was by UTI Bond Fund (growth option) in the same year. In regards to the
percentage growth in the average NAV value over and above the previous year’s average
NAV private sector again leads by posting a growth rate of 18.20 % by ICICI Prudential
Income Fund (growth option) in 2009-2010. On the other side the maximum growth by a
public sector income scheme was by SBI Magnum Income Plan (growth option) at 14.26% in
the year 2001-2002. The average NAVs of dividend options of all the schemes under study
have ranged between 10 to 12 except in case of UTI Bond Fund ( public sector )which
touched the level of 14.94 in the year 2001-2002. The dividend options have not seen much
increase in their NAV because instead of reinvesting their profits they distribute them
amongst investors on regular basis. Despite the ups and downs of the market not a single
scheme’s growth option has seen a decline in its average NAV in the last decade. But
dividend options could not be left unaffected by the economic slowdowns. On the basis of
the above facts it can be easily concluded that looking at the parameter of average annual
NAV and its percentage growth private sector leads the race.

Total Return
In table-3 total return earned in the last decade ending on 31
st
march 2010 has been shown.
Table –3
G – growth option D – dividend option
*Introduced in Sept. 2000 Source: author’s own calculation
Comparative table for Total Return (%) since 1
st
April 2000 up to 31
st
March 2010
Above table shows the return earned by a person if the money stayed invested in a specific
scheme from 1
st
April 2000 upto 31
st
march 2010 except in case of HDFC Income Fund
which was launched on 20
th
September 2000. As per the values mentioned in the above table
it can be said that private sector mutual fund ICICI Prudential Income Fund (growth option)
gave the maximum return of 1.38% as compared to other schemes considered in the study.
UTI Bond fund (dividend option) a public sector income scheme was the only one to post a
negative return of -0.11%. HDFC Income Fund despite being a late entrant has performed
comparatively well. Growth option of SBI Income Plan is the only scheme which gave return
HDFC
Income Fund*
ICICI Pru
Income Plan
Reliance
Income Fund
SBI Magnum
Income Plan
UTI
Bond Fund
G D G D G D G D G D
1.12* 0.07* 1.38 0.11 1.35 0.20 0.88 0.01 1.12 -0.11
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 27
http://www.mairec.org
of less than 1%. On the basis of the total return of mutual funds in the last decade it can be
accomplished that private sector funds are ahead in giving composite returns to its investors.

Standard Deviation
Standard deviation refers to the level of variation of the data from its average.
Table – 4
Comparative table for Standard Deviations of fund returns
G – growth option D – dividend option (As on 31
st
March 2010)
*Introduced in Sept. 2000; Source: author’s own calculation
The highest standard deviation is of UTI Bond Fund (dividend option) at 18.74 which is
exceptionally high as compared to all its competitors. The least value of standard deviation
was recorded by Reliance Income fund (growth option) at 0.20. Amongst the private sector
income schemes the maximum standard deviation is of Reliance Income Fund (dividend
option) at 0.53, which is much below the maximum of a public sector income fund. For all
the selected income schemes one rule applies in case of standard deviation that its values for
dividend option are higher as compared to growth options. This means that returns posted by
dividend options are more versatile as compared to growth options. Another conclusion
which can be derived is that public sector income schemes are more unpredictable when it
comes to assessing returns.

Sharpe’s Ratio
Sharpe’s index is a ratio of returns generated by the fund over and above risk free rate of
return and the total risk related with it.

Table – 5
HDFC
Income Fund*
Comparative table for Sharpe’s ratios of the schemes
ICICI Pru
Income Plan
Reliance
Income Fund
SBI Magnum
Income Plan
UTI
Bond Fund
G D G D G D G D G D
0.21 0.34 0.25 0.46 0.20 0.53 0.22 0.46 0.22 18.74
HDFC
Income Fund*
ICICI Pru
Income Plan
Reliance
Income Fund
SBI Magnum
Income Plan
UTI
Bond Fund
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 28
http://www.mairec.org
G – growth option D – dividend option (As on 31
st
March
2010)
*Introduced in Sept. 2000; Source: author’s own
calculation
Income schemes of all the selected mutual funds are giving double digit negative Sharpe’s
ratios. A low and negative Sharpe’s ratio is a hint of a poorer risk accustomed result. The
most negative Sharpe’s ratio amongst all is that of Reliance Income Fund (growth option) at -
32.11 which means that this fund has been the most disabled in case of handling market as
well as fund related risk. The least negative value recorded was by UTI Bond Fund (dividend
option) at -0.32. Hence this scheme can be adjudged as the best in dealing with the risk
factor. Amongst the private players Reliance Income Fund (dividend option) is the best in
terms of Sharpe’s ratio (-12.19). And in case of public sector UTI Bond Fund is the best.
After comparing them all it can be concluded that public sector income schemes are the most
risk adjusted schemes.

Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
It is the year-over-year growth rate of a portfolio for a particular period of time. The time
period for which Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) is calculated may have seen
highs and lows in the economy i.e. periods of boom and recession. CAGR isn't the actual
return in reality but it's a make-believe number that explains the rate at which an
investment would have grown if it at all grew at a firm rate. CAGR can be taken as a tool to
find the smooth out the returns. This is evened out in the CAGR ratio and an overall effect of
the performance of an investment can be found.

Table - 6
G
Comparative Table of CAGR (%) of all the Income Schemes
D G D G D G D G D
-30.11 -18.64 -25.11 -14.10 -32.11 -12.19 -28.53 -14.11 -28.66 -0.32
HDFC
Income Fund*
ICICI Pru
Income Plan
Reliance
Income Fund
SBI Magnum
Income Plan
UTI
Bond Fund
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 29
http://www.mairec.org
G – growth option D – dividend option (As on 31
st
March
2010)
*Introduced in Sept. 2000; Source: author’s own calculation
Table -6 shows the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the selected Income
Schemes calculated on the basis of average annual return of the year 2000-2001 and 2009-
2010. It can be clearly seen that in terms of CAGR, ICICI Prudential Income fund growth
option has given the best results (8.66%). It means that the overall growth of the fund over
these 10 years, taking into account the impact of compounding, is 8.66%. On the other hand
the worst amongst the lot is UTI Bond Fund dividend option a public sector fund giving a
CAGR of -1.46%. Other private sector funds i.e. HDFC Income fund and Reliance Income
fund have also shown better results as compared to public sector Income funds. Hence
according to this parameter also public sector income schemes are lagging behind in both the
options dividend as well as growth.
Risk Adjusted CAGR
In simple words, risk adjusted Compound Annual Growth Rate computes the growth
achieved by a fund, assuming that it occurs at a steady rate with fixed levels of risks. The
basic principle behind using risk adjusted CAGR is that we cannot look at the probable profit
of any portfolio and merely rank them in terms of appeal. The rationale is that it's likely to
extract profits by doing extremely unintelligent things, such as taking on risky ventures
which have very minimal chances of changing into success stories.
Table –7
G
Comparative Table of Risk Adjusted CAGR (%) of the selected Income Scheme
G – growth option D – dividend option (As on 31
st
March 2010)
D G D G D G D G D
7.21 -0.10 8.66 1.24 8.23 1.76 5.83 -0.16 7.12 -1.46
HDFC
Income Fund*
ICICI Pru
Income Plan
Reliance
Income Fund
SBI Magnum
Income Plan
UTI
Bond Fund
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 30
http://www.mairec.org
*Introduced in Sept. 2000; Source: author’s own calculation
Table -7 shows the risk adjusted Compound Annual Growth Rate of the selected Income
schemes calculated on the basis of the daily NAV starting from 1
st
April 2000 upto 31
st

march 2010. The maximum compound annual growth rate achieved after considering the
risks factor is by ICICI Prudential Income scheme growth option (8.17%) which is a private
sector sponsored fund. As compared to this value the maximum from the public sector side is
of UTI Bond Fund at 6.87% (growth option). The worst least risk adjusted Compound
Annual Growth Rate is of UTI Bond Fund dividend option (-1.33%). Which means that
given the level of risks this fund undertook, it reduced the value of its portfolio by 1.33% in
the decade under consideration. Hence it can be summarized that under the parameter of risk
adjusted Compound Annual Growth Rate private sector income schemes are performing well
again as compared to their counterparts public sector sponsored.
Expense Ratio
Expense ratio is measure of what it costs an investment company to operate a mutual fund.
The maximum and the minimum expense ratio during the study period have also been
mentioned for better analysis of the results. The expense ratios of equity and debt funds
differ. In the table -8 average Expense Ratios of the selected income schemes have been
given on the basis of the data for the period starting from 1
st
April 2000 upto 31
st
March
2010.


Table –8
G – growth option D – dividend option (As on 31st March 2010)
Comparative Table of expense ratios (%) of the selected Income Schemes
G D G D G D G D G D
6.84 - 0.09 8.17 1.21 7.91 1.69 5.53 - 0.16 6.87 - 1.33
SCHEME
NAME
HDFC
Income
Fund*
ICICI Pru
Income Plan
Reliance
Income
Fund
SBI Magnum
Income Plan
UTI Bond
Fund
Average 1.78 1.77 1.44 1.58 1.32
Maximum 2.11 2.10 1.80 1.85 1.07
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 31
http://www.mairec.org
*Introduced on Sept.2000
The least expense ratio recorded by an income scheme during the study period of 10
years starting from 1
st
April 2000 is of Reliance Income Fund (private sector sponsored) at
0.73% which means that its operational expenses are very limited. HDFC Income Fund is
paying the maximum of 2.11% of its return on AUM. Average expense ratio is also
maximum of HDFC Income Fund at 1.78%. The least average is of UTI Bond Plan a public
sector fund at 1.32% which means that on an average in the study period it has incurred only
1.32% of it profits earned as its expenses for managing its this fund. Therefore it can be
summarized that public sector is better off in this case.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The present study is an attempt to analyze and compare the performance of a few selected
public sector and private sector income schemes on the basis of their NAVs and returns
recorded for the period of ten years starting from 1st April 2000 up to 31st March 2010. The
evidences have clearly revealed the following:
1. In income schemes close ended schemes are almost at par with open ended types.
They have seen tremendous growth in their number of schemes from 91 on 31
st
march
2001 to 330 on 31
st
march 2010.
2. Double digit contribution of the income schemes towards the total AUM of the Indian
mutual fund industry shows the high level of acceptance of this scheme by the mutual
fund investors.
3. The highest average NAV recorded by a private sector income scheme mutual fund
during the study period was 30.33 by Reliance Income Fund (growth option) in the
financial year 2009-2010. While in case of public sector income schemes the highest
average NAV of 26.02 recorded was by UTI Bond Fund (growth option) in the same
year. This shows that there is not much scope of growth in this sector in terms of
NAV.
4. On the basis of the total return of mutual funds in the last decade it can be concluded
that private sector funds are at the forefront in providing composite returns to its
investors.
Minimum 1.40 1.58 0.73 1.18 1.31
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 32
http://www.mairec.org
5. Another conclusion which can be derived is it is more difficult to assess the returns of
a public sector scheme.
6. After comparing the Sharpe’s ratio of all the selected schemes it can be concluded
that public sector income schemes are the most risk attuned schemes.
7. In the end on the basis of the study the examined income schemes can be adjudged
slight evidently. Reliance Income fund which has given best results in case of
maximum parameters can be said to be better than the others. The income fund which
has given negative results in maximum number of parameters belongs to SBI income
fund and HDFC income fund. Average performer amongst the lot is UTI Bond Fund
and ICICI fund.
8. It can be clearly seen in the study that in terms of CAGR, private sector has given the
best results (8.66% by ICICI Prudential Income fund growth option.).
9. It can also be concluded that under the parameter of risk adjusted Compound Annual
Growth Rate private sector income schemes are performing well again as compared
to their counterparts public sector sponsored.
10. The minimum expense ratio achieved by an income scheme during the study period
of 10 years starting from 1
st
April 2000 was of Reliance Income Fund (private sector
sponsored) at 0.73%.



REFERENCES
1. Andrews. J oshy (2007), “A Study on the growing Mutual Funds Industry In India with
Special Reference to Equity Mutual Funds” The Management accountant, February
2007, p.p. 151-155.
2. Busse. A. J effery (2001), “Another Look at Mutual Fund Tournaments”, Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis”, Volume 36, No. 1. March 2001, p.p. 53-73.
3. Canner. Niko, Mankiw.N.Gregory and Weil.N.David (1994), “The Asset Allocation
Puzzle”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. W4857,
September 1994.
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 33
http://www.mairec.org
4. Carhart. Mark. M (1997) “On persistence in Mutual Funds Performance”, The Journal
of Finance, March 1997, Volume LII, No. 1, p.p.57-82.
5. Daniel. Kent, Grinblatt. Mart, Titman. Sheridman and Wermers. Russ (1997),
“Measuring Mutual Funds Performance with Characteristic – Based Benchmarks”, The
Journal of Finance, J uly 1997, Volume LII, No 3, p.p.1035-1058.
6. Dutta. Dipanwati (2009) “A Revisit In To Recent Surge in Indian Mutual Funds
Industry”, Indian Economic Panorama, J anuary 2009, Volume 18 No. 4, p.p. 8-11.
7. Elango. R (2004), “Which Funds Yields More Return?”, The Management Accountant,
April 2004, p.p. 283-290.
8. Eling. Martin (2008), “Does The Measure Matter In The Mutual Funds Industry?”,
Financial Analysts Journal, May / J une 2008, Volume 64, No.3, p.p. 54-66.
9. Ghosh. Arindham (2008) “”, Financial Planning Journal, April – J une 2008, p.p. 73 –
74.
10. Grinblatt. Mark and Titman. Sheridman (1993), “Performance Measurement without
Benchmarks – An Examination of Mutual Funds”, Journal of Business, 1993, Volume
66, No.1, p.p. 47- 71.
11. Hwang. S. and Satchell. S. (1998), "Evaluation of Mutual Fund Performance in
Emerging
12. Markets", Emerging Markets Quarterly, Volume 2, No.3, p.p. 39-52.

13. J aydev. M, (1996), `Mutual Fund Performance: An Analysis of Monthly Returns’,
Finance India, Vol. X, No.1, (March), pp.73-84.
14. J ensen. M.C. (1968), “The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964”,
Journal of Finance, Volume23, p.p. 389-416.
15. Kaur. Harshdeep (2005), “Mutual Funds – An Emerging Investment Instrument in
Capital Market”, Punjab Journal of Business Studies, Volume 1, No.1, April-
September 2005, p.p. 135-143.
16. Malkiel. G. Burton, (1995), “Returns From Investing In Equity Mutual Funds 1971-
1991”,
17. The Journal of Finance, Volume L , No. 2, J une 1995, p.p. 549-572.
IJRFM Volume 1, Issue 8 (December 2011) (ISSN 2231-5985)

International J ournal of Research in Finance & Marketing 34
http://www.mairec.org
18. Mittal. Sanjiv and Gupta. Sunil (2008) “Preference and Patter of Investment in Mutual
Fund”, Journal of Management Studies”, Volume 2, No.2, October 2007 – March 2008,
p.p. 25-30.
19. Mutual Funds Year Book 2010 by Value Research
20. Noronha. M.R. (2007), “Performance Evaluation of Equity Based Mutual Funds: A
Case Study of Three Asset Management Companies in India”, The Management
Accountant, Volume-42, J uly 2007, No. 7, p.p. 527-534.
21. Pashricha.S.J and J ain.Shallu (2005), “Performance Evaluation of Mutual Funds”,
Punjab Journal of Business Studies, Volume 1, No. 1, April-September 2005, p.p. 102-
111.
22. Sharpe. W. F. 1966, “Mutual Fund Performance”, Journal of Business, Volume
XXXIX, Part - 2 J anuary, p.p.119-138.
23. Shukla. Sharad (1992) “ Mutual Funds: Past Performance is No Indicator of the
Future”, Economic Times, J une 6, 1992.
24. Singh. J aspal (2006) “Mutual Funds Growth Performance & Prospects” Deep And
Deep Publications , New Delhi.
25. Treynor. J . L. (1965), “How to Rate Management of Investment Funds”, Harvard
Business Review, J anuary - February, 1965, p.p. 63-75.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close