A Study on Performance Evaluation of Private Sector Mutual Fund Schemes

(1)

Vol. 28, No. 12, (2019), pp. 25-35

A Study on Performance Evaluation of Private Sector Mutual Fund Schemes

Nittan Arora1, Dr. Sonia Chawla2

1Resaerch Scholar, Department of Management, IKGPTU

2Associate Professor, Department of hum. & Management, NIT, Jalandhar

Abstract

The present study attempts to evaluate the performance of top 4 private sector mutual fund houses. The sample included a total of 20 growth schemes, 5 each from 4 private sector mutual funds. Benchmark/market index and risk free rate used for comparing the performance. Period of the study is from 2006-07 to 2018-19 i.e. 156 months. For analysis, monthly NAV of selected schemes taken along with monthly closing value of S&P BSE SENSEX, NIFTY 50 as market index and 91 days treasury bills taken as risk free return. Sharpe ratio, Treynor ratio and Jensen measure used for the purpose of risk return analysis. The findings of the study revealed that ICICI Prudential Saving Fund ranked 1st by Sharpe ratio, Nippon India Equity Hybrid Fund ranked 1st by Theynor Ratio, ICICI Prudential Value Discovery Fund ranked 1st by Jensen ratio, ICICI Prudential Value Discovery Fund ranked 1st by Beta. Out of selected 20 schemes 20, 13, 20, 13 schemes outperformed as compared to market index by Sharpe, Treynor, Jensen and Beta Ratios. Overall performance of selected schemes is satisfactory.

Keywords: Risk-Return Analysis, Performance, Sharpe, Treynor, Jensen, Beta.

1. Introduction

People generally want good return from investments but feeling unsecure while investing their money in the stock market. Most of the investors don’t have skills, time and knowledge to manage their money even they can’t predict the movement of stock market. Investment in one company is always risky so need to go for diversification i.e.

investment in different companies of different sectors at the same time. Diversification is one of tool to reduce risk. Mutual Fund is one of the good options for investment in such cases. Mutual funds also carry some sort of risks but it is diversified by expert fund managers and professionals by investing funds in different companies. Professional fund managers working on behalf of mutual funds and charge management fee for managing the money of investors. AMC (Asset Management Company) are the organisations who manage the investment. There are so many schemes available under the umbrella of mutual fund so according to the requirements, investors can pick the schemes. The Present study Seeks to evaluate the Performance of mutual funds in India. It tries to evaluate the performance of different schemes of mutual funds.

According to Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Regulations 1996,

“Mutual Fund means a fund established in the form of a trust to raise money through the sale of its units to the public or a section of the public under one or more schemes for investing in securities, including money market instruments.”

History of mutual fund in India

Mutual fund Industry Started in India with the initiative of the Government of India and Reserve Bank of India with the formation of Unit Trust of India in 1963. Mutual fund industry has observed four phases till now-

(2)

Vol. 28, No. 12, (2019), pp. 25-35

First Phase (1964-1987)

In 1963 Unit Trust of India (UTI) was established by an act of parliament and functioned under RBI (Reserve Bank of India).

Second Phase (1987-1993, Public Sector Funds Entry)

In 1987 non-UTI, public sector mutual funds came into existence by Public sector banks, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC) after the permission of Government of India. First non-UTI mutual fund was the SBI mutual fund (June 1987).

Third Phase (1993-2003, Entry of Private Sector Funds)

With the introduction of private sector funds in 1993, a new era was started and investors got a wide range of options in case of mutual fund schemes.. Kothari Pioneer (now merged with Franklin Templeton) was the first private sector mutual fund registered in July 1993.

Fourth Phase (since February 2003)

In February 2003, the UTI act was repealed and bifurcated into 2 entities UTI mutual fund and specified undertaking of the Unit Trust of India. Indian mutual fund industry has witnessed impressive growth with their number of schemes increased from 1 in 1964 to 2042 in 2019, with 43 players i.e. mutual fund companies in the market. The total AUM had also increased from Rs. 24.67 crore in March 1965 to Rs. 25,60,423 crore in September, 2019.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Treynor (1965) discussed both market influence on portfolio returns and investors’

aversion to risk. He used to relate the rate of return of a fund to rate of return of a suitable market average on a characteristics line, graphically. Investment risk was taken into consideration while composing the mutual fund performance measure. By incorporating various concepts, he developed a single line index, Tn, called Treynor index.

Symbolically:

Tn = (ARp –Rf)/βp

ARp = average return on portfolio n, Rf = riskless rate of interest/return

βp = beta value of portfolio n

His index measured the risk premium of the portfolio, where risk premium equals to the difference between the return of the portfolio and riskless rate. The risk premium was related to the amount of systematic risk assumed in the portfolio, higher the value of Tn, the better performance of the fund.

Sharpe (1966) examined the average annual returns of 34 mutual funds for the period 1944 to 1963. He tried to predict the future performance of the funds on the basis of past performance and ranked the sample of mutual funds over two periods i.e. from 1944-53 &

1954-63. Actual return and standard deviation was applied to predict the performance of funds. Sharpe found a significant average degree of positive relationship between the rank of funds as r =.360 and direct relation between risk & return. Good performance of the fund was based upon fewer expenses ratio but not upon the fund size. Funds kept relatively constant risk level. Average reward to variability ratio of the sample was .633 which was less than from Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) as .667. Sharpe developed a composite measure of risk and returns as the reward to variability which defines higher the ratio, higher the performance.

(3)

Vol. 28, No. 12, (2019), pp. 25-35

Symbolically:

St = (ARpt – Rf)/ t

ARpt = average return on portfolio t.

Rf = riskless rate of interest/return t = Standard deviation of return on portfolio t

Jensen (1968) developed a composite portfolio evaluation technique to measure the absolute performance of funds on the risk-adjusted basis. The study was focused on knowing manager's ability to predict future prices. 115 open ended mutual fund were studied from 1945-1964. Net asset value and dividend were taken for analysis. 20 years complete data were available for 56 schemes only and 10 years data available of all 115 schemes. Codes were denoted according to the scheme like 0-Growth, 1-Income, 2- Balanced, 3-Growth-Income and 4-Income-growth. Results indicated that 39 funds had positive alpha and 76 had negative alpha if net return is taken into consideration. 48 funds gave positive alpha and 67 funds gave negative alpha if the gross return is taken into consideration. Average beta of 0.840 defined less volatility of funds as compared to the market. The study concluded that prediction ability of fund managers was poor and found little evidence about individual funds to perform better than expected return.

Reddy and Patkar (2005) evaluated the mutual fund performance and identified whether returns are better as compare to benchmark or not. 9 mutual fund schemes of SBI and CANBK had been taken for evaluation. 5 mutual funds taken which had less than 50 crore corpus (3 SBI, 2 CANBK) and 4 had more than 50 crore corpus (3SBI, 1 CANBK).

Weekly NAV had been taken from 1998 to 2001. Return of portfolios was compared to BSE Sensitive index. Sharpe, Treynor and Jensen ratios were applied to evaluate the performance of mutual funds. Magnum sector pharma mutual fund outperformed out of 5 funds and Magnum multiplier plus outperformed out of 4 funds. Canexpro was the only fund which had positive alpha. Overall performance of all the schemes was underperformed as compared to benchmark.

Walia and Kiran (2009) studied 4 mutual fund schemes for analysis risk level, compared the performance of selected schemes and investment style. Equity growth, balanced growth and income growth schemes were taken for analysis. Beta, Fama, Sharpe and Treynor ratios were applied to give the rank to various schemes. Sharpe, Treynor gave the same result but positive only in case of income growth schemes. ICICI Prudential Income fund was most volatile fund with beta of 11.85. UTI performed weakly as per Fama results in all cases. Different investment style were opted by different fund managers and updated managers were able to earn extra returns than the expected.

Kumar (2011) examined the fund sensitivity and performance appraisal of selected 20 schemes of 5 mutual fund companies. 13 schemes were from equity, 4 from debt and 3 from the balanced category. Monthly NAV used to compare the performance of selected schemes with BSE 100 Index. Period of the study was 10 years from January 2000 to December 2009. Average return, Beta, R2, Sharpe, Treynor and Jensen ratios were applied for data analysis. The average return showed 5 schemes of equity only performed well. 5 schemes were in the category II low-risk high return and 15 were in the category I low risk low return under the risk-return grid.

Bantwa and Krunal (2012) evaluated the performance of 20 selected Equity schemes with various techniques like portfolio return, Sharpe, Treynor, Jensen, Fama, diversification (R2), systematic risk (Beta) and unique risk. Monthly NAV was used from June 2007 to May 2012 for analysing the data. Sharpe and Treynor had .99 correlations for the selected schemes. 11 schemes out of 20 had positive results. UTI MNC fund in case of Sharpe & ING dividend yield fund in case of Treynor ratios outperformed. 11 schemes had beta more than 1: showed more volatility. The correlation was .79 between

(4)

Vol. 28, No. 12, (2019), pp. 25-35

return & risk in case of schemes having a return greater than 7% and .23 in case of return less than 7%. Jensen & portfolio return had .89 and Fama & portfolio return had .98 correlations.

Hemadivya (2012) studied the performance of mutual fund schemes with various techniques: variance, return, Standard Deviation, Beta, Sharpe, Treynor, Jensen, diversification and selectivity. Period of the study was 2 years i.e. 2009 and 2010. 4 different category schemes (liquid fund, bond fund, balanced fund, monthly Income fund) of 5 companies were taken for analysis. Liquid fund performed well in both the years and the best scheme was HDFC liquid fund. Bond fund performed poor in 2009 and well in 2010. Balanced fund over performed in the year 2009 and underperformed in 2010.

Monthly income fund performed below average. Study concluded that overall HDFC funds perform better as compared to other funds. Inadequate diversification and poor stock selection were the reasons for poor performance of some of the selected schemes.

Zaheeruddin et al (2013) evaluated the performance of mutual funds with the return, beta and standard deviation. He compared the performance of 3 private sector mutual funds scheme with S & P CNX Nifty index and ranking those funds on the basis of Sharpe, Treynor and Jenson ratios. NAV was taken on the quarterly basis for analysis.

Null Hypothesis was set as performance ratios enable the investors to choose the benchmark companies. ICICI equity fund was best performer fund out of 3 selected mutual funds as the average return was higher and the standard deviation was low as compared to other funds. Sharpe, Treynor and Jenson gave the same ranking to the selected funds. Null Hypothesis was accepted and study concluded at the last that evaluator can easily assess the performance by using financial ratios.

Gandhi and Perumal (2015) compared the performance of selected mutual fund schemes and ranked them. 2 private (HDFC, ICICI) and 2 (SBI, Canara) public sector mutual fund schemes of Equity diversified & Equity mid-cap were taken under study. Beta, Alpha, Standard Deviation, Sharpe, Treynor and Information ratios were applied for evaluation.

Canara Robeco Equity diversified (Equity-Diversified) and HDFC Capital Builder (mid- cap) schemes ranked 1 by Sharpe, Treynor, Jensen and Information Ratio. ICICI Prudential growth scheme had the highest beta .888 i.e. aggressiveness and SBI magnum equity fund had highest standard deviation 3.177 i.e. riskiness.

Raju et al (2015) evaluated performance of equity based mutual fund schemes. Daily NAV was taken from January 2012 to December 2014 for comparing the performance of selected funds with BSE 100 index. Techniques like Return, Standard Deviation, Beta, Sharpe, Treynor and Jensen ratios were applied to evaluate the performance. Franklin Asian equity fund had least standard deviation and Axis Equity had least Beta i.e. 0.04%.

Reliance Equity Opportunities fund had the highest return of 48.73% as compared to benchmark 28.32%. Sharpe and Treynor ratios gave rank 1 to Axis Equity fund and Jensen gave rank 1 to Reliance Equity Opportunities fund.

SCOPE OF STUDY

The present study aims at tracking performance evaluation of Top 4 private sector mutual fund houses. Only open ended schemes are taken for the study and those schemes, which have completed 12 years of operation as on 1st April 2019 will be considered for the purpose of study. Performance evaluation will be carried out on the basis of one dimension i.e. financial. In financial dimension, return of schemes would be compared with the return of benchmark index.

3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The study aims at gaining insight into the financial performance evaluation of mutual fund schemes.

(5)

Vol. 28, No. 12, (2019), pp. 25-35

 To analyze the performance of the selected private sector mutual fund’s scheme in terms of risk and return relationship by using Sharpe, Treynor and Jensen ratio.

 To ranking the selected mutual fund schemes on the basis of Sharpe, Treynor, Jensen ratio and Beta.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design- In this study, descriptive research design is applied.

Sampling Design- Sampling design describes the way of selecting the sample for the study.

Multistage sampling is applied for selecting the sample. In first stage, top 4 private sector mutual fund is selected on the basis of highest AUM. These 4 top private sector mutual funds have 732 schemes. In second stage, 5 schemes from each fund selected on the basis of highest AUM in respective fund and having a life of more than 13 years.

Total AUM of mutual fund industry is 25,60,423 crore. Selected 4 private sector mutual fund companies having AUM is 11,76,366 crore i.e. 46% of total AUM. Further selected 20 schemes of these 4 companies having total AUM of 504976 crore i.e. 20% of total AUM of industry.

Tools of analysis – Techniques used for analysis such as Sharpe Ratio, Treynor ratio and Jensen Ratio, Beta

Time of study- Time Period for the study will be from 2006-07 to 2018-19. The benchmark of the study will be Nifty Index and S&P BSE Sensex.

Sources of data

For the purpose of the study secondary data is used. Monthly NAV of selected schemes will be collected from AMFI, SEBI and various company websites to compare the performance of selected funds with various benchmarks.

Classification of selected mutual fund schemes- Table 1.1

Sr. No Scheme Name AUM Date of Inception

1 HDFC Liquid Fund 89850 17-Oct-2000

2 HDFC Balance Advantage Fund 42312 1-Feb-1994

93 HDFC Equity Fund 22490 1-Jan-95

4 HDFC Top 100 Fund 17613 11-Oct-96

5 HDFC Hybrid Equity Growth Fund 21076 6-Apr-05

6 ICICI Prudential Liquid Fund 57906 17-Nov-05

7 ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund 27955 30-Dec-06

8 ICICI Prudential Equity & Debt Fund 23486 3-Nov-99

9 ICICI Prudential Saving Fund 19022 27-Sep-02

10 ICICI Prudential Value Discovery Fund 15218 16-Aug-04

11 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Liquid Fund 46653 31-Mar-04

12 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Frontline Equity Fund 20692 30-Aug-02 13 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Corporate Bond Fund 16604 3-Mar-97

14 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Savings Fund 14739 17-Apr-03

15 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Equity Hybrid 95 Fund 11673 10-Feb-95

(6)

Vol. 28, No. 12, (2019), pp. 25-35

16 Nippon India Liquid Fund 21996 9-Dec-03

17 Nippon India Multi cap Fund 10020 29-Mar-05

18 Nippon India Tax Saver Fund 9826 21-Sep-05

19 Nippon India Equity Hybrid Fund 9352 8-Jun-05

20 Nippon India Growth Fund 6493 8-Oct-95

5. Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table 1.2- Sharpe Ratio of Various Open End Mutual Fund Schemes

Sr. No Scheme Name Sharpe Ratio Ranking

1 ICICI Prudential Saving Fund 0.911

1

2 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Savings Fund 0.849

2

3 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Liquid Fund 0.708

3

4 ICICI Prudential Liquid Fund 0.701

4

5 Nippon India Liquid Fund 0.599

5 6 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Corporate Bond Fund 0.579

6

7 HDFC Liquid Fund 0.573

7 8 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Frontline Equity Fund 0.338

8

9 Nippon India Equity Hybrid Fund 0.336

9 10 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Equity Hybrid 95 Fund 0.314

10

11 HDFC Top 100 Fund 0.310

11

12 ICICI Prudential Equity & Debt Fund 0.302

12

13 HDFC Equity Fund 0.300

13

14 Nippon India Multi cap Fund 0.294

14 15 HDFC Balance Advantage Fund

0.291 15

16 ICICI Prudential Value Discovery Fund 0.281

16

17 Nippon India Growth Fund 0.275

17 18 ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund 0.258

18

19 Nippon India Tax Saver Fund 0.251

19

20 HDFC Hybrid Equity Growth Fund 0.190

20 Interpretation: The table 1.2 reflects the Sharpe’s value for the selected open ended schemes of selected companies during 2006 to 2019. All schemes have positive Sharpe value which depicts the good performance of open end schemes in the market. As per Sharpe, ICICI Prudential Saving Fund has highest positive values which rank 1st, ADITYA Birla Sun Life Savings Fund rank second where as HDFC Hybrid Equity Growth Fund rank 20th because of least sharpe.

(7)

Vol. 28, No. 12, (2019), pp. 25-35

Table 1.3- Treynor Ratio of Various Open End Mutual Fund Schemes

Sr. No Scheme Name Treynor Ratio Ranking

1 2 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Frontline Equity Fund

0.088 2

3 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Equity Hybrid 95 Fund 0.083

3

4 ICICI Prudential Equity & Debt Fund 0.082

4

5

6

7

8 ICICI Prudential Value Discovery Fund 0.077

0.077 9

10

11 12 ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund

0.070 12

13

14 HDFC Liquid Fund -0.196

14

15 Nippon India Liquid Fund -0.216

15

16 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Liquid Fund -0.243

16

17 ICICI Prudential Liquid Fund -0.247

17 18 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Corporate Bond Fund -0.310

18

19 ICICI Prudential Saving Fund -0.369

19

20 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Savings Fund -0.388

20 Interpretation: The table 1.3 reflects the Treynor’s value for the selected open ended schemes during 2006 to 2019. 13 schemes out of 20 schemes have positive Treynor ratio which depicts the good performance in the market. 7 schemes out 20 underperformed as compare to market index. As per Treynor, Nippon India Equity Hybrid Fund has highest positive values which rank 1st, ADITYA Birla Sun Life Frontline Equity Fund rank second where as ADITYA Birla Sun Life Savings Fund rank 20th because of highest negative Treynor value.

Table 1.4- Jensen Ratio of Various Open End Mutual Fund Schemes

Sr. No Scheme Name Jensen Ratio Ranking

1 ICICI Prudential Value Discovery Fund

0.318 1

2 Nippon India Multi cap Fund

0.254 2

3 HDFC Equity Fund

0.227 3

4 Nippon India Growth Fund

0.222 4

5 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Frontline Equity Fund

0.191 5

6 HDFC Top 100 Fund

0.190 6

7 Nippon India Tax Saver Fund

0.182 7

8 HDFC Balance Advantage Fund

0.181 8

(8)

Vol. 28, No. 12, (2019), pp. 25-35 9 HDFC Hybrid Equity Growth Fund

0.175 9

10 Nippon India Equity Hybrid Fund

0.162 10

11 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Equity Hybrid 95 Fund

0.151 11

12 ICICI Prudential Equity & Debt Fund

0.125 12

13 ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund

0.097 13

14 HDFC Liquid Fund

0.070 14

15 Nippon India Liquid Fund

0.070 15

16 ICICI Prudential Liquid Fund

0.070 16

17 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Liquid Fund

0.070 17

18 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Savings Fund

0.070 18

19 ICICI Prudential Saving Fund

0.070 19

20 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Corporate Bond Fund

0.069 20

Interpretation: The table 1.4 shows the Jensen’s value for the selected open ended schemes for the period 2006 to 2019. All schemes have positive Jensen value describing the outperformance of selected open end schemes in the market. As per Jesnen, ICICI Prudential Value Discovery Fund rank 1st, Nippon India Multi cap Fund rank 2nd where as ADITYA Birla Sun Life Corporate Bond Fund rank 20th because of least Jensen ratio.

Performance of all the schemes is satisfactory.

Table 1.3- Treynor Ratio of Various Open End Mutual Fund Schemes

Sr. No Scheme Name Beta Ranking

1.787 1

2

3

4

5

6

1.203 8

1.176 9

10 11 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Equity Hybrid 95 Fund 0.982

11 12 ICICI Prudential Equity & Debt Fund 0.816

12 13 ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund

0.619 13

14 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Savings Fund -0.032

14

15 ICICI Prudential Saving Fund -0.032

15

16 ICICI Prudential Liquid Fund -0.035

16

17 HDFC Liquid Fund -0.035

17

18 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Liquid Fund -0.035

18

19 Nippon India Liquid Fund -0.035

19

(9)

Vol. 28, No. 12, (2019), pp. 25-35 20 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Corporate Bond Fund

-0.0559 20

Interpretation: The table reflects the Beta value of the selected open ended schemes during 2006 to 2019. 13 schemes out of 20 have positive Beta describing high volatility of schemes as compare to market. 7 schemes out 20 have negative Beta describing less volatility as compare to market index. As per Beta, ICICI Prudential Value Discovery Fund has highest positive Beta which rank 1st, Nippon India Multi cap Fund rank second where as ADITYA Birla Sun Life Corporate Bond Fund rank 20th because of highest negative Beta value. Beta 1.787 in case of ICICI Prudential Value Discovery Fund projects a movement 1.787 times that of the market

Table 1.5 Ranking of funds by all the selected ratios Sr.

No

Scheme Name Sharpe

Ratio

Treynor Jensen Beta

1 HDFC Liquid Fund

7 14 14 17

2 HDFC Balance Advantage Fund

15 9 8 8

3 HDFC Equity Fund

13 6 3 5

4 HDFC Top 100 Fund

11 5 6 7

5 HDFC Hybrid Equity Growth Fund

20 13 9 3

6 ICICI Prudential Liquid Fund

4 17 16 16

7 ICICI Prudential Balanced Advantage Fund

18 12 13 13

8 ICICI Prudential Equity & Debt Fund

12 4 12 12

9 ICICI Prudential Saving Fund

1 19 19 15

16 8 1 1

11 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Liquid Fund

3 16 17 18

8 2 5 9

13 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Corporate Bond Fund

6 18 20 20

14 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Savings Fund

2 20 18 14

15 ADITYA Birla Sun Life Equity Hybrid 95 Fund

10 3 11 11

16 Nippon India Liquid Fund

5 15 15 19

17 Nippon India Multi cap Fund

14 7 2 2

18 Nippon India Tax Saver Fund

19 11 7 6

19 Nippon India Equity Hybrid Fund

9 1 10 10

20 Nippon India Growth Fund

17 10 4 4

Interpretation: Beta and Jensen ratios have highest correlation .91 describing similarity in ranking the funds. Sharpe and Jensen have highest negative correlation -.71 describing dissimilarity in ranking the funds

6. FINDINGS

 ICICI Prudential Saving Fund rank 1st and HDFC Hybrid Equity Growth Fund rank 20th by Sharpe ratio.

(10)

Vol. 28, No. 12, (2019), pp. 25-35

 Nippon India Equity Hybrid Fund has highest positive treynor ratio resulted rank 1st where as ADITYA Birla Sun Life Savings Fund has highest negative Treynor resulted rank 20th.

 ICICI Prudential Value Discovery Fund rank 1st and ADITYA Birla Sun Life Corporate Bond Fund rank 20th by Jensen ratio.

 ICICI Prudential Value Discovery Fund has highest positive Beta resulted rank 1st where as ADITYA Birla Sun Life Corporate Bond Fund has highest negative Beta resulted rank 20th.

 Beta and Jensen ratios have similarity in ranking the funds

7. CONCLUSION

Mutual fund has emerged as one of the important class of financial intermediaries which cater to the needs of the potential investors. From this research it is quite clear that the growth mutual fund schemes have lot of potential to give the high returns but the investor should be aware about schemes those are really operating and give high returns.

This research is helpful to analyze the private sector mutual fund Company’s performance by using Sharpe, Theynor, Jensen, Beta ratios. Overall all selected mutual fund companies have positive returns during 2006 to 2019. 13 schemes out of 20 outperformed in all aspect and 7 schemes average performer.

References

1. Treynor, J. L. (1965). How to rate management of investment funds. Harvard business review, 43(1), 63-75.

2. Sharpe, W. F. (1966). Mutual fund performance. The Journal of Business, 39(1), 119-138.

3. Jensen, M. C. (1968). The performance of mutual funds in the period 1945–

1964. The Journal of Finance, 23(2), 389-416.

4. Walia, N. (2009). Portfolio diversification and financial performance of mutual funds in India. IJCRB, 69.

5. Kumar, V. (2011). Performance evaluation of open ended schemes of mutual funds. Referred Journal of CMR College of Engineering & Technology, 27 6. Bantwa, A., & Bhuva, K. (2012). Performance evaluation of selected Indian

equity diversified mutual fund schemes: An empirical study. Global Journal of Research in Management, 2(2), 1.

7. HemaDivya, K. (2012). A comparative study on evaluation of selected mutual funds in India. International Journal of Marketing and Technology, 2(4), 238.

8. Zaheeruddin, M., Sivakumar, P., & Reddy, K. S. (2013). Performance evaluation of mutual funds in India with special reference to selected financial intermediaries. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 7(2), 34-40.

9. Gandhi, R. K., & Perumal, R. (2015). Mutual fund financial performance analysis-A comparative study on equity diversified schemes and equity mid- cap schemes. International.

10. Raju, J.K. & Manjunath, B.R. & Nagaraja, G.M. (2015). Performance evaluation of Indian equity mutul fund schemes.

(11)

Vol. 28, No. 12, (2019), pp. 25-35

WEBSITES

1. http://www.sebi.gov.in/

2. https://www.fundsindia.com

3. https://www.amfiindia.com/net-asset-value/nav-history 4. https://www.nipponindiamf.com/investor-services/nav 5. https://www.moneycontrol.com/mutual-funds

6. https://www.hdfcfund.com/nav-and-dividend/latest-navs-and-dividends 7. https://www.icicipruamc.com/ICICI-Prudential-Scheme-Current-NAVs.aspx 8. https://www.icicipruamc.com/ICICI-Prudential-Scheme-NAV-

Dividends.aspx?Fund=All

9. https://mutualfund.ADITYAbirlacapital.com/

10. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/india/treasury-bills-yield/treasury-bills-yield-91-days