IRJC

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review

Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

A STUDY ON PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF PUBLIC & PRIVATE

SECTOR MUTUAL FUNDS IN INDIA
MRS. P ALEKHYA*

*Assistant Professor,
Department of MBA,
CMR College of Engineering and Technology,
Hyderabad.

ABSTRACT

Mutual fund provides a readymade option to households for portfolio diversification as well as
relative risk aversion through collecting and investing their savings in different risk-return profile
instruments. Its performance depends on the performance of underlying portfolio. If one or more
schemes perform badly in the portfolio, that can effect or hurt the investment decisions of
investors and may get them out from the scenario of wealth creation process. For saving
investors’ money from such a hazard, it becomes necessary to evaluate the performance of
mutual fund portfolio so that investors can take/judge their investment decisions rationally. This
evaluation would help in checking the prime idea of “putting all eggs in different baskets”
behind mutual funds and guessing that how far this idea is doing well for investors. Therefore,
our study has attempted to evaluate the comparative performance of public and private sector
mutual fund schemes t he Indian Mutual fund Industry has witnessed a structural transformation
during the past few years. Therefore it becomes important to examine the performance of the
mutual fund in the changed environment. This paper has evaluated the performance of Indian
Mutual fund equity scheme of 3 years past data from 2009 to 2011.To examine the funds
sensitivity to the market fluctuations in terms of beta. To appraise investment performance of
mutual funds with risk adjustment the theoretical parameters as suggested by Sharpe, Treynor
and Jensen. To rank the funds according to Sharpes, Treynors and Jensons performance measure.

KEYWORDS: mutual fund Performance, investment, risk-return Treynor Ratio, sharpe Ratio.
______________________________________________________________________________

www.indianresearchjournals.com
INTRODUCTION

The financial system comprises of financial institutions, instruments and markets that provide an
effective payment and credit system that facility the channeling of funds from savers to the
investors of the economy. Indian Mutual Funds have emerged as strong financial stability to the
financial system. Mutual Funds have opened new vistas to investors and imported much needed
liquidity to the system.

Mutual Funds are dynamic financial institutions, which play a crucial role in an economy
by mobilizing savings and investing in the capital markets savings and the investing in the
capital markets. Therefore, the activities of Mutual Funds have both short and long term impact
on the savings and capital market and national economy.
147
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

Mutual Funds provide households an option for portfolio diversification and relative risk
aversion through collection of funds from the households and makes investments in the stock and
the debt market.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Barua and Verma (1991) provided empirical evidence of equity mutual fund performance in
India. They studied the investment performance of India’s first 7year close-end equity mutual
fund, Master share. They found that the fund performed satisfactory for large investor in terms of
rate of return. Ippolito (1992) expressed that fund/scheme selection by investors is based on past
performance of the funds and money flows into winning funds more rapidly than they flow out
of losing funds. Sarkar and Majumdar (1995) evaluated financial performance of five close-
ended growth funds for the period February 1991 to August 1993, concluded that the
performance was below average in terms of alpha values (all negative and statistically not
significant) and funds possessed high risk.

Jaydev (1996) evaluated performance of two schemes during the period, June 1992 to March
1994 in terms of returns / benchmark comparison, diversification, selectivity and market timing
skills. He concluded that the schemes failed to perform better than the market portfolio (ET’s
ordinary share price index). Gupta and Sehgal (1997) evaluated mutual fund performance over a
four year period, 1992-96. The sample consisted of 80 mutual fund schemes. They concluded
that mutual fund industry performed well during the period of study. The performance was
evaluated in terms of benchmark comparison, performance from one period to the next and their
risk-return characteristics.

Mishra (2001) evaluated performance over a period, April 1992 to December 1996. The sample
size was 24 public sector sponsored mutual funds. The performance was evaluated in terms of
rate of return, Treynor, Sharpe and Jensen measures of performance. The study concluded dismal
performance of PSU mutual funds in India, in general, during the period, 1992-96.

Zakri Y.Bello (2005) matched a sample of socially responsible stock mutual funds matched to
randomly selected conventional funds of similar net assets to investigate differences in
characteristics of assets held, degree of portfolio diversification and variable effects of
diversification on investment performance. The study found that socially responsible funds do
www.indianresearchjournals.com
not differ significantly from conventional funds in terms of any of these attributes. Moreover, the
effect of diversification on investment performance is not different between the two groups. Both
groups underperformed the Domini 400 Social Index and S & P 500 during the study period.

Mayank V. Bhatt and Chetan C. Patel (2008) studied the performance comparison of different
mutual funds schemes in India through Sharpe index model and concluded that mutual funds are
the most popular and safe parameter for an investor to invest.

Kavita Chavali and Shefali Jain (2009) evaluated the performance of equity linked savings
schemes and concluded that the fund chosen by the investor should match the risk appetite of the
investor. Narayan Rao and M. Ravindran evaluated performance of Indian mutual funds in a bear
market through relative performance index, risk-return analysis, Treynor ratio, Sharpe ratio,
148
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

Jensen measure, and Fama’s measure. The results of performance measures suggested that most
of mutual fund schemes in the sample of 58 were able to satisfy investor’s expectations by giving
excess returns over expected returns based on both premium for systematic risk and total risk.
Mutual Fund as an investment vehicle is capturing the attention of various segments of the
society, like academicians, industrialists, financial intermediaries, investors and regulators.

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The specific objectives of the study are as follows

 To analyze the trends in returns of selected mutual funds.

 To evaluate the performance of selected Public and Private sector Mutual Funds.

 To evaluate the performance of selected mutual funds by using Sharpe, Treynor and Jensen

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

SOURCE OF DATA

The data can be collected from Secondary Sources. The data was collected from Past Records,
Books, Journals, Magazines, Internet and all other types of published data.

STATISTICAL TOOLS

The simple statistical techniques like percentages and growth rates are calculated. For the
purpose of evaluation the popular methods such as Sharpe, Treynor and Jensen are applied.

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

MEASURING MUTUAL FUNDS RETURN

In order to determine the risk adjusted returns of investing portfolio, several eminent authors
have worked since 1960’s to develop composite performance indices to evaluate a portfolio by
comparing alternative portfolio within a particular risk class. The most important and widely
www.indianresearchjournals.com
used measures of performance of Mutual Funds are:

The one period rate of return, r, for a mutual fund may then be defined as the change in the per
unit net asset value (NAV), plus it’s per unit cash disbursements (D) and per unit capital gains
disbursements (C) such as bonus shares, it may be calculated as.

Rap= (NAVt-NAVt-1) + DT + C

NAVt-1
149
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

Were

NAVt = NAV per unit at the end of the holding period

NAVt-1 = NAV per unit at the beginning of the holding period

Dt = Cash disbursements per unit during the holding period

Ct = Capital gains disbursements per unit during the holding period

This formula gives the holding period yield or rate of return earned on a mutual fund. This may
be expressed as a percentage.

RISK ADJUSTED RETURNS

Treynor’s index = (Rp – Rf) ÷ ßp

Where,

Rp = Portfolio return over a period

Rf = Risk-free return over a period

ßp = Market-risk, beta coefficient

Higher value of Treynor’s index indicates better performance of portfolio and vice versa. The
Treynor’s measure of portfolio performance is relative measure that ranks the funds in terms of
risk (market risk) and return. The index is also termed as reward to volatility ratio.

Sharpe’s index = (Rp – Rf) ÷ σp

Where,

Rp = Portfolio return over a period

www.indianresearchjournals.com
Rf = Risk-free return over a period

σp = Total risk, standard deviation of portfolio return

Higher value of Sharpe’s index indicates better performance of portfolio and vice versa. The
Sharpe’s measure of portfolio performance is also relative measure that ranks the funds in terms
of risk (total risk) and return. The ratio is also termed as reward to variability ratio.

Jensen's Measure is a risk-adjusted performance measure that represents the average return on a
portfolio over and above that predicted by the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), given the
portfolio's beta and the average market return. This is the portfolio's alpha. In fact, the concept is
sometimes referred to as "Jensen's alpha."
150
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

Jensen’s Measure is calculated as:

αP = rP – [rf+ ßP( rm – rf) ]

Where,

rP = Expected total portfolio return

rf = Risk free rate

ßP = Beta of the portfolio

rm = Expected market return

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

In this section, an attempt is made to measure the performance of selected mutual funds. For this
purpose the models developed by Sharpe, Trey nor and Jenseen were used. Before taking up this,
the details about returns of selected funds are presented. In addition, to have an idea about
volatility of funds to market return, the Beta values and standard deviation values are calculated.

TABLE 1.1: EQUITY FUND DIVIDENDS

Year Percentage of return

SBI UTI HDFC JM financial Market Index

2009 9.70 6.65 13.25 4.18 9.60

2010 9.15 2.35 5.00 0.692 11.41

2011 12.93 10.70 8.70 11.40 10.10

AVG 10.40 6.57 8.98 5.43 10.37

www.indianresearchjournals.com
Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com, www.bseindia.com

The average return of SBI is 10.40% and highest is 12.93% and lowest is 9.15% it is concluded
that the return is increased trend.

The return of UTI fund shows that it has earned highest return of 10.70 % on its investments in
the year 2011. It has, on an AVG generated a return of 6.57% for the period from 2009-2011.

Average return of HDFC is 8.978% and the highest in 2009 is 13.25% and lowest is in 2010 is
decreased 5.00%.

The return of JM financial fund shows that earned highest return of 11.40% on its investments in
151
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

the year 2011. And lowest is in 2010 is decreased 0.692%. It has on AVG generated return of
5.43%for the period from 2009-2011.

Market return is in 2009 9.60% and in 2010 11.47% and in 2011 is 10.105%. So, it concluded
that market return also high in 2009 but it decreased in 2010 and increased in 2011.

The average return of SBI is more than other mutual funds

TABLE1.2: EQUITY FUND GROWTH

Percentage of return

Year SBI UTI HDFC JM financial Market Index

2009 9.70 11.20 13.22 11.25 9.60

2010 10.83 3.33 5.10 10.05 11.41

2011 11.68 7.07 11.65 11.65 10.10

AVG 10.73 7.20 9.99 10.98 10.37

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com , www.bseindia.com

The above table reveals that SBI made a highest return of 11.68% on its investment year
2011.and lowest is in 2009 is decreased 9.70%. However it has earned on an average 10.73%
return on investment for the period 2009- 11

The UTI fund made highest return of 11.20% on its investment in the year 2009 and lowest
is in 2010 is decreased 3.33%.on an average the fund made a return 7.20% in period 2009-11.

The return of HDFC fund also following this same trend. It has need highest return 13.22%
and lowest is in 2010 is decreased 5.10%. The fund however average return of 9.99% during
period.

The JM financial fund made a highest return of 11.65% on its investments in the year 2010 it www.indianresearchjournals.com
has also and lowest return of 10.05% in year 2010 on average return of 10.98% for the period
2009-11.

Market return fund also following same trend it has made highest return of 11.41% it
investment in year 2010 and lowest return of 9.60% in year 2009. The fund hewer AVG return of
10.37% during the period.

The comparative analysis this four funds shows that JM finance fund made a highest average
return 10.98% and on its investment for the period 2009-11, followed by SBI and UTI and
HDFC fund that order,
152
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

TABLE 1.3: BALANCED FUND DIVIDEND

Years Percentage of return

SBI UTI HDFC JM financial Market Index

2009 6.3 8.93 -1.73 11.43 9.60

2010 8.13 19 3.375 5.65 11.41

2011 9.45 5.58 12.42 10.30 10.10

AVG 7.98 11.17 4.69 9.13 10.37

Source : www.mutualfundsindia.com, www.bseindia.com

For the above can be concluded that SBI fund made highest return of 9.45% on it investment for
the year 2011 and lowest return of 6.30%, in 2009. However the fund made on an AVG 7.98%
for period 2009-11,

The return of UTI fund shows that it has earned a highest return of 19.00% on its
investment in year 2010 and lowest return of 5.58% in 2011. It has on an AVG a return of
11.17% for period 2009-11.

In this fund also the return of HDFC fund also following the same trend. It has made
highest return 12.42% on its investment in the year 2011. it has also incurred lose of 1.73%n in
year 2009. it has on an average generated a return of 4.69% for the period 2009-11.

The return of JM finance fund show that has earned a highest return of 11.43% on
investment in the year 2009 and lowest return of 5.65% in year 2010.the fund however AVG of
9.13% during period.

The return of market return fund also following the same trend it has made highest return

www.indianresearchjournals.com
of 10.41% and lowest return of 9.60% in year 2009.the fund however AVG of 10.37% during
period, the average return UTI more than other mutual funds.
153
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

TABLE 1.4: BALANCED FUND GROWTH

Years Percentage of return

SBI UTI HDFC JM financial Market Index

2009 10.60 5.78 6.48 6.59 9.60

2010 7.78 5.85 6.43 9.55 11.41

2011 10.78 8.28 6.70 10.38 10.70

AVG 9.74 6.64 6.53 8.84 10.37

Source : www.mutualfundsindia.com , www.bseindia.com

Its can observed from the above table that SBI fund made return of about 10.78%.on it’s invest
in the year 2011. It has lowest return of 7.78% in the year 2010. The fund also made an AVG
return of about 9072 during period from 2009to 2011.

The return of UTI fund show that it earned a highest return of 80.28% on its investments in
the year 2011and lowest return of 50.78% in 2009. It has on an average generated a return of
6.64% for the period from 2009-11.

The HDEFC fund has made a highest return of 6.70% on its investment for the year
2011and lowest return of 6.43%in 2010.the fund made average return of 6.53% during the
period.

The JM financial fund has made a highest return of 10.38% on its investment for the year
2011 and lowest return of 6.59%in 2009. Fund made an AVG return of 8.84% in the period from
2009-2011.

The average return of 10.37% market index more than other mutual funds.

www.indianresearchjournals.com
TABLE – 2: INDEX RETURN

Year Absolute returns%

2009 9.60

2010 11.41

2011 10.10

AVG return 10.37

154
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

Source: www.bseindia.com

From the above table it can be noted that the index made highest of 11.41% for the year
2010 index return also incurred a lowest of 9.60% in year 2009 an on average the index made a
10.37%for the period 2009-11.

TABLES OF STANDARD DEVIATION

TABLE 3.1: EQUITY FUND DIVIDEND

Fund name 3year Average Return Standard Deviation

SBI 10.40 9.81

UTI 6.57 11.96

HDFC 8.98 11.32

JM financial 5.43 15.43

Market index 10.37 7.29

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com, www.bseindia.com

From the above table present the average return and “ ” details. From the table it can be
seen that SBI fund making highest average return of 10.4% during the period. However it’s also
facing highest “ ” of 15.43 of all the four funds. The UTI fund and HDFC fund and JM
financial funds both are making similar amount average return of about 10.37% but market index
is facing highest” ” of 7.29.

TABLE 3.2: EQUITY FUND GROWTH

Fund name 3year Average return Standard Deviation

www.indianresearchjournals.com
SBI 10.73 12.09

UTI 7.20 7.60

HDFC 9.99 11.56

JM financial 10.98 11.94

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com, www.bseindia.com

155
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

From the above value it can be concluded that compared with other funds JM financial
fund making more returns and bearing risk of 11.94. Whereas SBI fund making 10.73% average
return with the” ” of 12.09. It has very low risk as compared to UTI fund and HDFC fund.

TABLE3.3: BALANCED FUND DIVIDEND

Fund name 3year Average return Standard Deviation

SBI 7.98 9.39

UTI 11.17 17.98

HDFC 4.69 15.67

JM financial 9.136 7.95

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com , www.bseindia.com

From the given values it is found that UTI fund is earning 11.17% AVG return with the
higher as compared to other funds.

TABLE 3.4BALANCED FUND GROWTH

Fund name 3years average return Standard Deviation

SBI 9.72 8.68

UTI 6.64 6.75

HDFC 6.53 8.37

JM financial 8.84 8.45

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com , www.bseindia.com

www.indianresearchjournals.com
From the given values it is found that SBI fund is earning 9.72%AVGreturn with highest
“ ” as compared to other funds.

CONCEPT OF BETA

The beta for the overall market is equal to 1.00 and other betas are viewed in relation to this
value. Betas can be positive or negative. Many large brokerage firms, investment companies and
financial consultants provide beta for large number of stocks.
156
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

BETA CALCULATION

NΣXY - ΣXΣY

β=

NΣX2 – (Σ X)2

Where

N = No of observations

ΣX = Sum of X returns (Here X is market return)

ΣY = Sum of Y returns (Here Y is a particular fund return)

X2 =X*X

ΣXY = Sum of X * Y

CALCULATION OF BETA

TABLE 4.1: EQUITY FUND DIVIDEND

Fund name X Y XY X2

SBI 127.1 124.48 1738.00 2501.63 0.36

UTI 78.8 124.48 1051.18 2234.50 0.14

HDFC 107.80 124.48 1473.95 2508.06 0..23

JM financial 65.07 124.48 1024.17 3211.26 0.17

www.indianresearchjournals.com
Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com , www.bseindia.com

It is observed from the above table that SBI fund responding to the market rate by 0.36 times
whereas UTI fund is responding only 0.14 times to the market return. The SBI fund is more
volatile than UTI and HDFC and JM financial funds.
157
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

TABLE4.2: EQUITY FUND GROWTH

Fund name x y xy x2

SBI 128.8 124.48 1967.85 3138.60 0.38

UTI 86.38 124.48 884.38 1315.77 -0.016

HDFC 119.90 124.48 1276.2 2691.89 0.112

JM financial 132.10 124.48 1753.21 3165.69 0.22

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com , www.bseindia.com

It is seen form the table that SBI fund, HDFC fund and JM financial more than one times of
market return whereas UTI fund responding only -0.016 times.

TABLE 4.3: BALANCED FUND DIVIDEND

Fund Name x y xy x2

SBI 95.60 124.48 1219.06 1820.56 0.21

UTI 111.20 124.48 1230.01 4912.77 0.019

HDFC 56.30 124.48 1194.68 3211.23 0.21

JM financial 111.20 124.48 1230.01 4912.77 0.22

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com , www.bseindia.com

Above table from it can be concluded that that the SBI fund and HDFC fund and JM
financial fund are responding more than one time of market return. Whereas UTI fund
responding only 0.019 tunes.

TABLE 4.4 BALANCED FUND DIVIDEND www.indianresearchjournals.com

Fund Name x y xy x2

SBI 116.60 124.48 1634.31 2038.36 0.45

UTI 79.60 124.48 1115.59 1075.92 0.53

HDFC 78.40 124.48 1332.85 1353.71 0.61

JM financial 106.06 124.48 1412.33 1795.29 0.36

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com, www.bseindia.com

158
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

From the above table it can be concluded that the SBI fund, UTI fund and HDFC fund are
responding more than times of market return. Whereas JM financial fund responding only 0.36
times.

SHARPE MEASUREMENT RATIO TABLES

TABLE 5.1: EQUITY FUND DIVIDEND

Fund Name Rp Rf p Sharpe Ratio Rank

SBI 10.59 6.50 9.81 0.416 I

UTI 6.59 6.50 11.98 0.007 III

HDFC 8.98 6.50 11.32 0.219 II

JM financial 5.42 6.50 15.43 -0.0069 IV

Market Index 10.38 6.50 7.29 0.532 -

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com, www.bseindia.com

The table shows that SBI fund as per Sharpe measurement is ranked one whereas HDFC fund
getting IInd rank. The UTI fund getting IIIrd rank. JM financial getting IVth rank in the Sharpe
evaluation.

As compared a market index SBI fund is earning good return and UTI fund is getting
better returns where as HDFC fund is better return where JM financial fund is getting whereas
returns.

TABLE 5.2: EQUITY FUND GROWTH

Fund Name Rp Rf p Sharpe Ratio Rank

www.indianresearchjournals.com
SBI 10.73 6.50 12.09 0.34 I

UTI 7.19 6.50 7.60 0.090 IV

HDFC 9.99 6.50 11.56 0.301 III

JM financial 11.00 6.50 11.94 0.376 II

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com www.bseindia.com

159
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

As per sharpe measurement, SBI fund is ranked Ist, JM financial fund is ranked IInd and HDFC
fund is III ranked, and UTI fund is IVth ranked. By comparing with market return all the funds
are getting low return

TABLE 5.3: BALANCED FUND DIVIDEND

Fund Name Rp Rf p Sharpe Ratio Rank

SBI 7.96 6.50 9.39 0.155 II

UTI 9.26 6.50 17.90 0.154 III

HDFC 4.69 6.50 15.67 -0.115 IV

JM financial 9.12 6.50 7.95 0.329 I

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com , www.bseindia.com

According sharpe model, JM financial fund is placed First ranked SBI fund and UTI fund sharpe
IIIrd and IInd ranked, HDFC fund is placed IVth ranks respectively company with market return
all the funds one performing well.

TABLE 5.4: BALANCED FUND GROWTH

Fund Name Rp Rf p Sharpe Ratio Rank

SBI 9.71 6.50 8.68 0.369 I

UTI 6.63 6.50 6.75 0.019 III

HDFC 6.52 6.50 8.37 0.003 IV

JM financial 8.88 6.50 8.45 0.281 II

www.indianresearchjournals.com
Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com , www.bseindia.com

According sharpe model, SBI fund is placed first rank JM financial and UTI fund share
IIIrd and IInd rank HDFC fund is placed IVth ranked. Respectively comparing with market
return all fund are performing well.

By comparing all the four schemes i.e. SBI, UTI, and HDFC and fund it can be found
that the balanced fund growth is getting good return than the any schemes the balanced dividend
scheme is bearing more risk them the any other schemes
160
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

TREYNOR MEASUREMENT RATIO TABLES

TABLE 6.1: EQUITY FUND DIVIDEND

Fund Name Rp Rf p Trey nor Rank

Ratio

SBI 10.59 6.50 0.36 14.13 I

UTI 6.59 6.50 0.14 0.642 III

HDFC 8.99 6.50 0.23 10.78 II

JM financial 5.42 6.50 0.17 -69.352 IV

Market 10.38 6.50 1 3.88 -

Index

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com, www.bseindia.com

Above table reveals that SBI fund ranked first in terms of making returns whereas IInd rank
shared by HDFC fund and IIIrd rank by UTI fund and the IVth rank JM financial in terms of
making return of in relating to market returns.

Comparing with the market return again SBI fund is getting good returns. UTI fund is earned
better returns, whereas HDFC fund is earned better returns JM financial fund is not making
sufficient.

TABLE 6.2: EQUITY FUND GROWTH

Fund Name Rp Rf p Trey nor Rank

Ratio

SBI 10.73 6.50 0.38 11.13 I

www.indianresearchjournals.com
UTI 7.19 6.50 0.016 -43.12 IV

HDFC 9.99 6.50 0.42 10.78 II

JM financial 11.00 6.50 0.22 -6.352 III

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com, www.bseindia.com

From the given table it is observed that SBI fund is ranked First, HDFC fund and JM financial
fund are ranked IIIrd and IInd and UTI fund is ranked IVth respectively. When compared with
market return all the funds are not getting sufficient returns
161
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

TABLE 6.3 BALANCED FUND DIVIDENDS

Fund Name Rp Rf p Trey nor Rank

Ratio

SBI 7.96 6.50 0.21 6.952 III

UTI 9.26 6.50 0.019 145.26 I

HDFC 4.69 6.50 0.21 -8.61 IV

JM financial 9.12 6.50 0.22 11.90 II

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com : www.bseindia.com

Observing given table it is known that UTI fund is ranked First JM financial fund IInd SBI fund
is IIIrd and HDFC fund is IVth comparing with market return all the funds are not getting
sufficient returns.

TABLE 6.4 BALANCED FUND GROWTH

Fund Name Rp Rf p Trey nor Rank

Ratio

SBI 9.71 6.50 0.415 7.33 I

UTI 6.63 6.50 0.53 0.245 III

HDFC 6.53 6.50 0.37 0.081 IV

JM financial 8.88 6.50 0.36 6.611 II

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com www.bseindia.com

www.indianresearchjournals.com
From the given it is observed that SBI fund is ranked First JM financial and UTI fund are
ranked IIIrd and IInd and HDFC fund IVth respectively comparing with market return all the
fund are making good return.

According to Treynor measurement also balanced fund growth scheme is performing well as
compared to the market return and balanced growth fund is not performing of the bench market
i.e., Market return.
162
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

JENSEN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT RATIO TABLE

TABLE 7.1: EQUITY FUND DIVIDEND

Fund Name Rm Rf βp Rp Rp αp Jp Rank

SBI 10.37 6.50 0.36 10.40 26.54 -16.41- -44.83 I

UTI 10.37 6.50 0.14 6.57 25.70 -19.13 136.64 IV

HDFC 10.37 6.50 0.23 8.98 -25.78 -169.80 -73.14 II

JM financial 10.37 6.50 0.17. 5.43 25.81 -20.38 -119.8 III

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com www.bseindia.com

As per Jensen performance measurement the SBI fund ranked First getting a negative figure of -
44.83 which is an indication that the management has used greater skills in managing the
investment.

Whereas HDFC ranked IInd getting a positive figure of -73.14 which is moderately
performing. However the UTI fund is performing negatively, the management of UTI fund failed
to manage the investment effectively.

Table 7.2 Equity Fund Growth

Fund Name Rm Rf βp Rp Rp αp Jp Rank

SBI 10.37 6.50 0.38 10.73 26.62 -15.89 -41.81 IV

UTI 10.37 6.50 -0.016 7.20 25.09 -17.89 111.12 I

HDFC 10.37 6.50 0.42 9.92 26.78 -16.86 -40.14 III

www.indianresearchjournals.com
JM financial 10.37 6.50 0.22 10.98 26.00 -15.02 -6.83 II

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com www.bseindia.com

According to Jensen model all the funds are failed to earn up to the mark returns. The UTI Fund
ranked first getting a figure of 0(approx), which is an indication that the management has did not
use great skills in managing the portfolio.

From the given that observed UTI ranked First. Whereas JM financial Fund is ranked Second by
getting a negative figure of less than 1. However the UTI fund is performing negatively, the
management of UTI fund failed to manage the portfolio effectively
163
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

TABLE 7.3: BALANCED FUND DIVIDENDS

Fund Name Rm Rf βp Rp Rp αp Jp Rank

SBI 10.37 6.50 0.21 7.99 25.97 -17.99 -85.66 II

UTI 10.37 6.50 0.019 11.17 25.22 -14.05 -739.47 IV

HDFC 10.37 6.50 0.21 4.69 25.97 -21.28 -101.33 III

JM financial 10.37 6.50 0.22 9.23 26.00 -16.87 -76.68 I

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com : www.bseindia.com

According to Jensen model all the funds are failed to earn up to the mark returns. As
compared to other funds UTI fund performing with worst return of –739.47. On the basis of the
above presentation, it can be found that the MNC industry is facing a problem, so all the funds
are not getting sufficient returns.

TABLE 7.4: BALANCED FUND GROWTH

Fund Name Rm Rf βp Rp Rp αp Jp Rank

SBI 10.37 6.50 0.45 9.72 26.89 -17.17 -38.15 III

UTI 10.37 6.50 0.53 6.64 27.20 -20.56 -38.79 II

HDFC 10.37 6.50 8.37 6.53 57.54 -51.01 -6.09 I

JM financial 10.37 6.50 0.36 8.84 26.54 -17.70 -49.16 IV

Source: www.mutualfundsindia.com : www.bseindia.com

According to Jensen model all the funds are failed to earn up to the mark returns. The

www.indianresearchjournals.com
HDFC Fund ranked first getting a figure of 0(approx), which is an indication that the
management has did not use great skills in managing the portfolio.

Whereas HDFC Fund is ranked second by getting a negative figure of less than 1.
However the HDFC fund is performing negatively, the management of HDFC fund failed to
manage the portfolio effectively.

CONCLUSION

It is hopeful that this study creates awareness that the mutual funds are worth investment
practice. The various schemes of mutual funds provide the investors with a wide range of
164
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

investments options according to his risk bearing capacities and interest. Besides they also give a
handy return to the investors. The paper analyses various schemes of Different Companies.

In India Mutual funds are playing important role. The mutual fund Companies pool the
savings of small investors and invest those collected huge amount of funds in different sectors of
the economy. They are performing like intermediary between small investor and the Indian
capital market. In recent years many mutual fund companies are established. Through this
competition is increased among the companies. To encounter the competition the different
companies are introducing different types of mutual fund schemes with attractive returns and low
risk. So it is an advantage to the investors,

For taking a decision to invest in mutual funds, the evaluation plays a greater role. The
rankings given to the mutual funds attract the investment by the investors to the respective funds.
For the purpose of ranking the performance of various mutual funds the methods such as Sharpe.
Trey nor and Jensen were applied to the various funds in different schemes. It is hoped that the
ranks provided for the fund in this chapter explains relative performance of the schemes. The
relative performance of different types of funds according to different types of performance
measurements are explained in the next page.

FINDINGS

According to Sharpe Measurement the following are the conclusion:

EQUITY FUND DIVIDEND SCHEME

The SBI Fund, as per Sharpe measurement is ranked one. Whereas HDFC Fund got
second rank. The SBI Fund is got third rank whereas JM financial fund got fourth rank.

EQUITY FUND GROWTH SCHEME

UTI Fund is placed first rank, JM financial Fund and HDFC Fund share second and third
ranks respectively and SBI IVth rank. Comparing with market return all Funds is very low
returns.

www.indianresearchjournals.com
BALANCED FUND DIVIDEND

As per Sharpe measurement, JM financial fund is ranked One, SBI fund is ranked two
and UTI fund is ranked Three and HDFC fund Forth rank. By comparing with market return all
the funds are getting very low returns.

BALANCED FUND GROWTH

According to Sharpe model SBI fund is placed first ranked, JM financial fund and UTI
fund share Second and Third ranks and HDFC Forth rank respectively. Comparing with market
return all the funds are very low.
165
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

By comparing al the schemes .i.e., SBI, UTI and HDFC, JM financial funds that the all
scheme is troubling more than the all schemes.

ACCORDING TO TREYNOR MEASUREMENT:

EQUITY FUND DIVIDEND SCHEME

The SBI Fund, as per neither trey nor measurement is ranked one. Whereas HDFC Fund
got second rank. The UTI Fund is getting third rank and JM financial fund is Forth rank.

As compared to market index SBI, UTI and HDFC Fund is earning very low returns and
SBI Fund is getting better returns whereas JM financial Fund is getting worst returns

EQUITY FUND GROWTH SCHEME

SBI Fund is placed first rank, JM financial Fund and HDFC Fund share third and second
ranks respectively and UTI IVth rank. Comparing with market return SBI, HDFC fund are
performing well. Whereas UTI and JM financial funds have very low returns.

BALANCED FUND DIVIDEND SCHEME

As per Treynor measurement, UTI fund is ranked One, JM financial fund is ranked Two
and SBI fund is ranked Three and HDFC fund Forth rank. By comparing with market return all
the funds are getting good returns, except HDFC,

BALANCED FUND GROWTH SCHEME

According to Treynor model SBI fund is placed First ranked, JM financial fund and UTI
fund share Second and Third ranks and HDFC Forth rank respectively. Comparing with market
return all the funds are performing well.

By comparing al the schemes .i.e., SBI, UTI and HDFC, JM financial funds that the all
scheme is troubling more than the all schemes.

ACCORDING TO JENSEN MEASUREMENT THE FOLLOWING ARE THE

FINDINGS www.indianresearchjournals.com
EQUITY FUND DIVIDEND SCHEME

The SBI Fund, as per neither treynor measurement is ranked one. Whereas HDFC Fund
getting second rank. The JM financial Fund is getting third rank and UTI fund is Forth rank.

As compared to market index SBI,UTI and HDFC Fund and JM financial all the funds
are getting low returns.
166
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

EQUITY FUND GROWTH SCHEME

UTI Fund is placed first rank, JM financial Fund and HDFC Fund share third and second
ranks respectively and SBI IVth rank. Comparing with market return UTI fund are performing
well. Whereas SBI, HDFC and JM financial fund are very low returns

BALANCED FUND DIVIDEND

As per Jenson measurement, JM financial fund is ranked One, SBI fund is ranked Two
and HDFC fund is ranked Three and UTI fund Forth rank. By comparing with market return all
the funds are getting very low return.

BALANCED FUND GROWTH

According to Terynor model SBI fund is placed First ranked, JM financial fund and UTI
fund share Second and Third ranks and HDFC Forth rank respectively. Comparing with market
return all the funds are performing well.

By comparing al the schemes .i.e., SBI, UTI and HDFC, JM financial funds that the all
scheme is troubling more than the all schemes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

1. Nataragan and Gordan “Financial Services and Markets”

2. Ponithavatih Pandian “Security Analysis and Portfolio

-Management”

3. Preeti Singh “InvestmentManagemet“SecurityAnalysis and

-Portfolio Management .

www.indianresearchjournals.com
4. S. Kevin “Security Analysis and Portfolio Management”

Prentice- Hall of -India PVT LTD (Edition 2003)

5. Donald E. Fisher, Ronald J. Jordan “Security Analysis and

Portfolio-Management”

NEWS PAPERS

The Economic Times

Business line
167
IRJC
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing & Management Review
Vol.1 No. 2, October 2012, ISSN 2319-2836

MAGAZINES

Business World

India Today

WEBSITES

www.mutualfundindia.com

www.indiamart.com

www.indiainfoline.com

www.bseindia.com

www.sbhindia.com

www.indianresearchjournals.com
168