Question 1:

The data sent contains the overall performance of the team Zimbabwe against other countries and
the win and loss has been analysed based on whether Zimbabwe has started the batting or has
chased the batting.

Below graph shows the number of wins and loss of the team against different countries split by
innings.

Note:- Innings equals to 1 means Zimbabwe has started the batting

Innings equals to 2 means Zimbabwe has chased the batting

Zimbabwe's Win and Loss based on Innings 1 and Innings 2

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

Win Loss

As per the analysis in Innings 1 as well as in Innings 2 the number of matched won and lost is more
or less the same .

So as far as Zimbabwe team is concerned batting first or second doesn’t make much difference.

Following is the box and whisker plot of

 Win and Loss based on Innings 1 and Innings 2
40

35

30

25

20

15

10

Win Loss
The box and whisker plot of Total core box is right skewed and there are no suspected outliers in the
Zimbabwe’s scores.

In the box and whisker plot of Zimbabwe’s RPO we can see that there is one suspected outlier
(7.46)and one outlier (8.50).The interquartile range of the plot is 1.12.The plot is right-skewed with
the maximum score in one over 8.50.Usually Zimbabwe team scores 4.51 runs per over and their
score per over ranges from 3.94 to 5.06.How ever they have got two exceptions with high scores of
7.46 and 8.50 in two instances
 Year wise win/loss proportion trend chart
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
(n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n= (n=
32) 37) 14) 21) 27) 12) 28) 13) 12) 27) 20) 17) 3) 14) 16) 30) 9) 12) 17)

% Loss % Win Win/Loss Ratio

From the year wise win loss proportion chart we can find out that the performance of the team in
the year 2009 and 2017 has been the best with high win loss ratio. Also in the year 2013 the team
has played the least number of matches , just 3 matches in the entire year with 2001 being the
highest with 37 matches.

Also we can observe that the brown line (loss)is above the grey line(win) in most of the time and
hence performance wise Zimbabwe team is not up to the mark since every year the number of
matches lost is more than the number of matches won.

Number of Matches
Batting Innings Win Lost Ties Total Matches
First Inning 44 128 2 174
Second Inning 54 135 1 190
Total Matches 98 263 3 364

Joint probability Table

Batting Innings Win Lost Ties Marginal Probability
First Inning 12% 35% 1% 48%
Second Inning 15% 37% 0% 52%
Marginal Probability 27% 72% 1% 100%

From the marginal probability table we can find that there is not much difference in the number of
matches won between First Innings and Second Innings.
 Joint probability Table
Opposition Win Lost Ties Marginal Probability
South Africa 0% 8% 0% 8%
England 1% 5% 0% 6%
West Indies 3% 8% 0% 11%
Pakistan 1% 9% 0% 10%
New Zealand 2% 4% 0% 5%
Sri Lanka 2% 8% 0% 10%
India 1% 9% 0% 10%
Australia 0% 4% 0% 4%
Bangladesh 7% 11% 0% 18%
Kenya 4% 1% 0% 5%
Namibia 0% 0% 0% 0%
Netherlands 0% 0% 0% 0%
Canada 1% 0% 0% 1%
Bermuda 1% 0% 0% 1%
Ireland 2% 1% 0% 3%
Afghanistan 3% 4% 0% 7%
U.A.E. 0% 0% 0% 1%
Scotland 0% 0% 0% 1%
Hong Kong 0% 0% 0% 0%
Marginal
27% 72% 1% 100%
Probability

From the above table we can find out that Team Zimbabwe has played most number of matches
against Bangladesh and it has won all the matches played against countries such as Canada and
Bermuda.
Question 2 -

The average of the roll numbers is 104.5 with population standard deviation being 15.59 and sample
standard deviation being 17.08.

Normal Distribution
0.03

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0
70 80 90 100 110 120

Standard normal distribution

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
 Question 3:

The data set contains three types of funds: Direct Equity (DE), Fixed Income (FI) and International
Equity (IE). As the asset classes are different, separate analysis for individual fund types needs to be
done which will give clearer picture

Correlation matrix for all funds:

5 Year Average
  Net Asset Value ($) Return (%) Expense Ratio (%) Rating
Net Asset Value ($) 1
5 Year Average Return (%) 0.415647474 1
Expense Ratio (%) 0.325044253 0.558395014 1
Rating 0.04029022 0.056831968 -0.042495093 1

Correlation matrix for DE funds:

Net Asset Value 5 Year Average Return Expense Ratio

  ($) (%) (%) Rating
Net Asset Value ($) 1
5 Year Average Return
(%) -0.03912173 1
Expense Ratio (%) 0.050105081 0.199383309 1
Rating 0.250497572 0.577895108 0.254101954 1

Correlation matrix for FI funds:

Net Asset Value 5 Year Average Return Expense Ratio Ratin

  ($) (%) (%) g
Net Asset Value ($) 1
5 Year Average Return
(%) -0.20621354 1
Expense Ratio (%) -0.345064426 0.900700042 1
Rating -0.099029354 -0.153723972 -0.316887491 1

Correlation matrix for IE funds:

Net Asset Value 5 Year Average Return Expense Ratio Ratin

  ($) (%) (%) g
Net Asset Value ($) 1
5 Year Average Return
(%) 0.151025872 1
Expense Ratio (%) -0.253571953 0.5729998 1
Rating -0.072978338 0.338191212 -0.379406744 1
CORRELATION Matrix Consolidated:

ALL funds DE funds FI funds IE funds

Returns vs NAV 0.4156 -0.0391 -0.2062 0.1510
Returns vs
0.5584 0.1994 0.9007 0.5730
Expense Ratio
Returns vs Rating 0.0568 0.5779 -0.1537 0.3382
Expense Ratio vs
-0.0425 0.2541 -0.3169 -0.3794
Rating
Expense Ratio vs
0.3250 0.0501 -0.3451 -0.2536
NAV
Rating vs NAV 0.0403 0.2505 -0.0990 -0.0730

Returns vs NAV:

Ideally fund performance i.e. returns should be independent of current NAV. While on the other
hand change in NAV will accurately show performance. But data given contains NAV at particular
date, thus we expect less correlation between ‘Returns & NAV’. However, we got good 0.42
correlation between two for all funds. When we check for same in different fund categories we get
less correlations (-0.04, -0.2, 0.15 for DE, FI, IE respectively) as per our expectation.

Returns vs Expense Ratio:

Expense ratio is the per cent fee one pays to AMC for managing the fund. Higher expense ratio
shows management has spent good amount on hiring good analysts, high quality infrastructure and
tools. These factors should reflect in fund performance. Thus funds having high expense ratio should
give high returns ideally. The data supports our logic. There is strong correlation between ‘Returns &
Expense Ratio’ for all types of funds (0.2, 0.9, 0.57 for DE, FI, IE respectively).

Returns vs Rating/Rank:

Rating or rank compares funds with its peers. Apart with returns, many other parameters like risk,
volatility, etc. affects rating or a fund. While checking correlation between ‘Returns & Rating’, we
notice that DE funds have very good correlation of 0.58. At the same time, it is -0.15 for FI funds. As
one is equity category and other is debt, there should be different rating methodology for different
asset classes. We can say that rating methodology implemented by Morningstar reflects fund
performance in case of DE funds but not in case of FI funds. Thus there is scope for improvement in
rating methodology for FI funds.

Expense Ratio vs Rating:

Rating and expense ratio are not directly related. Expense ratio could be one of the parameters for
determining rating. The correlation between ‘Expense Ratio & Rating’ is 0.25 for DE funds, -0.32 for
FI funds and -0.37 for IE funds. While the overall correlation coefficient is -0.043 suggesting that it is
very weak correlation.

Expense Ratio vs NAV:

In this case we see no clear pattern for correlation for different fund types. It is weak (0.05) for DE
funds but -0.34 & -0.25 for FI & IE funds respectively. Overall the correlation is moderate at 0.33.
This suggests that higher NAV funds have higher expense ratio in our dataset.

Rating vs NAV:

Again we see very weak correlation of these two parameters across categories (0.25, -0.1, -0.07 for
DE, FI, IE funds respectively). Overall correlation is 0.04 suggesting that no relationship between
Rating and NAV.

APPENDIX

Returns with NAV (all) Returns with Expense Ratio (all)

60 60

50 50

40 40
5 yr Returns

5 yr Returns

30 30

20 20 f(x) = 5.47 x² + 4.81 x + 5.55

f(x) = − 0.01 x² + 0.66 x + 2.69 R² = 0.32
R² = 0.21
10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
NAV Expense Ratio

Returns with Rating (all) Expense Ratio/Rating (all)

60 1.6

1.4
50
1.2
40
1
f(x) = − 0.05 x² + 0.31 x + 0.4
Expense Ratio
5 YRrETURNS

30 0.8 R² = 0.01

0.6
20
f(x) = − 2.09 x² + 15.75 x − 12.99 0.4
10 R² = 0.04
0.2

0 0
1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50
RATING Rating
 Expense Ratio & NAV (all) Rating with NAV (all)
1.6 6.00

1.4
5.00
1.2
f(x) = 0 x² − 0.04 x + 4.11
4.00 R² = 0.04
1 f(x) = − 0 x² + 0.03 x + 0.42
R² = 0.16
Expense Ratio

0.8 3.00

Rating
0.6
2.00
0.4
1.00
0.2

0 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
NAV NAV

Returns with NAV (DE) Returns with Expense Ratio (DE)

25 25

20 20

f(x) = 0 x² − 0.22 x + 19.22 f(x) = 9.53 x² − 14.3 x + 19.26

15 R² = 0.07 15 R² = 0.17
5yr Returns
5yr Returns

10 10

5 5

0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
NAV Expense Ratio

Returns with Rating (DE) Expense Ratio/Rating (DE)

25 1.6

1.4
20
1.2

f(x) = − 0.76 x² + 7.29 x − 0.39 1

15 R² = 0.39 f(x) = − 0.06 x² + 0.57 x − 0.26
R² = 0.16
ExpenseRatio
5YRrETURNS

0.8
10 0.6

0.4
5
0.2

0 0
1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50
RATING Rating
 Expense Ratio & NAV (DE) Rating with NAV (DE)
1.6 6.00

1.4
5.00
1.2 f(x) = 0 x² − 0.03 x + 3.79
R² = 0.09
4.00
1
f(x) = − 0 x² + 0 x + 0.94
R² = 0
ExpenseRatio

0.8 3.00

Rating
0.6
2.00
0.4
1.00
0.2

0 0.00
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
NAV NAV

Returns with NAV (FI) Returns with Expense Ratio (FI)

16 16

14 14
f(x) = 9.87 x² − 4.49 x + 3.73
12 12 R² = 0.95

10 10
5yr Returns

5yr Returns

8 8

6 6
f(x) = − 0.21 x² + 4.78 x − 21.73
4 R² = 0.14 4

2 2

0 0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
NAV Expense Ratio

Returns with Rating (FI) Expense Ratio/Rating (FI)

16 1.4

14 1.2

12
1
10
0.8
Expense Ratio
5 YRrETURNS

8
0.6
6 f(x) = 0.06 x² − 0.54 x + 1.75
R² = 0.11
f(x) = 1.24 x² − 10.38 x + 25.51 0.4
4 R² = 0.05

2 0.2

0 0
2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50
RATING Rating
 Expense Ratio & NAV (FI) Rating with NAV (FI)
1.4 6.00

1.2
5.00

1
4.00
f(x) = − 0.07 x² + 1.76 x − 6.43
0.8 R² = 0.16
ExpenseRatio

3.00

Rating
0.6
f(x) = − 0.02 x² + 0.48 x − 2.04
R² = 0.24 2.00
0.4

0.2 1.00

0 0.00
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
NAV NAV

Returns with NAV (IE) Returns with Expense Ratio (IE)

60 60

50 50

40 40
f(x) = 24.16 x² − 22.1 x + 21.65
R² = 0.34
30
5yr Returns

30
5yrReturns

f(x) = 0.01 x² − 0.87 x + 37.77

R² = 0.05
20 20

10 10

0 0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
NAV Expense Ratio

Returns with Rating (IE) Expense Ratio/Rating (IE)

60 1.6

1.4
50
1.2
f(x) = − 0.2 x² + 1.29 x − 0.92
40 R² = 0.67
1
ExpenseRatio
5YRrETURNS

30 f(x) = − 6.78 x² + 52.5 x − 68.33 0.8

R² = 0.39
0.6
20
0.4
10
0.2

0 0
1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50
RATING Rating
 Expense Ratio & NAV (IE) Rating with NAV (IE)
1.6 6.00

1.4
5.00
f(x) = 0 x² − 0.06 x + 1.98
1.2 R² = 0.22
4.00
1
f(x) = − 0 x² + 0.12 x + 1.63
R² = 0.07
ExpenseRatio

0.8 3.00

Rating
0.6
2.00
0.4
1.00
0.2

0 0.00
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
NAV NAV