A PROJECT REPORT

ON

“EVALUATING THE PERFORMACE OF PUBLIC

AND PRIVATE MUTUAL FUND”

Submitted To
RASHTRASANT TUKADOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Award of the Degree of
Bachelor of Business Administration

SUBMITTED BY

SARTHAK P. DEHANKAR
(BBA-III)

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

DR. ARVIND KHADSE

2021-2022

DHANWATE NATIONAL COLLEGE, DEPARTMENT OF

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (UG), NAGPUR

i
 CERTIFICTE

This is to certify that SARTHAK P. DEHANKAR is a bonafied student of Department of

Business Administration (UG) of Dhanwate National College, Nagpur. He has completed his
project entitled Evaluating the Performance of Public and Private Mutual Fund, submitted
in partial fulfilment of BBA program of the RASHTRASANT TUKADOJI MAHARAJ
NAGPUR UNIVERSITY, Nagpur, under my guidance and supervision in the academic year
2021-2022.

Project Guide Principal

Dhanwate National College, Nagpur.

ii
 Declaration

I, SARTHAK P. DEHANKAR hereby declare that the project entitled Evaluating the
Performance of Public and Private Mutual Fund has been carried out by me under the
guidance of DR. ARVIND KHADSE.

This project is submitted to RASHTRASANT TUKADOJI MAHARAJ NAGPUR

UNIVERSITY, Nagpur in partial fulfilment of the academic requirement for Bachelor of
Business Administration during the academic year 2021-2022.

This is the outcome of my own research work based on personal study and has not been
submitted previously for award of any degree or diploma to this university or any other
university.

SARTHAK P. DEHANKAR

iii
 Acknowledgement

Completing a task is never alone journey. It is often the result of a valuable contribution
from a number of individuals in every possible way, which ultimately helps in achieving the
objective.

Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. J. D. Wadate and DR. ARVIND KHADSE, for their
kind support and giving me the opportunity to present this project.

I am thankful to DR. ARVIND KHADSE, who provided me to all the information that
I needed to complete this project. This project would not have been accomplished without their
valuable support.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my parents and all my friends who have
been instrumental in successful completion of the project.

Place: SARTHAK P. DEHANKAR

Date:

iv
 INDEX
CHAPTER NAME OF CHAPTER PAGE
NUMBER NUMBER

1 INTRODUCTION
1-12

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 13-16

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 17-23

4 ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL DATA 24-32

5 CONCLUSION 33-39

6 SUMMARY 40-41

7 REFERENCES 42-45

8 ANNEXURE 46-49

v
CHAPTER NO.1

1
 INTRODUCTION

The Mutual Fund Industry in India was started with a humble beginning by
establishing the Unit Trust of India in the year 1963, by the Government of
India. The main aim of the UTI was to enable the common investors to
participate in the prosperity of capital market through portfolio management
aimed at reasonable return, liquidity and safety and to contribute to India’s
industrial development by channelizing household savings into corporate
investment. By the year 1993, UTI occupied nearly 80 per cent of the market
share and developed manifold in terms of number of investors, investable funds,
reserves with wide marketing network and efficient leadership. The Chartered
Financial Analyst had commented that Mutual Funds today form 1/10th of the
banking industry’s size. If we compare this an indication in the current interest
rate scenario, Mutual Fund has ample shelf-space to grow into an industry like
the banking industry in India.

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. Mutual Fund is an American concept
and the terms Investment Trust, Investment Company, Money Fund etc. are
used interchangeably in American literature. Mutual Funds are cooperation
which accepts dollars to buy stocks, long term bonds and short term debt

2
instruments issued by business or government units. These corporation pool
funds and thus reduces risk by diversification.

Mutual fund is a form of collective investment brought in by a large number of

investors for the mutual benefits of savers as well as investors. It is used as a
generic term for various types of collective investment vehicles, such as regular
income plan, open-ended investment with dividend or growth option, index
funds, tax saving schemes etcetera. Indian mutual fund industry has two distinct
types of sponsors, public-sector and private-sector. With the emphasis in
increase in domestic savings and improvement in deployment of investment
through markets, the need and scope for mutual fund operation has increased
tremendously. The mutual fund is a vehicle that enables millions of small and
large savers spread across the country as well as internationally to participate
in and derive the benefit of the capital market growth. It is an alternative vehicle
of intermediation between the suppliers and users of investible resources. The
vehicles are becoming increasingly popular in India and abroad due to higher
invests or return, relatively lower risk and cost. Thus the involvement of mutual
funds in the transformation of Indian economy has made it urgent to view their
services not only as financial intermediary but also as pace setter as they are
playing a significant role in spreading equity culture.

Awareness of the industry is the major factor for pushing the growth of industry.
Post liberalization, the industry has been growing at a rapid pace and has
crossed Rs.100000 crore size in terms of its assets under management.
However, due to the low key investor awareness, the inflow under the industry
is yet to overtake the inflows in banks. Rising inflation, falling interest rates and
a volatile equity market make a deadly cocktail for the investor for whom
mutual funds offer a route out of the impasse. The investments in mutual funds
are not without risks because the same forces such as regulatory frameworks,
government policies, interest rate structures, performance of companies etc. that
rattle the equity and debt markets, act on mutual funds too. There is, therefore,

3
a strong need for improving the awareness in a big way. It is important to study
about the returns given by AMC Mutual Funds and perform a comparative
analysis. Remember, every problem has several researches involved in it, each
backed by study.

The Private Sector Mutual Funds have recorded much better performance as
compared to the Public Sector Mutual Funds mainly due to better Funds
allocation, better Management and efficient performance of Portfolio Manager.
In recent times the important trends in the mutual fund industry is the aggressive
expansion of foreign owned Mutual Fund companies and the decline of the
companies floated by nationalized banks and smaller private sector player. The
performance study of Mutual Funds tries to find out the reasons behind the slow
progress of Public Sector.

The mutual fund industry worldwide has evolved into a high growth and
competitive market. One of the most interesting financial phenomena of the
1990s was the explosive growth of mutual funds. The global growth of mutual
funds was fueled by the increasing globalization of finance and expanding
presence of large multinational financial groups in a large number of countries
throughout most of the 1990s. The industry is witnessing negative growth since
the financial year 2008 due to adverse global and market conditions which has
led to slowdown in the mutual funds in India at 4.7% in comparison to 77% in
US, 41.1% in Europe and 33.6% in the UK. As per ICI Fact book 2013, the
major mutual fund market exists in US with 49% of the total worldwide mutual
fund net assets of $26.8 trillion, Europe has the market share of 31%, Africa
and Asia/Pacific has 13% and other Americas share is 8% as on year ended
2012. Mutual Fund industry in India has grown significantly in terms of number
of mutual funds from 551 in 2008 to 692 in 2012. It has also grown in terms of
total net assets as a percentage of worldwide total net assets of mutual funds
from $ 62,805 in 2008 to $ 1, 14,489 in 2012. With the growth of the industry

4
the public awareness regarding the mutual funds has increased and the interest
of the public for investing in mutual funds also has increased.

The level of education and awareness has increased the individual investors’
concerns to have a secured exposure of various instruments and mutual funds.
Hence this paper makes an attempt to help the investors know the performance
of the mutual fund schemes and to compare various schemes before investing
their money. Mutual funds are investment vehicle that pools together funds
from small retail investor to purchase stocks, bonds or other securities. It gives
the investors flexibility of buying small units of funds. Bounty of mutual funds
schemes is available in the market where the investor can put their money.
Before investing investors need to know the risk and returns associated with the
individual mutual fund schemes and whether their performance is
commensurate with the market performance or not, to base their decision upon.
In this paper an attempt is made to evaluate the performance of selected public
and private mutual fund schemes on the basis of five years quarterly NAV for
the period of 1st January 2008 to 31st December 2012. The paper also compares
the results of public sector sponsored schemes with that of private sector
schemes. Sharpe, Treynor and Jensen measures were used for the evaluation of
mutual fund schemes. Risk-return analysis is also done using the standard
deviation and beta as the measures of risk which are further used to compare
the performance of selected funds with respect to market. It was found that the
sample mutual fund schemes performed either well or their performance was
appropriate with the market’s performance. When public and private mutual
funds were compared, the private mutual fund companies were found much
more beneficial rather than public mutual fund companies for the investors to
invest in.

In 1890, Mutual fund industry in the world was started in the US. The Unit
Trust of India pioneered the mutual fund industry in 1963.With the dawn of
Private players in 1993; the MF industry grew by leaps and bounds. Within

5
three years, the number of Asset Management Companies (AMCs) rose to 26.
At present, we have 43 AMCs, number of schemes have increased from 59 in
1993 to almost 2,000 mutual fund schemes in 2018. The schemes include all
open-ended, close-ended and interval schemes. Mutual Funds have grown as a
popular investment vehicle during the last decade. According to AMFI reports,
"The Asset Under Management (AUM) of the Indian MF Industry has grown
from 4.17 trillion as on 31st March, 2009 to 23.80 trillion as on 31st March,
2019, more than 57-fold increase in a span of 10 years". The mutual funds in
India has emerged as a strong financial intermediary and assist in bringing
stability and efficiency in the financial system. The mutual funds increase
liquidity in the capital and money market. They have been identified as one of
the important factors pushing up market prices of securities. The direct lending
by mutual funds to the corporate, has increased because SEBI guidelines allows
companies to reserve 20% of public issues for Indian mutual funds.

Mutual funds also enable the corporate sector to raise funds at much lesser costs
and have enabled as alternative source of raising capital. According to Manish
Mehta, Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co.'s national head (sales and
distribution alliances). the factors that will drive the growth in 2019 include the
untapped potential, rising investor awareness about mutual funds as an
investment alternative. The mutual fund industry is expecting robust growth as
the sector is yet to tap its full potential. Indian mutual funds are thus playing a
crucial developmental role in allocating resources in the emerging and
developing market economy. Mutual Funds act as financial intermediaries
between the providers and the users of money. With the rise of the mutual fund
industry, establishing a mutual fund association became a prerequisite. This is
when AMFI (Association of Mutual Funds India) was set up in 1995 as a
nonprofit organization. Today AMFI ensures mutual funds function in a
professional and healthy manner thereby protecting the interest of the mutual
funds as well as its investors. The mutual fund industry is considered as one of

6
the most dominant players in the world economy and is an important constituent
of the financial sector and India is no exception. The industry has witnessed
startling growth in terms of the products and services offered, returns churned,
volumes generated and the international players who have contributed to this
growth. Today the industry offers different schemes ranging from equity and
debt to fixed income and money market. The market has graduated from
offering plain vanilla and equity debt products to an array of.

diverse products such as gold funds, exchange traded funds (ETF's), and capital
protection oriented funds and even thematic funds. In addition, investments in
overseas markets have also been a significant step. Due credit for this evolution
can be given to the regulators for building an appropriate framework and to the
fund houses for launching such different products. All these reasons have
encouraged the traditional conservative investor, from parking fund in fixed
deposits and government schemes to investing in other products giving higher
returns. India infoline website under the link mutual fund school, history AMFI
website as on April 21, 2009. Retail Investors are no longer satisfied with the
yield they derive out of traditional investment avenues like post office savings
and bank deposits.

Though the interest rates have increased compared to the last decade, the
increase is disproportionate with the inflation. Fluctuations in the equity market
which is dominated by institutions, FIIs and very few large scale operators also
make the ordinary investor to remain out of the market or forced to go for very
minimum investment. Expensive wealth management services are also not
affordable for the retail investors. Mutual funds are the only option available
for individual investors particularly for middle class section of the economy. A
mutual fund is just the connecting bridge or a financial intermediary that allows
a group of investors to pool their money together with a predetermined
investment objective. The mutual fund will have a fund manager who is
responsible for investing the gathered money into specific securities (stocks or

7
bonds). An investor while investing in mutual funds, buys units or portions of
the mutual fund and thus on investing becomes a shareholder or unit holder of
the fund. Mutual funds are considered as one of the best available investments
compared to others as they are very cost efficient and also easy to invest in, thus
by pooling money together in a mutual fund, investors can purchase stocks or
bonds with much lower trading costs than if they tried to do it on their own. But
the biggest advantage to mutual funds is diversification, by minimizing risk &
maximizing returns.

Mutual funds are recognized as a mechanism of pooling together the investment

of unsophisticated investors and turn in the hands of professionally managed
fund managers for consistent return along-with capital appreciation. Money
collected in this process is then invested in capital market instrument such as
shares, debentures and other securities. Finally, unit holders in proportion of
units owned by them share the income earned through these investments and
capital appreciation. Mutual funds put forward a way out to investors to
approach most schemes and get well-diversified portfolio because investors
with small savings neither have sufficient expertise nor have access to required
diversification Mutual funds have become invaluable tool for a wide range of
investors, from individuals seeking to save for retirement to sophisticated
socialites focused on preserving their assets and businessmen to create wealth1.
Mutual Fund is a trust that pools the savings of a number of investors who share
a common financial goal. Anybody with an investible surplus of as little as a
few thousand rupees can invest in mutual fund units according to their stated
investment objective and strategy 2. In other words, Mutual fund is a company
that pools money from a group of people with common investment goals to buy
securities such as stocks, bonds, money market instruments, a combination of
these instruments, or even other funds in order to reap the benefit of
diversification and professionally managed basket of securities at a relatively
low cost. The origin of the Indian mutual fund industry can be traced back to

8
1964 when the Indian government, with a view to augment small savings within
the country and to channelize these savings to the capital markets, set up the
Unit Trust of India (UTI). Mutual fund Companies conforming to the SEBI
Mutual Fund Regulations, and with recent mergers taking place among
different private sector Funds, the Mutual Fund industry has entered its current
phase of consolidation and growth. During 2000-2016 India grew rapidly and
Mutual Fund industry has emerged as a tool for ensuring one’s financial
interests. Mutual funds are one of the most chosen investments among investors
and financial professionals alike. But why is and regulates the mutual funds to
protect the interest of the investors. SEBI notified regulations for the mutual
funds in 1993. Thereafter, mutual funds sponsored by private sector entities
were allowed to enter the capital market. The regulations were fully revised in
1996 and have been amended thereafter from time to time. SEBI has also issued
guidelines to the mutual funds from time to time to protect the interests of
investors. There is no distinction in regulatory requirements for these mutual
funds and all are subject to monitoring and inspections by SEBI. The risks
associated with the schemes launched by the mutual funds sponsored by these
entities are of similar type. An investor has various investment options like
debentures, shares, bank deposits, real estate’s etc. but choice of option is very
essential. Mutual funds give higher returns because of professional
management of fund.

Multiple Options: Most of the mutual fund schemes are offering different
options to the investors under one scheme. For example, a growth oriented
scheme may offer option of either regular income or re-investment of income.
Under the regular income plan, dividend shall be distributed to investors and
under the second dividend will be reinvested and total amount shall be paid at
time of redemption.

Lock in Period: Mutual Fund Schemes offer documents that contain a clause
of lock-in period ranging from one year to three years. Till the completion of
9
the minimum period the investors are to trade neither the units on the stock
exchange nor to avail themselves of repurchase facility.

Liquidity: Generally open-ended funds offer the facility of repurchase and the
close ended are traded at stock exchange offering repurchase after a minimum
lock in period of two to three years. Mutual funds also have a facility to pledge
or mortgage at banks to obtain loan and can be transferred in favor of any
individual.

Financial Markets & Mutual Funds: A The financial sector in India consists
of two broad segments, the organized and unorganized sectors. The former
includes commercial banks, non-banking financial companies (NBFCs),
development financial institutions (DFIs), mutual funds, insurance companies,
pension and provident funds. The entry of private sector banks, mutual funds
and insurance companies has made a dent in the dominance of the public sector.
Several new generation public sector banks have emerged and are successfully
challenging the public sector banks. Mutual funds from the domestic arid
foreign private sectors have taken away a significant proportion of the market
share of the UTI and public sector mutual funds. The financial institutions that
are operating in the organized sector can be grouped into the following
categories as represented here under.

Growth of Mutual Fund Industry: The Indian Mutual Fund Industry, is

witnessing a rapid growth as a result of infrastructure development, increase in
personal financial assets, rise in foreign participation, growing risk appetite,
rising income, and increasing awareness mutual funds are becoming a preferred
investment option compared to other investment vehicles such as bank fixed
deposits and post office savings.

• After deregulation of India’s mutual fund industry in the early 1990s,

significant changes have been witnessed both in the structure and the content
for example, the number of players in the industry has gone up significantly and

10
also there was a sharp shift from the closed ended schemes to the open ended
schemes as the phase of deregulation is getting advanced. Similarly, there were
so many other developments in the industry in recent years.

• After deregulation in 1994, the Indian mutual fund industry had only 11
players with an Assets Under Management of Rs.62,430 crores. Out of this,
82.8 per cent was contributed by the UTI and public sector with close-ended
funds as favourates9. N6w the priorities of the investors have changed. As on
31 March, 2009 the number of players in the industry rose up to 35 with an
Assets Under Management of Rs.4,17,300 crores. Out of this 80 per cent has
been contributed by the 30 private sector players (including foreign players). At
present the open-ended schemes are the favorite schemes of investors.

• Of the total Assets Under Management as on 31 March 2009, an amount of

Rs.3,25,161 (78%) was contributed by the open-ended schemes and the rest was
by close-ended schemes. Scheme wise, major share has been occupied by the
growth schemes and income schemes. Out of the total Assets Under
Management as on 31 March 2009, Rs.1,97,343 (47%) and Rs. 95,817 (23%)
are belonging to growth and income schemes respectively11.

• The mutual fund industry in India has come a long way since the formation of
Unit Trust of India in 1963. During the past 45 years, the industry has seen
many significant structural changes. The entry of private sector, foreign players
and bifurcation of the UTI, which helped expand the market. After deregulation,
many Indian and foreign companies formed as Joint Ventures to get the benefit
of large scale economies and contributed major share of42 per cent of Assets
Under Management on 31st March 2009 from 20.1 per cent on 31 March 2000.
The share of Assets Under Management of Joint venture predominantly Indian
has also increased from 8.6 per cent to 37 per cent for 19 the above period

11
Factors contributing for the Growth of Mutual: Funds A slew of factors have
contributed for the growth of mutual fund industry in India during the past two
decades.

 The first and foremost reason is delivering of substantial returns by equity

and debt-oriented funds. Different periods of outstanding performance
aided by strong bull runs in the late 1990s, which saw the stock prices
shooting through the roof, as well as the current bullish fervor which has
helped equity- oriented funds deliver substantial returns.
 Debt funds too have been benefited by the soft bias in the interest rates. The
volatility in the bond prices has also helped debt-oriented funds deliver
handsome returns.
 Significant changes in the investment environment such as increased
competition, ongoing reforms which allow mutual funds to invest abroad as
well as in derivative instruments helped for growth of the industry.
 Unlike monopoly of UTI in the past, mutual fund industry now-a-days has
been backed by Fills and domestic market “As per the ASSOCHAM
estimates, the cumulative FII investments in the country had already
touched a high of $ 40 billion by the end of October 2005. And domestic
mutual funds emerged as a strong counter balance to Fills during 2005.
During the year they pumped in an unbelievable Rs. 13,190 crores into the
stock market.
 The transparency in operations and disclosure practices related to the NAV,
stock selection strategies, portfolio churning costs, rationale for expense
charges and investment related risks also fielded the growth of the industry.
Stringent regulatory environment of the SEBI, investor awareness
programmers offered by the AMFI, entry of foreign players with strong
financial and research capabilities, potential entry of employee pension and
provident funds and a slew of innovative schemes to cater to the different
needs have attracted the investors.

12
CHAPTER NO.2

13
 LITERATURE REVIEW

A vast gamut of research has been done on evaluation of Mutual funds.

Researchers have analyzed and appraised Standalone performance of mutual
funds, selected mutual funds and few studies have also been made on comparing
the public and private sector mutual fund schemes in India. Prajapati &Patel
(2012) suggest that most of the mutual fund have given positive return during
2007 to 2011.Sharma (2013) analyzed the perception of investors with regard
to factors like liquidity, security, fees, quality, returns and tax benefits. Kanethia
(2010) compared of various mutual fund schemes in India. The application of
the Sharpe index made it feasible to measure performance and then the ranking
of the funds. Ranking of the funds assist an investor to choose the funds and
scheme and then decide their portfolio accordingly. The result of the study
shows that private mutual funds are more preferred than the public mutual
funds. Agarwal & Patwa (2014) private sector funds are able to generate better
returns than the public sector funds using Mann-Whitney U-Test. Pandow
(2017) the industry is confronted with numerous challenges like low penetration
ratio, similarity of products, low awareness level lack of interest of retail
investors and evolving nature of the industry. Sapar & Madava (2003)
performance measures suggest that most of the mutual fund schemes in the
sample of 58 were able to satisfy investor's expectations by giving excess
returns over expected returns. Fama & French (2008) found that mutual funds
produce a portfolio close to the market portfolio but with high costs of active
management that show up intact as lower returns. They have used Persistence
tests and Bootstrap simulations for the study. Nitzsche Cuthbertson et al (2006)
found mutual funds are similar to those for equity mutual funds and hedge
funds. Study suggests that investors should hold low cost index funds and avoid
holding loss making funds. Bayesian approach is used for the study. Jayadev,
(1996) determined that Master gain has performed better according to Jenson

14
and Treynor measures but on the basis of Sharpe ratio it's performance is not
upto the benchmark. Agrawal (2007) revealed that the performance is affected
by the saving and investment habits, confidence and loyalty of the people.
Tomer and Khan (2014) analyzed the problems and prospects of mutual funds
in India. The study says reduction on operational costs, skills and technology
up gradation is required. Sathish and Srinivasan (2016) analyzed value of beta
of the schemes and found lower than one indicating that all the mutual funds
are less risky and less volatile. Siva Kumar et al. (2010) in their study
established that the private sector players hold the greater strength in resource
mobilization. Arora (2015) assessed risk – adjusted performance of Indian
mutual fund schemes during the bear period and the boom period and found
that equity oriented mutual fund schemes performed well during the bull
phase.Santhi & Gurunathan (2012) found that all the tax-saving mutual funds
are volatile, It is also observed that most of the schemes give higher return than
the benchmark S&P CNX NIFTY. Vyas, et.al (2016), suggested that for
investors the most important intrinsic fund quality is fund expense ratio and exit
load. Panwar & Madhumathi (2006) there is a significant difference between
public sector sponsored mutual funds and private-sector sponsored mutual
funds in terms of coefficient of variation (COV), excess standard deviation
adjusted returns (SDAR), residual variance (RV). Rao (2006) Ratnaraju &
Madhav (2016) Goyal (2015) opine that Equity Growth funds provide higher
returns than that of Equity Dividend funds. Most of the literature available
focuses only on mutual fund market growth, future trends and such other issues
but very limited literature is available on the ‘Comparative analysis of Market
Returns with its Fund Flows’. Few countries like USA, Europe have
concentrated on the research on mutual fund flows with its relevant market
returns, whereas analysts, academic researchers in countries like India have
paid least attention in these areas. Friend, Brown, Herman, and Vickers (1962)
offered the first empirical analysis of mutual funds’ performance. Treynor

15
(1965), Sharpe (1966), and Jensen (1968) developed the standard indices to
measure risk adjusted mutual fund returns. Grinblatt and Titman (1989)
constructed a positive period weighting measure of fund performance.
Numerous studies have tested the mutual fund manager’s market-timing ability
[Treynor and Mazuy (1966), Kon and Jen (1979), Henriksson and Merton
(1981), Merton (1981), Henriksson (1984), and Chang and Lewellen (1984)]
and the diversification benefits and risk-adjusted performance of funds.

16
CHAPTER NO.3

17
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

For the comparative analysis of mutual funds 4 companies have been randomly

selected from each sector and from each of these sectors 5 schemes of similar

in nature has been considered. The study is done for a period of 5 years starting

from 2014 to 2018. To calculate Average Returns Daily Net Asset Value of the

mutual fund companies and Annual Average of these mutual fund companies

was calculated. Then, using Average Returns, Standard Deviation was further

calculated for the Average Returns. Standard Deviation and Average Returns

are the two variables used for analysis. Generally, calculation of returns of

funds is done after adjusting the Net Asset Values to dividends, capital gains,

right and bonus issue. In the current study the schemes that are selected for both

private and public sector are growth based, hence they do not have any of the

above factors. Risk refers to the amount of variations in the returns of mutual

funds during the given period. To investigate the performance of mutual funds

in India total 16 schemes have been selected as sample as under:

18
 Sampling

 Objectives of Research
1) To assess the performance of the selected schemes on basis of risk
and return.

2) To compare the performance of sample schemes with the

market performance.

3) To evaluate the performance of selected category of public sector

schemes on the basis of returns.

19
4) To find out the financial performance of Mutual Funds Scheme

 Research Hypothesis

1. H0: There is no difference in returns of public and private sector mutual

funds.

H1: There is difference in returns of public and private sector mutual

funds.

2. H0: Risk is not the same in public and private sector mutual funds.

H1: Risk is the same in public and private sector mutual funds.

 Objectives of the Study:

The present study has the following objectives.

1. To review the progress of mutual fund industry and the trends in funds
mobilization pattern and Assets Under Management of various mutual
funds during the post deregulation period.

2. To examine the shift in the portfolio investment behavior of the UTI and
the other mutual funds during the post deregulation period.

3. To evaluate the financial performance of selected major schemes of various

mutual funds in the public and private sectors.

20
4. To analyses the investors’ opinions on mutual fund investments and to
compare the level of satisfaction among the investors of public and private
sector mutual funds.
5. To suggest measures for consideration of the policy makers for
strengthening of mutual fund industry.

 Data Sources

This study is based on secondary data and the relevant sources of data are books,
journals, magazines, newspapers, brochures and websites of selected mutual
funds. Monthly NAV data on each sample scheme is collected from
www.mutualfundsindia.com and www.moneycontrol.com. BSE Sensex has
been taken as a benchmark for analysis of the results and monthly BSE Sensex
data are collected from www.bseindia.com. The risk free rate is taken as 8.40%
which is the interest rate on Post Office Time Deposit Account for 5 years.

 Limitations of The Study

The limitations of the study have been enumerated below.

1. The study is confined only to the Mutual Fund Industry in India. Therefore,
it has not focused on the mutual funds footer countries.
2. The sample size in the case of mutual fund investors has been restricted to
234 as it is highly difficult to arrange a list of investors spread over different
regions and to select them deciding certain percentage of the Universe.
3. Because of the time and money constraints convenient sampling method has
been adopted to select the respondents. Therefore, all the limitations those
are applicable to convenient sampling are applicable to this study.

21
4. Only the open-ended mutual fund schemes have been included for
measuring the financial performance as these are actively traded in the stock
exchange.
5. Though the techniques used for analyzing the data are traditional, these
were more appropriate as many researchers in India are following at present.

 Data Analysis

The data collected from various sources have been analyzed by using different

techniques as under.

1. Basic statistical techniques like simple percentages, averages, pie diagrams,

bar diagrams, graphs were widely used.

2. Statistical formulae like standard deviation, alpha, beta was employed to

find the intensity of risk.

3. Different ratios like a) Rate of return b) Sharpe Ratio c) Treynor Ratio d)

Jenson Differential Return e) Fama Components of investment performance
were used to measure the financial performance of various sample mutual
fund schemes.

4. Chi-square test has been employed to test the significance of differences of

the opinions, perceptions of the investors2.

22
5. Correlation analysis, t-test and ANOVA has been used to know the degree
of relation and significance between inter dependent variables like different
investment avenues and others

 Tools

To analyze the data simple statistical tools like arithmetic mean, percentages,

standard deviation has been used. The financial tools like portfolio beta, Sharpe

ratio, Treynor ratio and Jensen ratio has been selected.

Tools Formulae

Percentage Return (NAV1 – NAV0) ×100/ NAV0

Standard deviation √σ² /N

ß (Beta value) (∑xy − nxy) n

----------------

∑x 2 – nx

Sharpe’s Ratio (Rm –Rf)/σ

Treynor's Ratio (Rm-Rf)/ß

Jensen’s Ratio αp = Rp - [Rf + ß p * (Rm – Rf)]

Jp = αp / ß p

23
CHAPTER NO.4

24
 ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL DATA
In spite of the apparent opportunities in a country of our size and scope, Mutual
Funds in India have not delivered anywhere close to potential. The corporate-
centric focus still rules the roost in spite the retail-rich demographics of the
country. Retail money in the industry still languishes far behind when compared
to the US, where almost 85 percent of the total assets managed by fund
managers come from individual investors (as per 2007 data). The figures bear
testimony to the huge untapped potential in India. And yet,

the state of MFs is enigmatic at best. Competition is firming up too. Banks may
soon offer 3.5 percent daily interest on savings account instead of monthly. This
could adversely affect investments in MF liquid schemes. The IRDA has been
aggressively promoting ULIPs as one of the best investment options in recent
times. One may argue that the job of a regulator is to regulate, not to promote
schemes. But it does make for a comparison of approaches adopted by the two
regulators. The writing on the wall is obvious. India needs to encourage MF
investments in a big way. And the initiative should be fueled by design, not
default. Fund houses seem rather casual in launching umpteen schemes by the
hour, instead of creating tailored solutions in line with the real investment
needs. And the retail market needs to be addressed through personalized
marketing. Therein lies the big opportunity but sadly, we have not seen due
acknowledgement of this fact from the supply-side forces as yet. MFs can take
their cues from the insurance industry in reaching out to the common man by
all means. Despite the monopoly of LIC and its humungous network, the private
players took their campaigns to the remotest corners of India. Distributors seem
to be daunted by a common concern of lack of adequate investor education,
impacting all these models, as their success will depend extensively on the
levels of financial literacy among investors. Table 1 is the summary description
of Equity Diversified Mutual fund schemes of 3 each from UTI, Canara and

25
SBI from Public sector and 3 each from HDFC, Reliance and Franklin from
Private Sector. It is seen here that 18 Mutual Fund schemes have been selected
out of which there are 9 private sector and 9 public sector schemes Magnum
Equity of SBI is the oldest and UTI opportunities is the latest scheme in the
sample that have been taken in this study. Reliance Regular Saving Equity has
maximum corpus under its Asset under management of Rs.2808.2 crores (as on
July 31,2010). Minimum investment and exit load are same in all the schemes.
Table 2 shows Performance Analysis of Equity Diversified Mutual Fund
Schemes Standard Deviation and Systematic Risk (Beta) standard deviation of
18 mutual fund schemes. Magnum Mid cap has highest standard deviation
means higher risk followed by Magnum Emerging Businesses, Canara Robeco
Emerging Equities and Canara Robeco Infrastructe Fund. Franklin India Life
Stage lowest standard deviation and the lowest beta. Beta value of higher than
unity implies higher portfolio risk for the schemes than the market portfolio and
vice Magnum Mid cap (1.32), Magnum Emerging Businesses (1.2 Equities
(1.21), Canara Robecco Infrastructute fund (1.17), Reliance Regular Saving
equity (1.08), Canara Robeco Equity Diversified (1.02), HDFC Premier Multi
Cap (1.02), HDFC Core & Satellite (1.02) Magnum Equity (1.01) and Relia be
riskier (beta > 1.0) than the market. Remaining 8 mutual fund schemes had beta
in the range of 0.88 to 0.99 except Franklin India Life Stage 20S Plan (0.70)
holding portfolio with least risk among the lot.

26
27
Sharpe Ratio:

In this model, performance of a fund is evaluated on the basis of Sharpe ratio,

which is a ratio of returns generated by the portfolio over and above risk free
rate of return and the total risk associated with it. According to Sharpe, it is the
total risk of the fund that the investors are concerned about. So, the model
evaluates portfolios on the basis of reward per unit of total risk. Symbolically it
can be written as:

It is an excess returns earned over risk free return (Rf) per unit of risk i.e. per
unit of Standard Deviation. Positive value of schemes indicates better
performance. Higher positive values of Sharpe was found in HDFC Growth
(0.59), Reliance Equity Sharpe Ratio: Column 3 of Table 2 depicts the value of
Sharpe ratio for the Opportunities (0.50), Franklin India Life Stage 205 Plan
(0.49), Franklin India Flexi Cap (0.49), Templeton India Growth (0.48),
Reliance Regular Saving Equity (0.47), Reliance NRI Equity (0.47) and HDFC
Core & Satellite (0.44) among the Private Sector Mutual Fund Schemes and
UTI Dividend Yield (0.58), Magnum Equity (0.47), Canara Robeco Equity
Diversified (0.45), UTI Opportunities (0.42), UTI Infrastructure Fund (0.37)
among Public Sector Mutual Funds. Among the worst performers Canara
Robeco Infrastructure Fund (0.08), Magnum Emerging Businesses (0.18),

28
Magnum Midcap (0.18), Canara Robeco Emerging Equities (0.23) - Public
Sector Mutual funds and HDFC Premier Multicap (0.36) - Private Sector
Mutual Funds.

On the whole Private Sector Mutual Funds led by Reliance outperform the
Public Sector Mutual Funds as per the result shown by Sharpe Ratio.

Treynor Ratio:

Developed by Jack Treynor, this performance measure evaluates funds on the

basis of Treynor’s Index. This index is a ratio of return generated by the fund
over and above the risk free rate of return during a given period and systematic
risk associated with it (beta). Symbolically, it can be represented as:

29
All risk averse investors would like to maximize this value. While a high and
positive Treynor ratio shows a superior risk adjusted performance of a portfolio,
a low and negative Treynor ratio is an indication of unfavorable performance

This measures the excess return earned over risk free return per unit of
systematic risk i.e. beta. The fourth Colum of Table 2 presents the Treynor ratio
values for the schemes. Here the observations were similar to that of Sharpe
ratio with Private Sector Mutual Fund schemes outperforming Public Sector
Mutual Fund Schemes except UTI Dividend Yield (21.61) showing outstanding
performance. Among Private Sector Mutual fund schemes top performers
HDFC Growth (21.42), Reliance Equity Opportunities (18.35), Reliance
Regular Saving Equity (18.23), Franklin India Life Stage 20S Plan (18.11),
Franklin India Flexi Cap Fund (18.06), Reliance NRI Equity (17.26), HDFC
Core & Satellite (16.09). Among Public Sector Mutual Fund Schemes UTI
Dividend Yield (21.61), Magnum Equity (17.16), UTI Opportunities (15.59),
UTI Infrastructure Fund (13.75), Canara Robeco Equity Diversified (16.30).
Canara Robeco Infrastructure Fund (2.62) was the worst performer mutual fund
scheme.

30
Jensen Ratio (Alpha): The fifth column of Table 2 shows the Jensen Alpha
values for 18 selected open ended Mutual fund growth schemes. It is the
regression of excess return of the scheme (dependent variable) with excess
return of the market (independent variable). Higher Alpha value indicates better
performance. Among the public sector mutual fund, higher alpha was found
with UTI Dividend Yield (10.45) followed by Canara Robeco Equity
Diversified (7.77), UTI Opportunities (7.41) and Canara Robeco Infrastructure
Fund (4.95). While in Private sector mutual funds higher performance was
evidenced in Reliance Regular Saving Equity (12.67) followed by Templeton
India Growth (7.98), Reliance Equity Opportunities (7.21), HDFC Growth
(5.43), HDFC Premier Multicap (4.86) and HDFC Core & Satellite (4.36). The
worst performer was Magnum Mid cap (-8.29), UTI Infrastructure Fund (-4.66)
– Public Sector mutual fund and Franklin India Flexi cap Fund (1.87), Franklin

31
India Life Stage 20S Plan (3.49). Private sector mutual fund schemes showed
better performance in comparison to Public sector mutual fund schemes as per
the results shown by Jensen measure.

32
CHAPTER NO.5

33
 CONCLUSION

Indian Mutual Fund Industry, which started its journey in the year 1964
witnessed four interrelated stages of development and developed manifold in
terms of assets, number of players, schemes, policies, regulations before and
after deregulation and became one of the strong markets in the world. UTI the
public sector mutual fund was the dominant player in terms of number of
schemes and funds mobilization till 1997-98 in the mutual fund industry. This
share had been gradually occupied by the private sector mutual funds after
deregulation. The share of resource mobilization by the public sector as a
percentage of GDP had been decreased phenomenally and reached to negative.
On the other hand, the percentage of private sector has an increasing tendency.
The combined effect of percentage of both the public and private sector mutual
funds showed decline in tendency in the total resource mobilization by mutual
funds as a percentage of GDP. After deregulation, public sector has weakened
in terms of number of funds and Assets Under Management and has been
occupied by the private sector. Share of Indian mutual fund companies, Joint
venture predominantly Indian companies have increased their asset base
manifold. On the other hand, assets of bank sponsored and institutional mutual
funds have decreased. Joint venture mutual funds predominantly

foreign though increased are lagging behind when compared to Indian and
predominantly Indian mutual funds. Sales and redemptions of private sector
Indian mutual funds, Joint venture predominantly Indian mutual funds, and
public sector mutual fund schemes have increased. Sales and redemptions of
private sector joint venture predominantly foreign category have decreased. As
a whole, net sales of private sector Indian mutual funds, Joint venture
predominantly Indian have increased. It is also interesting to note that private
individual investors in the case of number of players, corporate investors in the
case of net assets dominated the industry. Retail players and high net worth
34
investors invested most of their funds in equity schemes and balanced schemes.
Investment in liquid and money market instruments are dominated by the
corporates and banks. The share of investment in bonds and debentures in the
total assets of UTI has decreased. The investment in equity and government
securities in the case of other mutual funds (other than UTI), particularly private
sector funds has also decreased. This has been totally diverted to money market
instruments in the case of UTI and other mutual funds have diverted to bonds,
debentures and money market instruments. The share of investment of UTI in
government securities and in equity shares decreased till 2003 but recovered
gradually after the bifurcation of UTI. Investments diverted to money market
instruments in the case of other mutual funds are higher than the UTI.
Investment in equity shares by UTI equity schemes has increased and in the
case of other mutual funds (other than UTI) it is constant. Investment in money
market instruments in both the cases has also increased, contrarily share of
investment in government securities and bonds and debentures has decreased.
Decrease in the investments of bonds and debentures of UTI is higher than other
mutual funds. UTI bond funds has increased their investment in money market
instruments and equity shares. Where as in the case of other mutual funds (other
than UTI) the investment in money market instruments only decreased.
Investment in government securities and bonds and debentures in the case of
UTI bond funds and investment in bonds and debentures in the case of other
mutual funds has also decreased. Investment in government securities, bonds
and debentures by UTI balanced funds has been increased by decreasing
investment in money market instruments. On the other hand, investment in
equity and money market instruments of other mutual funds (other than UTI)
has also increased by reducing the investment in bonds and debentures. UTI
which is the oldest and biggest mutual fund in terms of investors and
mobilization of funds had maintained a dominant share by investing in equity
shares, bonds and debentures and in money market instruments till 2000. This

35
scenario has changed to 2009 and now other mutual funds particularly private
sector have dominated and occupied nearly 90 per cent in all the above
instruments. And it is quite exiting that the share of investment in state and
central government securities is totally dominated by UTI except during the
period of bifurcation. The objective of understanding and evaluating the
performance of public and private sector in the frame work of risk and returns
using performance measures such as Treynor Ratio, Sharpe ratio, Jensen
measure, Sharpe differential return measure and Fama’s components of
performance have been well established. The result indicate that public sector
sample schemes have superior performance in respect of risk and returns in
comparison with benchmarks, Treynor, and Sharpe ratios. The result also
indicates that private sector sample schemes, particularly joint venture
predominantly foreign, institutions sample schemes related to public sector
have generated excess returns in excess of equilibrium in respect of Jensen
measure. Private sector sample schemes related to joint venture predominantly
foreign have good diversification and higher returns due to selectivity when
compared to public sector sample schemes. And another unique thing noticed
is that sample mutual fund schemes related to joint venture predominantly
Indian both in the case of public and private sectors have earned higher returns
with the higher level of total risk. As a whole public sector sample schemes in
respect of risk and returns, private sector joint venture predominantly foreign
and public sector institutions sample schemes in respect of diversification and
security selection performed well. There are three types of players in the mutual
fund market viz., Government (UTI), Financial Institutions (Banks, LIC, GIC
etc.) and Private Sector. The preference of the investors to invest in the mutual
funds of different sectors is found to be significant. Investors belonging to urban
area, higher educational qualification, salaried and self-employed persons,
higher income group investors have preferred to invest in financial institutions
mutual funds. Investors belonging to lower educational qualification, lower

36
income group have their choice of preference towards government sector
mutual funds. Private sector mutual funds have been liked by the rural and self-
employed investors. Factors like age and sex do not have any significant
influence on the investors preference towards different sectors of mutual funds.
Basically mutual funds offer two types of schemes viz., open-ended schemes
and close-ended schemes. The preference of the investors towards open-ended
schemes is found to be significant. This preference is more significant in the
case of investors belonging to young age group and living in urban areas.
Factors like sex, qualification, occupation and income group do not have any
significant influence on the investors preferences towards open-ended schemes.
Mutual funds offer four types of schemes viz., growth schemes, income
schemes, balanced schemes and sectoral schemes. The preference of the
investors about different mutual fund schemes is found to be significant. The
preference of the investors towards income schemes is more significant in the
case of investors

belonging to younger age group, rural investors and investors with lower
educational qualification. Growth schemes have been liked by the old age,
semi-urban, self-employed and high income group investors. Sectoral schemes
and balanced schemes have been liked by the young and middle income group
investors. Sex has no influence on the investors preference towards different
types of mutual fund schemes. Mutual fund investors have been inspired by
three sources viz., self-inspiration, friends or colleagues, and mutual fund
agents. The major source of inspiration is found to be friends or colleagues. It
is more significant in the case of investors belonging to young age group.
Factors like sex, area, qualification, occupation and income group do not have
any significant influence on the investors source of inspiration to invest in
mutual fund schemes. Investors invest in mutual funds for different reasons. It
has been divided under four heads viz., earning income, for further obligations,
growth in wealth and for the tax benefit. The reasons behind investment in

37
mutual funds is found to be significant. People belonging to young age group,
male investors, low income group have significantly preferred to invest in
mutual funds for earning income. Investors belonging to old age group and high
income group preferred to invest for growth in wealth. Reason behind female
investors investment in mutual funds is for further obligations. And most of the
tax benefit mutual fund schemes were liked by the 318 urban and high income
group people. Educational qualification has no significant influence on the
reason behind investment in mutual funds. The approximate amount of
investment in mutual funds has been divided under four categories viz., below
Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- to Rs50,000/- and
Rs.50,000/- above. The preference of the investors about the amount of
investment in mutual funds is found to be significant. Investors belonging to
younger age group have medium investment of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.
Investors belonging to old age group have preferred to invest very lower
amount. Middle aged people (31 to 50 years) have preferred to invest very large
amount i.e. Rs.50,000/- and above in mutual funds. Factors like sex, area,
qualification, profession do not have any significant influence on the investors
preference towards the amount of investment in mutual funds. Operation of any
mutual fund is very typical job on the part of fund manager, and every mutual
fund investor should know how it has been operated and how the portfolio is
managed. Knowledge of the investors about the mutual fund operation is found
to be significant. Investors belonging to younger age group, urban area and high
income group have knowledge about mutual fund operation. Factors like sex,
educational qualification, profession do not have any significant influence on
the knowledge of mutual fund operation. Broadly mutual funds are divided
under two different sectors viz., Private Sector and Public Sector. Comparison
of investors satisfaction with the services of 319 private and public sector
mutual funds revealed that there is no significant difference. This is more open
in the investors of private sector. Investors satisfaction with the services of

38
private sector mutual funds is slightly higher than that of the public sector
mutual fluids. Investors' level of satisfaction in respect of return is not found to
be different among public and private sector mutual funds.

39
CHAPTER NO.6

40
 SUMMARY

The objective of understanding and evaluating the performance of public and

private sector in the frame work of risk and returns using performance measures
such as Treynor Ratio, Sharpe ratio, Jensen measure, Sharpe differential return
measure and Fama’s components of performance has been well established.
The results indicate that public sector sample mutual fund schemes have
superior performance in respect of risk and returns in comparison with bench
marks, Treynor and Sharpe ratios. And another unique thing noticed is that
sample mutual fund schemes related to joint venture predominantly Indian both
in the case of public and private sectors have earned higher returns with the
higher levels of total risk. The result also indicates that private sector sample
schemes particularly joint venture predominantly foreign, institutions sample
schemes related to public sector have generated excess return in excess of
equilibrium in respect of Jensen measure. And private sector sample schemes
related to joint venture predominantly foreign have good diversification and
higher returns due to selectivity when compared to public sector sample
schemes. As a whole Public sector sample schemes in respect of risk and
returns, Private sector joint venture predominantly foreign and public sector
institutions sample schemes in respect of diversification and security selection
have performed well

41
CHAPTER NO.7

42
 REFERENCES

Agrawal, D. (2007). Measuring performance of Indian mutual funds.

Fama, E. F., & French, K. (2008). Mutual fund performance. Journal of

Finance, 63(1), 389-416.

Goyal, M. M. (2015). Performance Evaluation of Top 10 Mutual Funds in India.

Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, 6(1), 51.

Kanethia, D. K. (2010). Comparative Study of Various Mutual Funds Schemes

in India. Amity Global Business Review, 5(1), 60-76.

Nitzsche, D., Cuthbertson, K., & O'Sullivan, N. (2006). Mutual fund

performance.

Pandow, B. A. (2017). Performance of Mutual Funds in India.

Prajapati, K. P., & Patel, M. K. (2012). Comparative study on performance

evaluation of mutual fund schemes of Indian companies. Researchers World,
3(3), 47.

Puri, H. (2010). Performance Evaluation of Balanced Mutual Fund Schemes in

Indian Scenario.Paradigm (09718907), 14(2), 1-22.

Rao, D. N. (2006). Investment styles and performance of equity mutual funds

in India.

ArifF, Mohammed, Johnson, Lester W., (1990) Security Markets and sock
pricing: Evidence from a Developing Capital Markets in Asia, Longman
Singapore Publishing Private Limited, Singapore.

Avadhani V.A., (2005) Investment and Securities Markets in India, Himalaya

Publishing House, Mumbai.

43
Barua, Samirk, Raghunadhan, V. Varma, Jayant R., (1994) Portfolio
Management. Tata Me. Graw Hill Publishing Company Ltd., New Delhi.

Bhole, L.M., (1982), Financial Markets and Institutions Growth, Structure

Innovations, Tata Me. Graw Hill Publishing Company Ltd., New Delhi.

Chandra Sekhar, Y. (2004) Financial Markets and Services Emerging Trends,

TheICFAI University Press, Hyderabad.

Draper, P., (1989) The Investment Trust Industry in the U.K., Gower Publishing
Company Limited, Vermont.

Farrell, Paul B., (1999), The winning Portfolio — How to choose the best
mutual funds, Vision Books, New Delhi.

Gerald, W, Perrit (1993) Mutual Funds Encyclopedia, Dearborn Financial

Publishing, Chicago.

Gupta Amitabh (2002) Mutual Funds in India, A study of Investment

Management.

Anmol Publications Private Limited, New Delhi. Investment Company Institute

(2006) Mutual Funds Fact Book; Industry Trend and Statistics, Washington.

Rajeswar, Ch., (2001) UTI-A- Saga of Crises and Bailouts, The ICFAI
University Press, Hyderabad.

Singh, Jaspal., (2006) Mutual Funds - Growth Performance and Prospects,

Deep and Deep Publications Private Limited, New Delhi.

44
WEBSITES:

 http://www.mutualfundindia.com

 http://www.nseindia.com

 http://www.bseindia.com

 http://navindia.com

 http://www.sebi.gov.in

 http://business.mapsofindia.com/investment-industry/mutual-fund-
investment.html

45
CHAPTER NO.8

46
 ANNEXURE

 Questionnaire
Notes: 1) Information supplied will be used for research purposes only and
treated as strictly confidential. 2) If any question is not applicable to the
respondent mark a cross (X) against the question number in the left and tick (V)
for ‘Yes’ in the relevant box.

I. Age: _______ c) Sex: Male [ ] Female [ ]

II. Area which you belong to

i) Urban [ ] ii) Semi-urban [ ] iii) Rural [ ]

III. Education
i) Graduation & above [ ] ii) Pre-University [ ]
iii) S.S.C. [ ] iv) Below S.S.C [ ]

IV. Are you a:

i) Salaried person [ ] ii) Self-employed [ ]
iii) Retired person [ ]

V. Approximate monthly household income (i.e., combined family income)

i) Below 10,000 [ ] ii) 10,000 to 20,000 [ ]
ii) iii) 20,000 to 50,000 [ ] iv) 50,000 and above [ ]

47
 VI. Do you or any member of your family hold.... Yes / No
i) Any equity shares [ ] [ ]
ii) Deposits with Bank, Post office, Public sector companies[ ][ ]
iii) Mutual Fund [ ] [ ]
iv) Chit Fund [ ] [ ]

VII. Who inspired you to invest in Mutual Fund?

a) Self [ ] b) Friends/ Colleagues [ ]
c) MF agents [ ]

VIII. What is the nature of Mutual Fund you have invested?

a) Open-ended [ ] b) Close-ended [ ]

IX. Which type of Mutual Fund investment do you like?

a) Govt. (UTI) [ ] b) Private [ ]

c) Financial Institutions (Bank/ LIC/ GIC etc.) [ ]

X. What is the reason behind investment in Mutual Fund?

a) Income earning [ ] b) For further obligations [ ]
c) Growth in wealth [ ] d) For tax benefit [ ]

XI. Which of the following schemes do you like?

a) Growth [ ] b) Income [ ]
c) Balanced [ ] d) Sectoral Fund [ ]

XII. What is the approximate amount of investment in Mutual Fund?

a) Below Rs 10,000 [ ] b) 10,000 to 25,000 [ ]
c) 25,000 to 50,000 [ ] d) 50,000 and above [ ]

48
XIII. Are you satisfied with die services of Mutual Fund?
1) Public Sector a) Satisfied [ ] b) Not satisfied [ ]
2) Private Sector a) Satisfied [ ] b) Not satisfied [ ]

XIV. Are you satisfied with the returns on your investment?

i) Public Sector a) Satisfied [ ] b) Not satisfied [ ]
ii) Private Sector a) Satisfied [ ] b) Not satisfied [ ]

49