CHAPTER 5

RISK-RETURN ANALYSIS OF MUTUAL FUND SCHEMES

Risk denotes deviation of actual returns from the estimated returns. This may be on
either side i.e. above or below the expected returns. However, investors are more
concerned with downside risk. Risk can be broadly divided into two categories,
namely systematic and unsystematic risk. Systematic risk is external in nature and
affects all securities. It is non-diversifiable and can not be eliminated through holding
more securities. On the other hand the risk which is internal and unique to the firm
and industry is called unsystematic risk and can be generally eliminated through
holding diversified portfolio. It is worth-mentioning here that risk bearing appetite
varies from investor to investor. Since risk and returns are positively correlated, risk
averse investors prefer to invest in low risk securities e.g. bonds. On the other hand,
the investors with high risk bearing capacity may opt for investment in equity. Given
the choice between two investment options, a risk averse investor is likely to prefer
investment with higher returns and lower risk (i.e. lower standard deviation). Out of
two investment options having equal returns, a rational investor is likely to opt for
investment which has relatively lower risk. Further, if two investment options have
same risk, then he will opt for investment with higher returns.
In the light of above discussion, an attempt has been made to analyse the risk-return
relationship of selected mutual fund schemes.

5.1 ANALYSIS OF RISK

Every type of investment including mutual funds involves risk. Risk refers to the
possibility that one will lose money (both principal and earnings) or fail to make
money on an investment. Investment objective of a fund and its holdings are
influential factors in determining how risky a fund is. To determine this risk we
calculated standard deviation of returns and on the basis of value of standard
deviation the schemes were categorised as having high risk, medium risk and low
risk. The classification of risk categories used in the study is presented below.

79
 Classification of Risk Categories on the basis of Standard Deviation

Risk Category Value of Standard Deviation (in per

cent)
High Risk More than 15
Medium Risk 5 to 15
Low Risk Less than 5

5.1.1 Risk Pattern of Various Mutual Fund Schemes

Table 5.1 indicates the risk pattern of various mutual fund schemes. The table reveals
that in 4 out of 9 years under study (i.e. 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2009-10),
majority of the mutual fund schemes had high risk. Further, in 5 out of 9 years (i.e.
2002-03, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11), majority of mutual fund schemes
had medium risk. Only 4 per cent schemes in 2005-06 and 10.42 per cent schemes in
2010-11 had low risk.

Table 5.1
Risk Pattern of Various Mutual Fund Schemes

Number of
Number of Number of
schemes Total number
Year↓ schemes having schemes having
having low of schemes
medium risk high risk
risk
2002-03 - 34(75.55) 11(24.45) 45
2003-04 - 11(22.00) 39(78.00) 50
2004-05 - 21(42.00) 29(58.00) 50
2005-06 2(4.00) 47(94.00) 1(2.00) 50
2006-07 - 24(48.00) 26(52.00) 50
2007-08 - 37(74.00) 13(26.00) 50
2008-09 - 50(100.00) - 50
2009-10 - 4(8.16) 45(91.84) 49
2010-11 5(10.42) 43(89.58) - 48
Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentage to total number of schemes

80
5.1.2 Risk Pattern of Growth Schemes

Growth schemes often have medium to high risk, as their motive is to grow the
investors’ money. It is evident from Table 5.2 that majority of the growth schemes in
four out of nine years under study (i.e. 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2009-10) had
high risk.

However, majority of growth schemes in five out of nine years (i.e. 2002-03, 2005-
06, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11) had medium risk. Only one scheme (2.78%) in
2010-11 reported low risk.

5.1.3 Risk Pattern of Balanced Schemes

As the name suggests, the balanced schemes often have balanced i.e. medium risk.
These funds often have a blend of their investment in equity and debt. So the risk in
the balanced fund portfolio is less compared to growth schemes. Table 5.3 reveals that
75 per cent of the balanced schemes in the year 2009-10 had high risk. However, most
of the schemes in the remaining 8 years had medium risk. Further, low risk was
evident in 16.67 per cent and 33.33 per cent of the schemes in the year 2005-06 and
2010-11 respectively.

Table 5.2
Risk Pattern of Growth Schemes

Year↓ Number of Number of Number of Total number

schemes schemes having schemes having of schemes
having low medium risk high risk
risk
2002-03 - 22(66.67) 11(33.33) 33
2003-04 - - 38(100.00) 38
2004-05 - 10(26.32) 28(73.68) 38
2005-06 37(97.36) 1(2.64) 38
2006-07 - 12(31.58) 26(68.42) 38
2007-08 - 26(68.43) 12(31.57) 38
2008-09 - 38(100.00) - 38
2009-10 - 1(2.7) 36(97.30) 37
2010-11 1(2.78) 35(97.22) - 36
Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentage to total number of schemes

81
 Table 5.3
Risk Pattern of Balanced Schemes

Year↓ Number of Number of Number of Total number

schemes having schemes having schemes having of schemes
low risk medium risk high risk
2002-03 - 12(100.00) - 12
2003-04 - 11(91.67) 1(8.33) 12
2004-05 - 11(91.67) 1(8.33) 12
2005-06 2(16.67) 10(83.33) - 12
2006-07 - 12(100.00) - 12
2007-08 - 11(91.67) 1(8.33) 12
2008-09 - 12(100.00) - 12
2009-10 3(25.00) 9(75.00) 12
2010-11 4(33.33) 8(66.67) - 12
Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentage to total number of schemes

5.1.4 Comparison of Risk Pattern of Mutual Fund Schemes of Public and Private
Sector

Table 5.4 shows the comparison of risk pattern of mutual fund schemes of public and
private sector. It is evident that in case of public sector, most of the schemes (66% to
100%) in 3 out of 9 years (i.e. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2009-10) had high risk. Further,
most of the schemes (91% to 100%) in 5 out of 9 years (i.e. 2002-03, 2005-06, 2007-
08, 2008-09 and 2010-11) had medium risk. An equal number of schemes i.e. 50 per
cent each had high and medium risk in 2006-07. None of the public sector schemes
had low risk throughout the study period. In contrast, the private sector mutual fund
schemes reported that most of the schemes (52% to 89%) in 4 out of 9 years (i.e.
2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2009-10) had high risk. Further, most of the schemes
(68% to 100%) in 5 out of 9 years (i.e. 2002-03, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 and
2010-11) had medium risk. Only 5.26 per cent schemes in 2005-06 and 13.51 per cent
schemes in 2010-11 had low risk.

82
 Table 5.4
Comparison of Risk Pattern of Mutual Fund Schemes of Public and Private Sector

Public Sector Private Sector

Year↓ Number of Number of Number of Total Number of Number of Number of Total
schemes schemes schemes number of schemes schemes schemes number
having low having having high schemes having low having having high of
risk medium risk risk risk medium risk risk schemes

2002-03 - 10(83.33) 2(16.67) 12 - 24(72.73) 9(27.27) 33

2003-04 - 2(16.67) 10(83.33) 12 - 9(23.68) 29(76.32) 38
2004-05 - 4(33.33) 8(66.67) 12 - 17(44.74) 21(55.26) 38
2005-06 - 11(91.67) 1(8.33) 12 2(5.26) 36(94.74) - 38
2006-07 - 6(50.00) 6(50.00) 12 - 18(47.37) 20(52.63) 38
2007-08 - 11(91.67) 1(8.33) 12 - 26(68.42) 12(31.58) 38
2008-09 - 12(100.00) - 12 - 38(100.00) - 38
2009-10 - - 11(100.00) 11 - 4(10.53) 34(89.47) 38
2010-11 - 11(100) - 11 5(13.51) 32(86.49) - 37
Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentage to total number of schemes

5.1.5 Comparison of Schemes’ Risk with Benchmark Indices

Table 5.5 compares the risk of schemes with benchmark indices to see whether
selected schemes outperformed or underperformed the market.

5.1.5.1 Comparison with S&P CNX Nifty

Majority of the selected schemes had lower risk than S&P CNX Nifty during 2003-
04, 2004-05 and 2010-11. So it becomes clear that majority of the selected schemes
had higher risk than selected index in 6 out of 9 years under study.

5.1.5.2 Comparison with BSE Sensex

Considering the number of schemes below BSE Sensex in terms of risk, it was found
that substantial number of schemes had risk below the selected benchmark index i.e.
BSE Sensex for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11. Thus it is clear that majority of the
selected schemes had higher risk in 7 out of 9 years under study.

83
 Table 5.5
Comparison of Risk of Schemes with Benchmark Indices
Year↓ Number of Schemes having Risk Below Total
S&P BSE BSE- BSE- number
CNX Sensex 100 200 of
Nifty schemes
2002-03 21(46.67) 16(35.56) 24(53.33) 29(64.44) 45
2003-04 30(60.00) 22(44.00) 30(60.00) 29(58.00) 50
2004-05 26(52.00) 21(42.00) 23(46.00) 27(54.00) 50
2005-06 13(26.00) 15(30.00) 16(32.00) 15(30.00) 50
2006-07 11(22.00) 9(18.00) 13(26.00) 14(28.00) 50
2007-08 14(28.00) 14(28.00) 25(50.00) 28(56.00) 50
2008-09 19(38.00) 18(36.00) 27(54.00) 27(54.00) 50
2009-10 17(34.69) 31(63.27) 35(71.43) 35(71.43) 49
2010-11 38(79.17) 37(77.08) 30(62.50) 29(60.42) 48
Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentage to total number of schemes

5.1.5.3 Comparison with BSE 100

From the analysis of the risk with BSE 100 benchmark, it is evident that majority of
the schemes had lower risk than the selected benchmark index in 5 out of 9 years. In
2007-08, an equal number of schemes (50%) had risk above and below the
benchmark. Further, majority of the schemes had higher risk than the BSE 100 in
2004-05 to 2006-07.

5.1.5.4 Comparison with BSE 200

From the comparison of risk of the selected mutual fund schemes under study with the
BSE 200 index, it is evident that in 7 out of 9 years of the study majority of the
schemes had risk below the BSE 200 index. However in 2005-06 and 2006-07,
majority of the schemes had risk above the benchmark index.

5.2 ANALYSIS OF RETURNS

The analysis of returns was done on the basis of average quarterly returns based on
NAV of sample schemes. All the selected schemes were categorised objective-wise
(Growth and Balanced schemes) and sector-wise (Public Sector and Private Sector).
The returns of schemes were further compared with benchmark indices S&P CNX
Nifty, BSE Sensex, BSE 100 and BSE 200.

84
5.2.1. Average Quarterly Returns of Total Schemes

Table 5.6 shows the average quarterly returns of total schemes. The table indicates
that most of the schemes in all the years under study except in 2008-09 generated
positive returns. However, all the schemes in the year 2008-09 had negative returns.

Table 5.6

Average Quarterly Returns of Total Schemes

Year↓ Number of Number of Total

schemes schemes number
earning earning of
positive negative schemes
returns returns
2002-03 45(100.00) - 45
2003-04 50(100.00) - 50
2004-05 48(96.00) 2(4.00) 50
2005-06 50(100.00) - 50
2006-07 50(100.00) - 50
2007-08 49(98.00) 1(2.00) 50
2008-09 - 50(100.00) 50
2009-10 48(97.96) 1(2.04) 49
2010-11 47(97.92) 1(2.08) 48
Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentage to total number of schemes

5.2.2 Average Quarterly Returns of Growth Schemes

Table 5.7 indicates the average quarterly returns of growth schemes. The table shows that
most of the schemes (94% to 100%) in all the years except in 2008-09 generated positive
returns whereas all the growth schemes showed negative returns during 2008-09.

5.2.3 Average Quarterly Returns of Balanced Schemes

Table 5.8 presents the average quarterly returns of balanced schemes. It highlights
that most of the balanced schemes (91.67% to 100%) had positive returns in all the
years under study except 2008-09. Surprisingly, all the balanced schemes in 2008-09
had negative returns.

85
 Table 5.7
Average Quarterly Returns of Growth Schemes

Number of Number of
Total
schemes schemes
number
Year↓ earning earning
of
positive negative
schemes
returns returns
2002-03 33(100.00) - 33
2003-04 38(100.00) - 38
2004-05 36(94.74) 2(5.26) 38
2005-06 38(100.00) - 38
2006-07 38(100.00) - 38
2007-08 38(100.00) - 38
2008-09 - 38(100.00) 38
2009-10 36(97.30) 1(2.70) 37
2010-11 36(100.00) - 36
Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentage to total number of schemes

Table 5.8
Average Quarterly Returns of Balanced Schemes
Number of Number of
Total
schemes schemes
number
Year↓ earning earning
of
positive negative
schemes
returns returns
2002-03 12(100.00) - 12
2003-04 12(100.00) - 12
2004-05 12(100.00) - 12
2005-06 12(100.00) - 12
2006-07 12(100.00) - 12
2007-08 11(91.67) 1(8.33) 12
2008-09 - 12(100.00) 12
2009-10 12(100.00) - 12
2010-11 11(91.67) 1(8.33) 12
Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentage to total number of schemes

5.2.4 Comparison of Returns of Public and Private Sector

Table 5.9 shows the comparison of returns of public and private sector. In case of
public sector, most of the schemes (above 80%) provided positive returns in 8 out of 9
years. However, all the schemes in 2008-09 had negative returns. Similarly in case of
private sector, most of the schemes (above 97%) earned positive returns in all the
years except 2008-09. Further, all the private sector schemes in year 2008-09 had
negative returns.

86
 Table 5.9
Comparison of Returns of Public and Private Sector
Sector → Public Sector Private Sector
Year↓ Number Number Total Number Number Total
of of number of of number
schemes schemes of schemes schemes of
earning earning schemes earning earning schemes
positive negative positive negative
returns returns returns returns
2002-03 12(100.00) - 12 33(100.00) - 33
2003-04 12(100.00) - 12 38(100.00) - 38
2004-05 10(83.33) 2(16.67) 12 38(100.00) - 38
2005-06 12(100.00) - 12 38(100.00) - 38
2006-07 12(100.00) - 12 38(100.00) - 38
2007-08 12(100.00) - 12 37(97.37) 1(2.63) 38
2008-09 - 12(100.00) 12 - 38(100) 38
2009-10 10(90.91) 1(9.09) 11 38(100.00) - 38
2010-11 11(100.00) - `11 36(97.29) 1(2.71) 37
Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentage to total number of schemes

5.2.5 Comparison of Returns of Schemes with Benchmark Indices

Table 5.10 shows the comparison of returns of schemes falling below the benchmark
indices for the study period.

5.2.5.1 Comparison with S&P CNX Nifty

Selected mutual fund schemes underperformed the benchmark S&P CNX Nifty in 3
out of 9 years i.e. 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2010-11. It means that the schemes provided
returns above the benchmark in 6 out of 9 years.

5.2.5.2 Comparison with BSE Sensex

From the returns of the selected mutual fund schemes against BSE Sensex, it is
evident that schemes underperformed BSE Sensex in one year only i.e. 2006-07. For
the remaining years under study, the selected mutual fund schemes had returns above
the BSE Sensex.

5.2.5.3 Comparison with BSE 100

The comparison of the returns of the mutual fund schemes with BSE 100 index shows
that in 3 out of 9 years under study, the returns were below the selected benchmark

87
index. It meant that the mutual funds provided return more than BSE 100 index in 6
out of 9 years under study.

Table 5.10
Comparison of Returns of Schemes with Benchmark Indices
Number of Schemes Performing Below Total
S&P number
Year↓ BSE
CNX BSE 100 BSE 200 of
Sensex
Nifty schemes
2002-03 4(8.89) 4(8.89) 10(22.22) 26(57.78) 45
2003-04 17(34.00) 17(34.00) 18(36.00) 23(46.00) 50
2004-05 6(12.00) 9(18.00) 15(30.00) 15(30.00) 50
2005-06 14(28.00) 23(46.00) 16(32.00) 13(26.00) 50
2006-07 30(60.00) 35(70.00) 30(60.00) 30(60.00) 50
2007-08 22(44.00) 10(20.00) 28(56.00) 28(56.00) 50
2008-09 26(52.00) 25(50.00) 20(40.00) 17(34.00) 50
2009-10 18(36.73) 24(48.98) 29(59.18) 32(65.31) 49
2010-11 25(52.08) 23(47.92) 19(39.58) 20(41.67) 48
Note: Figures in parentheses denote percentage to total number of schemes

5.2.5.4 Comparison with BSE 200

Further, the returns of the selected mutual fund schemes with the BSE 200 index
reveals that majority of mutual fund schemes underperformed the BSE 200 index for
4 out of 9 years under study. However, in 2003-04 to 2005-06, 2008-09 and 2010-11
the selected mutual fund schemes provided returns above the BSE 200.

5.3 Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)

To see the annualised growth in investments of selected schemes, we calculated the

compound annual growth rate of NAV for each scheme under study. Such growth
rates have been shown separately for Growth and Balanced schemes in Table 5.11 and
Table 5.12 respectively.

88
5.3.1 Compound Annual Growth Rate of Growth Schemes

Table 5.11 presents the compound annual growth rate of growth schemes. The results
suggest that compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of growth schemes varied
between 10.04 per cent to 41.25 per cent. It is evident from the results that 11 out of
38 growth schemes registered less than 25 per cent compound annual growth rate.
However, 24 growth schemes had 25 per cent to 35 per cent compound annual
growth rate. Only 3 growth schemes registered more than 35 per cent compound
annual growth rate. Sundaram Select Midcap (41.25%), HDFC Top 200 (36.66%),
HDFC Equity (36.45%), Franklin India Prima Fund (34.82%) and Birla Sunlife
Midcap Fund (34.76%) were the top 5 schemes in terms of CAGR out of total 38
growth schemes for the study period whereas UTI Mastergrowth (10.04%), UTI Index
Select Fund (10.51%), UTI Master Value Fund (17.96%), Taurus Discovery (18.73%)
and UTI Master Share (19.97%) had the lowest compound annual growth rate.
Surprisingly, all the top performing mutual fund schemes were from the private sector
and the worst performing mutual fund schemes belonged to public sector.

5.3.2 Compound Annual Growth Rate of Balanced Schemes

Table 5.12 indicates the compound annual growth rate of balanced schemes. The
results suggest that compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of balanced schemes
varied between 5.87 per cent to 31.18 per cent. All balanced schemes showed
compound growth rate of more than 10 per cent except in case of Tata Young Citizen
Fund (i.e. 5.87%). Ten out of twelve balanced schemes registered less than 25 per
cent growth rate. Only two schemes earned compound annual growth rate in the range
of 25 per cent to 35 per cent. The five top performing schemes included HDFC
Prudence Fund (31.18%), Birla Sunlife 95 (25.08%), Tata Balanced Fund (24.24%),
Franklin India Balanced Fund (22.68%) and HDFC Balanced Fund (22.02%) whereas
lowest compound growth rate were registered by Tata Young Citizen Fund (5.87%),
Birla Sunlife Balanced Fund (16.74%), UTI Balanced Fund (19.61%), Principal
Balanced Fund (19.72%) and ICICI Balanced Fund (20.91%).

89
 Table 5.11
Compound Annual Growth Rate of Growth Schemes
Name of the Scheme Compound Growth Rate (in per cent)
Birla Sunlife Advantage Fund 25.03
Birla Sunlife Basic Industry Fund 33.47
Birla Sunlife Equity Fund 32.01
Birla Sunlife Frontline Equity Fund 31.86
Birla Sunlife Midcap Fund 34.76
Franklin India Bluechip Fund 31.97
Franklin India Opportunity Fund 24.37
Franklin India Prima Fund 34.82
Franklin India Prima Plus Fund 31.33
HDFC Capital Builder Fund 32.90
HDFC Equity Fund 36.45
HDFC Growth Fund 32.98
HDFC Top 200 36.66
ICICI Dynamic Plan 32.87
ICICI Growth Plan 26.43
ICICI Prudence Power (Growth) 31.21
Principal Growth Fund 23.76
Principal Resurgent India Equity Fund 30.92
SBI Magnum Contra Fund 25.66
SBI Magnum Equity Fund 21.41
SBI Magnum Global Fund 27.06
SBI Magnum Multiplier Plus 30.04
Sundaram Growth Fund 28.27
Sundaram Select Focus 31.17
Sundaram Select Midcap 41.25
Tata Equity Opportunity Fund 31.72
Tata Growth Fund 25.39
Tata Pure Equity Fund 31.51
Tata Select Equity Fund 29.87
Taurus Bonaza Fund 22.41
Taurus Discovery 18.73
Taurus Starshare 31.61
UTI Equity Fund 23.92
UTI Index Select Fund (Growth) 10.51
UTI Master Growth 10.04
UTI Master Plus Unit Scheme 91 21.42
UTI Master share (Growth) 19.97
UTI Master Value Fund (Growth) 17.96

90
 Table 5.12
Compound Annual Growth Rate of Balanced Schemes
Name of the Scheme Compound Growth Rate (in per cent)
Birla Sunlife 95 25.08
Birla Sunlife Balanced Fund 16.74
Franklin India Balanced Fund 22.68
HDFC Balanced Fund 22.02
HDFC Prudence Fund 31.18
ICICI Balanced Fund 20.91
Principal Balanced Fund 19.72
SBI Magnum Balanced Fund 21.18
Sundaram Balanced Fund 21.09
Tata Balanced Fund 24.24
Tata Young Citizen Fund 5.87
UTI Balanced Fund 19.61

5.4 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL

SCHEME’S RETURN WITH RESPECT TO BENCHMARK
INDICES

The returns earned by schemes taken for study have been compared with the returns
of the benchmark indices to know whether they have underperformed or
outperformed.

5.4.1 HDFC Mutual Fund

Table 5.13 compares the returns of HDFC Mutual Fund Schemes with selected
benchmark indices over the study period. The different fund schemes have been
compared with S&P CNX Nifty, BSE Sensex, BSE 100, and BSE 200 benchmark
indices. While comparing the returns of HDFC Equity Fund, it was found that in
seven out of nine years under study, the fund scheme showed returns above all the
benchmark indices. However, the results also revealed that HDFC Equity Fund
yielded on an average returns below the benchmark index in the years 2006-07 and
2007-08. HDFC Growth Fund had on an average returns above the benchmark
indices in eight out of nine years except for the year 2009-10. In the year 2009-10, the
scheme performed below the benchmark index in terms of return. The other growth
schemes of HDFC Mutual Fund under study i.e. HDFC Top 200 Fund and HDFC
Capital Builder Fund had returns above the benchmark indices for seven out of nine
years. For the year 2006-07, funds reported returns below all the selected benchmark

91
indices. In the year 2007-08, HDFC Top 200 fund had returns above the benchmark
indices S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex. However, it showed returns below BSE
100 as well as BSE 200 Index in the same year. Considering HDFC Capital Builder
Fund, it is evident from the results that in comparison to S&P CNX Nifty and BSE
Sensex, the fund underperformed in the year 2008-09. However, the fund
outperformed in comparison to BSE 100 and BSE 200 in the same year. Regarding
the balanced schemes of HDFC Mutual Fund, HDFC Balanced Fund provided returns
above the benchmark indices just for three out of nine years under study. For rest of
the years, the returns were below the benchmark indices. For the HDFC Prudence
Fund, it is evident that the fund showed returns above the benchmark indices for
seven out of nine years under study. For the year 2006-07 and 2007-08, the returns
from the HDFC Prudence Fund were below the benchmark indices. Overall, it is clear
that the HDFC Mutual Fund schemes, on an average, outperformed the selected
benchmark indices in terms of returns for the period 2002-03 to 2010-11. Among the
various schemes, HDFC Balanced Fund had lower returns. Further, all schemes of the
HDFC mutual Fund had returns above all the benchmark indices in the year 2010-11.

5.4.2 Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund

Table 5.14 indicates the comparison of returns of Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund
Schemes with benchmark indices over the study period. It was observed that Franklin
India Bluechip Fund showed returns above the benchmark indices for 7 out of 9 years
of study. However, the fund provided returns below the benchmark indices in the
year 2007-08. For the year 2009-10, the fund outperformed the S&P CNX Nifty and
BSE Sensex in terms of returns but underperformed the BSE 100 and BSE 200 index.
The fund also underperformed the BSE Sensex for the year 2005-06. Franklin India
Opportunities Fund gave returns above the benchmark for 4 out of 9 years considered
for the study. During 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, the fund gave returns below the
benchmark indices.

92
 Table 5.13
Comparison of Returns of HDFC Mutual Fund Schemes with Benchmark Indices

Name of
HDFC Growth HDFC Top 200 HDFC Capital HDFC Balanced HDFC Prudence
the HDFC Equity Fund
Fund Fund Builder Fund Fund Fund
scheme→
S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex
BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200
Year↓

2002-03 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A
2003-04 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B A A A B
2004-05 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B A A A A
2005-06 A A A A A B A A A A A A A A A A B B B B A A A A
2006-07 B B B B A B A A B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
2007-08 B A B B A A A A A A B B A A A A B B B B B B B B
2008-09 A A A A A A A A A A A A B B A A A A A A A A A A
2009-10 A A A A A B B B A A A A A A A A B B B B A A A B
2010-11 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
A - Returns above Benchmark Index
B - Returns below Benchmark Index

93
 Table 5.14
Comparison of Returns of Franklin Templeton Mutual Fund Schemes with Benchmark Indices

Name of
Franklin India Franklin India Franklin India Franklin India Franklin India
the
Bluechip Fund Opportunities Fund Prima Fund Prima Plus Fund Balanced Fund
scheme→
S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex
BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200
Year↓

2002-03 A A A A A A B B A A A A A A A A A A A A
2003-04 A A A A A A A B A A A A A A A A B B B B
2004-05 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B
2005-06 A B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B
2006-07 A A A A A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B
2007-08 B A B B A A B B B A B B B A B B B B B B
2008-09 A A A A B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A
2009-10 A A B B A B B B A A A A B B B B B B B B
2010-11 A A A A B B B B A A A A A A A A B B B B
A - Returns above Benchmark Index
B - Returns below Benchmark Index

94
During 2002-03 and 2007-08, the fund showed returns above the S&P CNX Nifty and
BSE Sensex only. The returns were lower than the other benchmark indices. The fund
also underperformed BSE 200 for the year 2003-04. Further, Franklin India Prima
Fund outperformed in terms of returns in the 6 out of 9 years under study. For the
remaining three years i.e. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, the performance of fund in
terms of returns was below the benchmark indices. The performance of Franklin India
Prima Plus fund also reveals that it outperformed the benchmark indices for 7 out of 9
years; only for the year 2007-08 and 2009-10, the fund performed below the
benchmark index. Franklin India Balanced Fund provided a different picture as
compared to other fund schemes of Franklin Templeton. The fund outperformed the
benchmark indices in the year 2002-03 and 2008-09. For all other years under study
that is 7 out of 9 years it reported the returns below the benchmark indices.

5.4.3 Tata Mutual Fund

Table 5.15 shows the comparison of returns of Tata Mutual Fund Schemes with
benchmark indices. Tata Equity Opportunities Fund provided returns above the
benchmark indices in 7 out of 9 years of study period whereas in years 2008-09 and
2010-11 returns of this scheme was below all the benchmark indices. It has been
observed that the Tata Growth Fund performed well above the benchmark indices for
5 out of 9 years. The fund performed below the benchmark indices for the year 2006-
07 and 2008-09. The fund outperformed and underperformed S&P CNX Nifty and
BSE Sensex in the year 2002-03 and 2010-11 respectively. It can be seen from the
results of the Tata Pure Equity Fund that it provided returns above the benchmark
indices for 8 out of 9 years except for the year 2009-10. The results were similar for
Tata Select Equity Fund which consistently performed above the benchmark indices
for 8 out of 9 years except for the year 2008-09. The Balanced Mutual Fund Schemes
of Tata showed a different perspective in terms of returns.

95
 Table 5.15

Comparison of Returns of Tata Mutual Fund Schemes with Benchmark Indices

Name of Tata Equity

Tata Growth Tata Pure Equity Tata Select Tata Balanced TataYoung
the Opportunities
Fund Fund Equity Fund Fund Citizens’ Fund
scheme→ Fund
S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex
BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200
Year↓

2002-03 A A A A A A B B A A A B A A A B A A A B A A A B
2003-04 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B
2004-05 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B
2005-06 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B
2006-07 A B A A B B B B A B A A A A A A B B B B B B B B
2007-08 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B
2008-09 B B B B B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A A A A A
2009-10 A A A A A A A A A B B B A A A A B B B B B B B B
2010-11 B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B
A - Returns above Benchmark Index
B - Returns below Benchmark Index

96
Tata Balanced Fund performed well above the benchmark indices in 2002-03, 2004-
05 and 2008-09. For the year 2007-08, the fund performed above the S&P CNX Nifty
and BSE Sensex and below the BSE 100 and BSE 200. In the remaining 5 years under
study, the scheme performed well below the selected benchmark indices. Further, the
Tata Young Citizens’ Fund could not perform well as compared to the benchmark
indices for 7 out of 9 years of the study. It performed well only in 2008-09 against all
benchmark indices and in the year 2002-03 against all benchmark indices except for
BSE 200 index. Overall, the performance of the selected growth funds (i.e. Tata
Equity Opportunities Fund, Tata Growth Fund, Tata Pure Equity Fund and Tata Select
Equity Fund) was well above the benchmark indices as compared to the balanced
fund schemes (i.e. Tata Balanced Fund and Tata Young Citizens’ Fund).

5.4.4 SBI Mutual Fund

Table 5.16 provides the comparison of returns of SBI Mutual Fund Schemes with the
selected benchmark indices for the year 2002-03 to 2010-11. SBI Magnum Equity
Fund provided returns above the benchmark indices for 5 out of 9 years under study.
However, for the years 2003-04, 2006-07 and 2008-09, it provided returns below the
benchmark indices. For the year 2002-03, the fund performed well above S&P CNX
Nifty and BSE Sensex but performed below BSE 100 and BSE 200 indices in terms
of returns. It is evident from the analysis of SBI MSFU-Contra Fund that it gave
returns above the benchmark indices for 5 out of 9 years. However, for the years
2003-04, 2004-05 and 2010-11 the performance of the schemes in terms of returns
was below the benchmark indices. The fund performance in the year 2008-09 was
below the benchmark indices S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex and above the BSE
100 and BSE 200 indices. SBI Magnum Global Fund and SBI Magnum Multiplier
Fund schemes showed that the fund’s returns were above the benchmark indices in 6
out of 9 years under study. SBI Magnum Global Fund in the year 2008-09 and SBI
Magnum Multiplier Fund in the year 2002-03 could not perform well in terms of
returns with regard to all benchmark indices. For the year 2003-04 and 2007-08, SBI
Magnum Global Fund performed well above the S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex
but the performance was below the BSE 100 and BSE 200. Further, SBI Magnum
Multiplier Plus could not perform well in the year 2008-09 and the performance was
below S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex.

97
 Table 5.16

Comparison of Returns of SBI Mutual Fund Schemes with Benchmark Indices

Name of
SBI Magnum SBI MSFU-Contra SBI Magnum SBI Magnum SBI Magnum
the
Equity Fund Fund Global Fund Multiplier Plus 1993 Balanced Fund
scheme→
S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex
BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200
Year↓

2002-03 A A B B A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B
2003-04 B B B B B B B B A A B B A A A A B B B B
2004-05 A A A A A B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A
2005-06 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
2006-07 B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B
2007-08 A A A A A A A A A A B B A A A A B A B B
2008-09 B B B A B B A A B B B B B B A A A A A A
2009-10 A A A B A A A B A A A A A A B B B B B B
2010-11 B A A A B B B B A A A A A A A A B B B B
A - Returns above Benchmark Index
B - Returns below Benchmark Index

98
However, the performance improved against these benchmark indices in the year
2009-10. Further, the SBI Magnum Balanced Fund performed below the benchmark
indices in 6 out of 9 years under study. The fund outperformed the selected
benchmark indices in the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2008-09. Overall, the SBI
Mutual Fund Schemes showed mixed trends of performance in terms of returns.

5.4.5 Principal Mutual Fund

Table 5.17 highlights the comparison of returns of Principal Mutual Fund Schemes
with benchmark indices. The growth scheme of the Principal Mutual Fund i.e.
Principal Growth Fund showed returns above the indices for 4 out of 9 years.
Amongst these years the fund gave returns below the benchmark indices BSE 200 in
the year 2003-04 and BSE Sensex in the year 2005-06. For the remaining 5 years i.e.
2006-07 to 2010-11, the fund underperformed the benchmark indices. Another growth
scheme i.e. Principal Resurgent India Equity fund outperformed all the benchmark
indices in 4 out of 8 years under study (i.e. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2007-08).
For the remaining 4 years, it underperformed the benchmark indices.

Table 5.17
Comparison of Returns of Principal Mutual Fund Scheme with Benchmark Indices
Name of
the Principal Growth Principal Resurgent Principal Balanced
scheme→ Fund India Equity Fund Fund
S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex
BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

Year↓

2002-03 A A A A A A A A A A A B
2003-04 A A A B A A A A B B B B
2004-05 A A A A A A A A A A A A
2005-06 A B A A B B B A B B B B
2006-07 B B B B B B B B B B B B
2007-08 B A B B A A A A B A B B
2008-09 B B B B B B B B A A A A
2009-10 A B B B B B B B B B B B
2010-11 B B B B - - - - B B B B
A - Returns above Benchmark Index
B - Returns below Benchmark Index

99
The Principal Balanced Fund indicates that the performance of the fund in terms of
returns was below the benchmark indices in 6 out of 9 years under study. However in
the years 2002-03, 2004-05 and 2008-09, the fund’s performance in term of returns
was better than the benchmark indices. Overall, it can be concluded that the Principal
Mutual Fund Schemes did not perform well in terms of returns in comparison to the
benchmark indices for the study period.

5.4.6 Taurus Mutual Fund

Table 5.18 reveals the comparison of returns of Taurus Mutual Fund Schemes with
benchmark indices. After analysing the results of Taurus Bonaza Fund Schemes, the
results reveal that in 4 out of 9 years, the performance of returns was below the
benchmark indices. For the remaining years, it was above the benchmark indices
except in the years 2004-05 and 2009-10 where the scheme performed well in terms
of returns against S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex and underperformed against the
other two benchmark indices.

Table 5.18
Comparison of Returns of Taurus Mutual Fund Schemes with Benchmark Indices
Name of
the Taurus Bonanza Taurus Discovery
Taurus Starshare
scheme→ Fund Fund
S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex
BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

Year↓

2002-03 A A A A A A A A A A A B
2003-04 B B B B A A A A A A A A
2004-05 A A B B A A A A A A A A
2005-06 A A A A A A A A A A A A
2006-07 B B B B A A A A B B B B
2007-08 A A A A A A A A A A A A
2008-09 B B B B B B B B B B B B
2009-10 A A B B A A A A A A A A
2010-11 B B B B A A A A B B B B
A - Returns above Benchmark Index
B - Returns below Benchmark Index

100
Taurus Starshare Fund Scheme consistently performed well above the benchmark
indices for all the years except 2008-09 where its performance was below the
benchmark indices. Taurus Discovery Fund Scheme performed below the benchmark
indices for the years 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2010-11. However, in 6 out of 9 years
under study, the fund performed well above the benchmark indices. Overall Taurus
Starshare and Taurus Discovery Fund schemes performed well as compared to Taurus
Bonaza Fund Scheme.

5.4.7 UTI Mutual Fund

Table 5.19 shows the comparison of returns of UTI Mutual Fund with returns of
benchmark indices. The results highlight that UTI Equity Fund provided returns over
the benchmark returns for 4 years out of total 9 years while the fund generated returns
below the benchmark indices continuously for four years i.e. 2004-05 to 2007-08. In
the year 2009-10, the returns of the fund were above S&P CNX Nifty & BSE Sensex
but below BSE 100 & BSE 200. Further, UTI Master Growth provided returns above
the benchmark indices in just two years i.e. 2002-03 and 2003-04 and the returns were
below the benchmark in five out of nine years. However, the returns of the fund were
above S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex in the year 2007-08 and below the above said
benchmarks in the year 2008-09. The results showed improvement in terms of returns
against the BSE 100 and BSE 200 index in 2008-09 when compared with 2007-08.
UTI Master Value Fund showed returns over the benchmark in 5 out of 9 years of the
study while for the other four years, the returns of the fund were below the
benchmark. In the years 2003-04 and 2006-07, UTI Master Plus Unit scheme 91
provided returns above the benchmark while in years 2004-05, 2007-08 and 2009-10,
the returns were below the benchmark indices. In 2008-09 and 2010-11, the fund
provided returns above the two benchmark indices BSE 100 and BSE 200 while
below the other two benchmark indices S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex. In 2002-
03, fund’s returns were above the benchmark S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex and
below the BSE 100 and BSE 200. In 2005-06, the fund performed above the
benchmark S&P CNX Nifty and BSE 200 and below the BSE Sensex and BSE 100.
The analysis revealed that UTI Master Share earned returns higher than the
benchmark in years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11. However in remaining six years,
the returns of the fund were below all the benchmark indices. UTI Index Select Fund
provided returns above the benchmark in 2008-09, while for five out of seven years

101
 Table 5.19
Comparison of Returns of UTI Mutual Fund Schemes with Benchmark Indices
Name of
UTI Master
the UTI Equity UTI Master UTI Master UTI UTI Index UTI Balanced
Plus Unit
scheme Fund Growth Value Fund Mastershare Select Fund Fund
Scheme 91
→
S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex
BSE 100
BSE 200

BSE 100
BSE 200

BSE 100
BSE 200

BSE 100
BSE 200

BSE 100
BSE 200

BSE 100
BSE 200

BSE 100
BSE 200
Year↓

2002-03 A A A A A A A B A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B B A A A B
2003-04 A A A A A A A A B B B B A A A B B B B B B B B B B B B B
2004-05 B B B B B B B B A A A A B B B B B B B B B B B B A A B B
2005-06 B B B B B B B B B B B B A B B A B B B B A B B A B B B B
2006-07 B B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A B B B B B B B B B B B B
2007-08 B A B B A A B B A A A A B A B B A A A A B A B B B B B B
2008-09 A A A A B B A A B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
2009-10 A A B B B B B B A A A A B B B B B B B B - - - - B B B B
2010-11 A A A A B B B B A A A A B B A A A A A A - - - - B B A B
A - Returns above Benchmark Index
B - Returns below Benchmark Index

102
its returns were below the benchmark. Further, the returns of the fund were above
S&P CNX Nifty and BSE 200 and below the BSE Sensex and BSE 100 in the year
2005-06. It is clear from the results that UTI balanced fund provided returns above the
benchmark indices for just 2 years i.e. 2002-03 and 2008-09. However for six years
returns were below the benchmark indices. In the year 2004-05, the returns of the
fund were above S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex but below BSE 100 and BSE 200.

5.4.8 Birla Sunlife Mutual Fund

Table 5.20 presents the comparison of returns of Birla Sunlife Mutual Fund Schemes
with benchmark indices. Analysis reveals that in case of Birla Sunlife Advantage
Fund, returns were above all the Benchmark Indices for 4 years out of 9 years of the
study while in years 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2010-11 returns of the fund were below all
the indices. Further, the returns were above S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex but
below BSE 100 and BSE 200 in years 2002-03 and 2007-08. It is clear from the
results that returns of Birla Sunlife Equity Fund were above benchmark indices for
seven out of nine years of the study while in years 2008-09 and 2010-11, returns
were below the benchmark indices. For all eight years of the study, the returns of
Birla Sunlife Frontline Equity were above the benchmark indices. In case of Birla
Sunlife Midcap Fund the returns were above the benchmark indices for 5 out of 8
years. In years 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2010-11, the returns were below the benchmark
indices. Similarly, Birla Sunlife Basic Industries Fund provided returns above the
benchmark for 6 out of 9 years while for 3 years, i.e. 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2010-11
returns of the fund were below the benchmark indices. Birla Sunlife Balanced Fund
provided returns above the benchmark for just one year, that is, 2008-09. Further, in
6 out of 9 years, returns were below the benchmark. However, in years 2002-03 and
2004-05, returns of the fund were above S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex but below
BSE 100 and BSE 200. The analysis of the data reveals that Birla Sunlife 95 Fund
provided returns above the benchmark for 4 out of 9 years of the study (i.e. 2002-03,
2004-05, 2008-09 and 2010-11) and below the benchmark for the remaining 5 years.

103
 Table 5.20
Comparison of Returns of Birla Sunlife Mutual Fund Schemes with Benchmark Indices

Name of
Birla Sunlife Birla Sunlife Birla Sunlife
the Birla Sunlife Birla Sunlife Birla Sunlife Birla Sunlife 95
Advantage Frontline Basic Industries
scheme Equity Fund Midcap Fund Balanced Fund Fund
Fund Equity Fund Fund
→
S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex
BSE 100
BSE 200

BSE 100
BSE 200

BSE 100
BSE 200

BSE 100
BSE 200

BSE 100
BSE 200

BSE 100
BSE 200

BSE 100
BSE 200
2002-03 A A B B A A A B - - - - - - - - A A A A A A B B A A A B
2003-04 A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B
2004-05 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B A A A A
2005-06 A A A A A A A A A B A A A A A A A B A A B B B B B B B B
2006-07 B B B B A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B
2007-08 A A B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B A B B
2008-09 B B B B B B B A A A A A B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A
2009-10 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B
2010-11 B B B B B B B B A A A A B B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A
A - Returns above Benchmark Index
B - Returns below Benchmark Index

104
 5.4.9 ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund

Table 5.21 indicates the comparison of returns of ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund
Scheme with benchmark indices over the study period. It is evident that ICICI
Prudential Dynamic Plan showed returns above the benchmark indices for 6 out of 8
years of the study. However, the fund gave returns below the benchmark indices in
the years 2007-08 and 2009-10. However, ICICI Prudential Growth plan performed
below the benchmark indices for two years out of nine years of the study. Further, the
fund’s returns were below the S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex for the year 2010-11
and above the S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex for the year 2004-05. For the
remaining years of the study, the returns were above the benchmark indices. The
ICICI Prudential Power plan performance was below the benchmark indices for 2007-
08 and 2008-09.

Table 5.21
Comparison of Returns of ICICI Prudential Mutual Funds Schemes with
Benchmark Indices
Name of
the ICICI Prudential ICICI Prudential ICICI Prudential ICICI Prudential
scheme Dynamic Plan Growth Plan Power (Growth) Balanced Fund
→
S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex
BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200
Year↓

2002-03 - - - - A A A B A A A A A A A B
2003-04 A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B
2004-05 A A A A A A B B A A A A A A B B
2005-06 A A A A A A A A A A A A A B A A
2006-07 A A A A A B A A A A A A B B B B
2007-08 B B B B B B B B B A B B B B B B
2008-09 A A A A A A A A B B B A A A A A
2009-10 A B B B B B B B A A B B B B B B
2010-11 A A A A B B A A A A A A B A A A
A - Returns above Benchmark Index
B - Returns below Benchmark Index

105
 For the rest of the years, the results in terms of returns were above the benchmark
indices. However in 2009-10, returns of fund were more than S&P CNX Nifty and
BSE Sensex but below BSE 100 and BSE 200. ICICI Prudential Balanced Fund
performed above the benchmark indices for 4 out of 9 years under the study. For the
rest of the study period, the fund performed below the benchmark indices. However in
2004-05, returns of fund were more than S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex but below
BSE 100 and BSE 200.

5.4.10 Sundaram BNP Paribas Mutual Fund

Table 5.22 reveals that Sundaram BNP Paribas Growth Fund had returns above the
benchmark indices in 7 out of 9 years. However, in 2008-09 & 2009-10 returns of the
fund were below the benchmark indices. Sundaram BNP Paribas Select Focus
provided returns above the benchmark for 6 out of 8 years while in years 2009-10 &
2010-11 returns of the fund were below all the benchmark indices.

Table 5.22
Comparison of Returns of Sundaram BNP Paribas Mutual Funds Schemes
with Benchmark Indices
Name of
Sundaram BNP Sundaram BNP Sundaram BNP Sundaram BNP
the
Paribas Growth Paribas Select Paribas Select Paribas Balanced
scheme
Fund Focus Midcap Fund
→
S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

S&P CNX Nifty

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex

BSE Sensex
BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200

BSE 100

BSE 200
Year↓

2002-03 A A A B - - - - - - - - A A A B
2003-04 A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B
2004-05 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B
2005-06 A B A A A A A A A A A A B B B B
2006-07 A B A A A A A A A A A A B B B B
2007-08 A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B
2008-09 B B B B B A A A B B B B A A A A
2009-10 A B B B B B B B A A A A B B B B
2010-11 A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B
A - Returns above Benchmark Index
B - Returns below Benchmark Index

106
It is clear from the results that Sundaram BNP Pariabs Select Midcap Fund
outperformed the benchmark for 7 out of 8 years. However, in the year 2008-09, the
fund had returns below all the benchmark indices. Results also show that Sundaram
BNP Paribas Balanced Fund provided returns above the benchmark in 2002-03 &
2008-09. In case of 6 out of 9 years, the results were below the benchmark. In year
2004-05, returns were above S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex but below BSE 100
and BSE 200. Overall, the balanced scheme of the Sundaram BNP Paribas Mutual
Fund showed performance below the benchmark indices when compared with the
growth schemes of the mutual fund.

5.5 CONCLUSION

It is evident that majority of the mutual fund schemes whether they belonged to
growth schemes or balanced schemes had medium risk. Comparison of risk pattern of
public and private sector schemes showed that the maximum percentage of schemes
had medium risk. None of the public sector schemes had low risk throughout the
study period. Comparison of risk of schemes with benchmark indices showed that
majority of selected schemes in most of the years had risk lower than benchmark
indices BSE 100 and BSE 200. Further, majority of the selected schemes had higher
risk than benchmark indices S&P CNX Nifty and BSE Sensex in most of the years.

An analysis of returns shows that most of the schemes in all the years under study
except in 2008-09 generated positive returns. Further, most of the schemes from
public as well as private sector provided positive returns in 8 out of 9 years. However,
the returns were negative for all the schemes in 2008-09. Comparison of returns of
schemes with benchmark indices showed that schemes provided returns above
benchmark indices during most of the period under study. Compound annual growth
rate (CAGR) shows that all the top performing mutual fund schemes were from the
private sector and the worst performing mutual fund schemes belonged to public
sector

107