A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MUTUAL FUND SCHEMES IN INDIA

IRJC
International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services & Management Research
Vol.1 Issue 7, July 2012, ISSN 2277 3622
www.indianresearchjournals.com
67
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MUTUAL FUND SCHEMES IN INDIA
DR. SARITA BAHL*; MEENAKSHI RANI**
*Associate Professor,
P.G Department of Commerce and Management,
Arya College, Ludhiana.
**Research Scholar,
Department of Commerce,
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, Haryana.
ABSTRACT
The present paper investigates the performance of 29 open-ended, growth-oriented equity
schemes for the period from April 2005 to March 2011 (six years) of transition economy.
Monthly NAV of different schemes have been used to calculate the returns from the fund
schemes. BSE-sensex has been used for market portfolio. The historical performance of the
selected schemes were evaluated on the basis of Sharpe, Treynor, and Jensen’s measure whose
results will be useful for investors for taking better investment decisions. The study revealed that
14 out of 29 (48.28 percent) sample mutual fund schemes had outperformed the benchmark
return. The results also showed that some of the schemes had underperformed, these schemes
were facing the diversification problem. In the study, the Sharpe ratio was positive for all
schemes which showed that funds were providing returns greater than risk free rate. Results of
Jensen measure revealed that 19 out of 29 (65.52 percent) schemes were showed positive alpha
which indicated superior performance of the schemes.
KEYWORDS: Jensen measure, Mutual funds, performance evaluation, Sharpe measure,
Treynor measure.
______________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
Many of the financial instruments mutual fund is one of the most attractive financial investment
instrument that plays a vital role in the economy of a country. Mutual fund schemes provides
new opportunities for investors. Mutual fund Industry was introduced in India 1963 with the
formation of Unit Trust of India. During the last few years many extraordinary and rapid changes
have been seen in the Mutual fund industry. Therefore, due to the changed environment it
becomes important to investigate the mutual fund performance. The need for evaluating the
performance of mutual fund schemes in India to see whether the mutual fund schemes are
outperforming or underperforming than the benchmark and to see the competency of schemes to
make out a strong case for investment. The present paper investigates the performance of open-
ended, growth-oriented equity schemes. Open-ended mutual fund schemes are those which don’t
have a fixed maturity, not listed in the stock exchange and these schemes offer new unit for sale
and ready to buy any time. The success of any scheme depends upon the competence of the

IRJC
68
management and its soundness. The numbers of open-ended schemes have been increased from
the last few years except 2009 (see table 1). The reason may be of decreasing open-ended
schemes in March 2009 are the global financial crisis. According to AMFI (March 2011), there
were about 1095 schemes in India, out of which 727 (66.39%) were open-ended. The growth of
open-ended and close-ended mutual fund schemes in percentage term are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1. GROWTH OF MUTUAL FUND SCHEMES IN INDIA
Schemes March
2006
March
2007
March
2008
March
2009
March
2010
March
2011
Open-ended 463 (78.21) 480 (64) 592 (61.92) 589 (63.13) 641 (76.04) 727 (66.39)
Close-
ended
129 (21.79) 270 (36) 364 (38.08) 344 (36.87) 202 (23.96) 368 (33.61)
Total 592 (100) 750 (100) 956 (100) 933 (100) 843 (100) 1095 (100)
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate the percentages
Source: Data Compiled from AMFI (Association of Mutual Funds of India)
The rest of paper is organized as follows: In Section II summarize previous studies related to
mutual funds performance. Section III discusses the research methodology for this study. Section
IV discusses results and analysis and Section V concludes this study.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
The present study deals with the review of literature on ‘Evaluating the Performance of Indian
Mutual Fund Schemes’. A number of studies on evaluating the performance of Indian Mutual
Fund Schemes have been conducted in India and foreign countries. Review of some of the
studies is presented in the following discussion: -
Jayadev (1996) evaluated the performance of two growth-oriented mutual funds namely
Mastergain and Magnum express by using monthly returns. Jensen, Sharpe and Treynor
measures have been applied in the study and the pointed out that according to Jensen and
Treynor measure Mastergain have performed better and the performance of Magnum was poor
according to all three measures. Afza and Rauf (2009) in their study of open-ended Pakistani
mutual funds performance using the quarterly data for the period of 1996-2006. The study
measure the fund performance by using Sharpe ratio with the help of pooled time-series and
cross sectional data and also focused on different attributes such as fund size, expenses, age,
turnover and liquidity. The results found significant impact on fund performance. Debasish
(2009) studied the performance of selected schemes of mutual funds based on risk and return
models and measures. The study covered the period from April 1996 to March 2005 (nine years).
The study revealed that Franklin Templeton and UTI were the best performers and Birla Sun life,
HDFC and LIC mutual funds showed poor performance. Ali, Naseem and Rehman (2010) in

IRJC
69
their study examined the performance of 10 mutual funds in which 5 were conventional and 5
were Islamic for the period from 2006 to 2008 by using Sharpe and Treynor measures. The
results found that the funds of Pakistan were able to add more value either conventional or
Islamic. The study also found that some of the funds were underperformed, so these funds were
facing diversification problems during the study period. Garg (2011) examined the performance
of top ten mutual funds that was selected on the basis of previous years return. The study
analyzed the performance on the basis of return, standard deviation, beta as well as Treynor,
Jensen and Sharpe indexes. The study also used Carhart’s four-factor model for analyze the
performance of mutual funds. The results revealed that Reliance Regular Saving Scheme Fund
had achieved the highest final score and Canara Robeco Infra had achieved the lowest final score
in the one year category. Sondhi and Jain (2010) examined the market risk and investment
performance of equity mutual funds in India. The study used a sample of 36 equity fund for a
period of 3 years. The study examined whether high beta of funds have actually produced high
returns over the study period. The study also examined that open-ended or close ended
categories, size of fund and the ownership pattern significantly affect risk-adjusted investment
performance of equity fund. The results of the study confirmed with the empirical evidence
produced by fama (1992) that high beta funds (market risks) may not necessarily produced high
returns. The study revealed that the category, size and ownership have been significantly
determinant of the performance of mutual funds during the study period. Prabakaran and Jayabal
(2010) evaluated the performance of mutual fund schemes. The study conducted a sample of 23
schemes were chosen as per the priority given by the respondents in Dharmapuri district covered
a period from April 2002 to March 2007. The study used the methodology of Sharpe, Jensen and
Fama for the performance evaluation of mutual funds. The results of the study found that 13
schemes out of 23 schemes selected had superior performance than the benchmark portfolio in
terms of Sharpe ratio, 13 schemes had superior performance of Treynor ratio and 14 schemes had
superior performance according to Jensen measure. The Fama’s measure indicated in the study
that the returns out of diversification were less. Thus the India Mutual funds were not properly
diversified.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The present study is concerned with the following objectives:
1. To examine the performance of selected schemes on the basis of risk and return and
compare the performance of selected schemes with benchmark index to see whether the
scheme is outperforming or underperforming the benchmark.
2. To examine the performance of selected schemes by using the portfolio performance
evaluation models namely Sharpe, Treynor and Jensen.
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To examine the mutual fund schemes performance, 29 schemes were selected at random basis.
Monthly NAV of different schemes have been used in this study for the period of six years i.e.,
April 2005 to March 2011(six years). BSE-Sensex has been used for market portfolio. In the
study the monthly yield on 91-day Treasury bills have been used as risk-free rate. The study was

IRJC
70
mainly secondary data based. Data regarding NAV were obtained from the web site of
www.mutualfundindia.com and www.amfiindia.com for the period of April 2005 to March
2011. Data for monthly closing price for the benchmark index (BSE-Sensex) were collected from
web site of Bombay Stock Exchange (www.bseindia.com).
RETURN: The monthly returns of the schemes were computed by using the following equation.
Rpt = NAVt – NAVt-1/ NAVt-1
Where, Rpt is return on fund scheme, NAVt is the Net Asset value of the scheme at the end of
‘t’, NAVt-1 is Net Asset value of the scheme at the end of the month ‘t-1’.
The average return of the market portfolio is computed as follows:
p
R =
n
t
pt
R
n 1
1
Where, Rp is the average return of the mutual fund schemes.
Similarly, the monthly returns for the market index were calculated by using the following
formula:
Rmt = Market Indext – Market Indext-1/ Market Indext-1
Where, Rmt return of the market index, Market Indext is the Market value of the index at the end
of ‘t’, Market index of t-1 is the market value of the scheme at the end of the month ‘t-1’.
The average return of the market index is computed as follows:
m
R =
n
t
mt
R
n 1
1
RISK: Standard deviation is a measure of risk. The standard deviation of mutual fund schemes
has been calculated as under:
p = 2
)
(
1
1
p
R
Rpt
n
฀ p is risk of fund portfolio.
The risk of the market has been calculated as under:
m =
2
)
(
1
1
m
R
Rmt
n

IRJC
71
฀ m is risk of fund portfolio.
Beta )
( : Beta is the systematic risk. Beta is undiversificable in nature. It has been calculated by
using this formula:
Beta =
m
Rm
Rp
Cov
2
)
,
(
Where, P is systematic risk the portfolio, cov (Rp, Rm) is covariance between the return of
portfolio and market, m
2
is variance of market return.
SHARPE MEASURE: William F. Sharpe (1966) had planned or invent an index of portfolio
performance measure, namely Sharpe ratio. The formula for Sharpe measure is:
Sharpe =
p
f
p R
R
Where, Rp is return of mutual fund portfolio, Rf is risk free rate of return, p is standard
deviation of the mutual fund portfolio.
TREYNOR MEASURE: This measure was developed by Jack Treynor in 1965 is based on
systematic risk and known as reward to volatility ratio. The formula for this measure is
Treynor = 2
2
1
2
2
2
1
( )
1
m
i f i
m
i ei
i i
i
m
i ei
R R
X
Where, Rp is return of mutual fund portfolio, Rf is risk free rate of return, P is the systematic
risk of the portfolio.
JENSEN MEASURE: This measure developed by Michael Jensen. The formula for Jensen
measure is: (Rp – Rf) = + ( Rm – Rf) + ep
Where, Rp is return of mutual fund portfolio, Rf is risk free rate of return, P is the
systematic risk of the portfolio, Rm is the return of benchmark portfolio.
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
RETURN, RISK, BETA AND COEFFICIENT OF DETERMINATION OF SAMPLE
SCHEMES
Table 2 represents the results of return, risk, beta and coefficient of determination of selected
schemes with benchmark return and risk. It is clear from the table that 14 out of 29 (48.27

IRJC
72
percent) sample mutual fund schemes had outperformed the benchmark return. It shows
competency of these schemes to make out a strong case for investment. The maximum return
was from HDFC equity growth fund and minimum return was from Principal Growth fund
growth. In the context of risk, it found from the table 2 that 14 schemes had less risky than
market risk and remaining 15 schemes have risk greater than the market risk.
In the context of beta, it is observed from the table 2 that out of 29 schemes, only 5 schemes have
registered a beta value greater than one indicated that they belonged to more risk category. The
remaining 24 schemes have registered beta less than one which indicated that they belonged to
low risk category. R square measure the level of diversification. It also found from the table 2
that the highest R square value was found in Baroda Pioneer Growth Fund-Growth (0.940)
followed by HDFC Top 200 Growth (0.935) and Franklin India Blue Chip-Growth (0.933)
which indicated that these schemes have performed well diversification.
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF RISK, RETURN, BETA AND R SQUARE
(APRIL 2005 TO MARCH 2011)
Sr.
No.
Schemes Scheme
Return
Scheme
risk Beta R square
1 Baroda Pioneer Growth Fund - Growth 0.0202 0.0824 0.934 0.940
2 Birla Sun Life Advantage Fund Growth 0.0162 0.0894 1.021 0.897
3 Birla Sun Life MNC Fund - Growth 0.0178 0.0683 0.729 0.885
4 BNP Paribas Equity Fund Growth 0.0166 0.0826 0.933 0.879
5 DSPBlackrockTop100EquityFund-Growth 0.0212 0.0738 0.851 0.914
6 Franklin India Blue Chip - Growth 0.0202 0.0766 0.893 0.933
7 HDFC Equity Fund - Growth 0.0234 0.0843 0.965 0.902
8 HDFC Top 200 Growth 0.0227 0.0789 0.920 0.935
9 HSBC Equity Fund - Growth 0.0176 0.0736 0.828 0.527
10 ICICI Prudential Discovery Fund - Growth 0.0217 0.0918 0.963 0.870
11 ING Core Equity Fund - Growth 0.0185 0.0824 0.934 0.884
12 JM Equity Fund Growth 0.0138 0.0953 1.080 0.885

IRJC
73
13 Kotak 50 Growth 0.0194 0.0787 0.900 0.901
14 Kotak Opportunity Fund - Growth 0.0215 0.0903 0.999 0.843
15 Morgan Stanley Growth Fund - Growth 0.0159 0.0852 0.980 0.910
16 Principal Growth Fund - Growth 0.0123 0.0836 0.942 0.874
17 Reliance Equity Opportunity Fund-Growth 0.0213 0.0898 1.010 0.861
18 Reliance Growth Fund - Growth 0.0223 0.0890 0.979 0.834
19 SBI Mangum Equity Fund - Growth 0.0187 0.0879 0.988 0.870
20 Sundaram Growth Fund - Growth 0.0184 0.0928 0.979 0.875
21 Sundaram India Leadership Fund - Growth 0.0184 0.0953 1.060 0.845
22 Tata Equity Opportunity Growth Fund 0.0183 0.0924 1.031 0.854
23 Tata Equity P/E Fund - Growth 0.0210 0.0885 0.995 0.869
24 Tata Growth Fund - Growth 0.0151 0.0899 0.964 0.790
25 Tata Pure Equity Fund - Growth 0.0191 0.0799 0.908 0.889
26 Templeton India Growth Fund - Growth 0.0201 0.0840 0.956 0.891
27 UTI Equity Fund Growth 0.0169 0.0836 0.605 0.360
28 UTI Master Share Growth 0.0168 0.0757 0.869 0.908
29 UTI Master Value Fund - Growth 0.0181 0.0919 0.975 0.774
Average 0.018741 0.0847 0.937 0.848
BSE-Sensex index (Benchmark) 0.0186 0.0841 1.00
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RISK, RETURN, BETA AND COEFFICIENT OF
DETERMINATION (R SQUARE)
A frequency distribution of risk, return, beta and coefficient of determination (R square) of
selected schemes has been prepared (see table 3) because frequency distribution explains
comparative status of different mutual fund schemes selected for the study during the study
period. To sum up, it may be concluded through a mutual fund sample schemes in the study that
only return of 11 schemes fell in the range of 0.02-0.03 (37.93 percent), which indicated that
these schemes are able to earn higher returns and 18 schemes fell in the range of 0.01-0.02
(62.07 percent) and none schemes fell in the range of < 0.01 during the study period.

IRJC
74
TABLE 3
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RETURN, RISK, BETA AND R-SQUARE OF
SELECTED MUTUAL FUND SCHEMES (APRIL 2005 TO MARCH 2011)
Returns Risk Beta R square
Avg.
Return
No. of
Schem
e
% Risk No. of
Schem
e
% Beta No. of
Schem
e
% R
squar
e
No. of
Schem
e
%
< 0.01 0 ----- < 0.04 0 ----- Beta
=1
0 ----- < 0.4 ----- -----
0.01-
0.02
18 62.0
7
0.04-
0.08
8 27.5
9
Beta >
1
5 17.2
4
0.4-0.8 3 10.3
4
0.02-
0.03
11 37.9
3
0.08-
0.12
21 72.4
1
Beta <
1
24 82.7
6
0. 8-
1.2
26 89.6
6
Total 29 100 Total 29 100 Total 29 100 Total 29 100
SHARPE AND TREYNOR MEASURES
Table 4 represents the result of Sharpe measure and Treynor measure. It is observed from the
table 4 that higher positive value of Sharpe measure was found in HDFC Top 200 Growth
(0.00224) which followed by DSP Black rock Top 100 Equity Fund Growth (0.00219) and
Franklin India Blue Chip Growth (0.00198). In the study, the Sharpe ratio was positive for all
schemes which showed that funds were providing returns greater than risk free rate. It also found
from the table that 16 out of 29 (55.17 percent) schemes have better Sharpe ratios in comparison
to the benchmark portfolios.
In the context of Treynor measure, it is revealed for the table 4 that 19 schemes, out of 29 had
outperformed the benchmark. UTI equity fund growth is the top performer of the equity
schemes. In case of comparative ranking of Sharpe and Treynor measure, it found that 11
schemes out of 29 schemes had exactly same ranking for both Sharpe and Treynor measure and
other schemes had not same ranking the reason may be of that Sharpe measure use total risk and
Treynor measure use systematic risk.

IRJC
75
TABLE 4
RANKING OF SAMPLE SCHEMES ON THE BASIS OF SHARPE AND TREYNOR
MEASURE (APRIL 2005 TO MARCH 2011)
Sr.N
o Schemes
Sharpe
measure
Rank
s
Treyno
r
measur
e
Rank
s
1 Baroda Pioneer Growth Fund - Growth 0.00184 7 0.01624 10
2 Birla Sun Life Advantage Fund Growth 0.00125 26 0.01094 26
3 Birla Sun Life MNC Fund - Growth 0.00187 6 0.01751 6
4 BNP Paribas Equity Fund Growth 0.00140 23 0.01240 24
5
DSP Blackrock Top 100 Equity Fund
Growth 0.00219
2
0.01900 4
6 Franklin India Blue Chip - Growth 0.00198 4 0.01699 8
7 HDFC Equity Fund - Growth 0.00218 3 0.01903 3
8 HDFC Top 200 Growth 0.00224 1 0.01921 2
9 HSBC Equity Fund - Growth 0.00171 15 0.01518 16
10 ICICI Prudential Discovery Fund Growth 0.00183 9 0.01731 7
11 ING Core Equity Fund - Growth 0.00163 16 0.01442 17
12 JM Equity Fund Growth 0.00092 28 0.00812 28
13 Kotak 50 Growth 0.00184 8 0.01597 13
14 Kotak Opportunity Fund - Growth 0.00182 10 0.01650 9
15 Morgan Stanley Growth Fund - Growth 0.00128 25 0.01109 25
16 Principal Growth Fund - Growth 0.00087 29 0.00772 29
17
Reliance Equity Opportunity Fund-
Growth 0.00181
11
0.01611 11
18 Reliance Growth Fund - Growth 0.00194 5 0.01764 5

IRJC
76
19 SBI Mangum Equity Fund - Growth 0.00155 17 0.01384 18
20 Sundaram Growth Fund - Growth 0.00144 19 0.01366 19
21 Sundaram India Leadership Fund Growth 0.00139 24 0.01261 23
22 Tata Equity Opportunity Growth Fund 0.00143 20 0.01287 22
23 Tata Equity P/E Fund - Growth 0.00180 12 0.01605 12
24 Tata Growth Fund - Growth 0.00112 27 0.01045 27
25 Tata Pure Equity Fund - Growth 0.00176 14 0.0155 15
26 Templeton India Growth Fund - Growth 0.00179 13 0.01576 14
27 UTI Equity Fund Growth 0.00142 21 0.01962 1
28 UTI Master Share Growth 0.00155 18 0.01354 20
29 UTI Master Value Fund - Growth 0.00141 22 0.01341 21
Average 0.00163
0.01478
2
BSE-Sensex index (Benchmark) 0.00161
0.01357
0
JENSEN MEASURE (ALPHA)
Table 5 represents the Jensen measures of the mutual fund schemes. Results of Jensen measure
revealed that 19 out of 29 (65.52 percent) schemes were showed positive alpha which indicated
superior performance of the schemes and remaining 10 schemes had negative alphas. Among all
the schemes higher alpha was found with Kotak Opportunity Fund – Growth (0.01511) followed
by HDFC Equity Fund – Growth (0.00527) and HDFC Top 200 Growth (0.00519).

IRJC
77
TABLE 5
RANKING OF SAMPLE SCHEMES ON THE BASIS OF JENSEN MEASURE
(APRIL 2005 TO MARCH 2011)
Sr. No Schemes
Jensen
Alpha Ranks
1 Baroda Pioneer Growth Fund - Growth 00.0025 11
2 Birla Sun Life Advantage Fund Growth -0.00268 25
3 Birla Sun Life MNC Fund - Growth 0.00288 9
4 BNP Paribas Equity Fund Growth -0.00109 23
5 DSPBlackrockTop100EquityFund-Growth 0.00463 4
6 Franklin India Blue Chip - Growth 0.00305 8
7 HDFC Equity Fund - Growth 0.00527 2
8 HDFC Top 200 Growth 0.00519 3
9 HSBC Equity Fund - Growth 0.00133 16
10 ICICI Prudential Discovery Fund - Growth 0.00361 7
11 ING Core Equity Fund - Growth 0.00080 17
12 JM Equity Fund Growth -0.00588 28
13 Kotak 50 Growth 0.00216 13
14 Kotak Opportunity Fund - Growth 0.01511 1
15 Morgan Stanley Growth Fund - Growth -0.00243 24
16 Principal Growth Fund - Growth -0.00551 27
17 Reliance Equity Opportunity Fund-Growth 0.00256 10
18 Reliance Growth Fund - Growth 0.00398 5
19 SBI Mangum Equity Fund - Growth 0.00026 18
20 Sundaram Growth Fund - Growth 0.00009 19

IRJC
78
21 Sundaram India Leadership Fund - Growth -0.0101 29
22 Tata Equity Opportunity Growth Fund -0.00072 22
23 Tata Equity P/E Fund - Growth 0.00247 12
24 Tata Growth Fund - Growth -0.00301 26
25 Tata Pure Equity Fund - Growth 0.00175 15
26 Templeton India Growth Fund - Growth 0.00210 14
27 UTI Equity Fund Growth 0.00366 6
28 UTI Master Share Growth -0.00002 20
29 UTI Master Value Fund - Growth -0.00016 21
Average 0.001097
V. CONCLUSIONS
The present paper investigates the performance of 29 open-ended, growth-oriented equity
schemes for the period from April 2005 to March 2011 (six years) of transition economy.
Monthly NAV of different schemes have been used to calculate the returns from the fund
schemes. BSE-sensex has been used for market portfolio. The historical performance of the
selected schemes were evaluated on the basis of Sharpe, Treynor, and Jensen’s measure whose
results will be useful for investors for taking better investment decisions. Results of the study
showed that that 14 out of 29 (48.27 percent) sample mutual fund schemes had outperformed the
benchmark return. All the schemes have represented positive returns. From Sharpe ratio, it found
that Sharpe ratio is 0.00163 as compared to market 0.00161 that shows better performance as
compared to the market. From Treynor results, it found that 19 out of 29 schemes had
outperformed the benchmark. The results also showed that some of the schemes had
underperformed, these schemes were facing the diversification problem. In the study, the Sharpe
ratio was positive for all schemes which showed that funds were providing returns greater than
risk free rate. Results of Jensen measure revealed that 19 out of 29 (65.52 percent) schemes were
showed positive alpha which indicated superior performance of the schemes.
REFERENCES
Ali, Rizwan., Naseem, Muhammad Akram and Rehman, Ramiz Ur (2010). Performance
Evaluation of Mutual Funds. Social Science Research Network online Publication 10 May,
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1837103.
Afza, Talat and Rauf, Ali (2009). Performance Evaluation of Pakistani Mutual Fund. Pakistani
Economic and Social Review, 47(2), 199-214.

IRJC
79
Debasish, Sathya Swaroop (2009). Investigating Performance of Equity-based Mutual Fund
Schemes in Indian Scenario. KCA Journal of Business Management, 2(2), 1-15.
Garg, Sanjay (2011). A Study on Performance Evaluation of Selected Indian Mutual Funds.
International Journal of Innovation Creativity and Management (IJICM), 1(1), 1-10.
Jayadev, M (1996). Mutual Fund Performance: An Analysis of Monthly Returns. Finance India,
10 (1), 73-84.
Kundu, Abhijit (2009). Stock Selection Performance of Mutual Funds Managers in India: An
Empirical Study. Journal of Business and Economic Issues, 1(1) 59-73.
Prabakaran, G and Jayabal, G (2010). Performance Evaluation of Mutual Fund Schemes in India:
An Empirical Study. Finance India, 24 (4), 1347-1363.
Sondhi, H.J and Jain, P.K (2010). Market Risk and Investment Performance of Equity Mutual
Funds in India: Some Empirical Evidence. Finance India, XXIV (2), 443-464.
Shanmugham, R and Zabiulla (2011). Stock Selection Strategies of Equity Mutual Fund
Schemes in India. Middle Eastern Finance and Economics, ISSN 1450-2889, Issue 11, 19-28.
WEBSITES
www.mutualfundindia.com
www.amfiindia.com
www.bseindia.com
www.sebi.org
www.businessstandard.com
www.rbi.org.com

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MUTUAL FUND SCHEMES IN INDIA

More Related Content

Similar to A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MUTUAL FUND SCHEMES IN INDIA

More from Kristen Carter

Recently uploaded

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MUTUAL FUND SCHEMES IN INDIA