Chapter - VI COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED MUTUAL FUNDS

Chapter - VI COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED MUTUAL FUNDS

CHAPTER - VI COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED MUTUAL FUNDS After evaluating the performance of selected mutual fund schemes in last chapter, a comparative study has been conducted in this chapter to examine the better categories of mutual funds and better schemes as well, during the selected period of time. It is noteworthy that the approach followed in overall performance evaluation generally focused on their risk- return relationship. In this chapter an attempt has also been made to present the study graphically. To make an evaluation it is necessary to define whether schemes have performed according to their stated objective or not. The chapter is divided into two sections. First part of the chapter presents the comparative (overall) performance of four major categories of mutual funds such as: Growth schemes. Income schemes, balanced schemes and Tax saving schemes. A graphical presentation has been made through various tools (a, a, (3, "r") and measures (R^, M^, Sr, Tr, C.V) on the basis of average results to define their systematic risk and variability. An overall performance of sample schemes, whether they were superior or not have been evaluated with the help of various performance measures. Total risk in equity fund, income fund, balanced fund and tax saving fund has also been examined here along with the aspect of diversification. The second and last part of the chapter shows the performance of various schemes which have performed well under all major categories of fund and also those schemes which have failed to perform in market during selected period of time. 195

6.1 COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF MAJOR MUTUAL FUNDS The performance evaluation of major mutual funds has been presented with the help of risk and return, results of various performance measures, majority of funds under alpha and differential return, impact of determination and variation. 6.1(a) Overall Performance based on Risk and Return The relationship between risk and return has been presented in Table 6.1 which gives the comparative data of all major mutual funds selected for the purpose of study. Table 6.1 Risk (a) and Return of Mutual Funds Categories of Sample Schemes Risk Return Equity Fund 2.2150 0.1515 Income Fund 0.2408 0.0998 Balanced Fund 1.7271 0.0995 Tax Saving Fund 2.1659 0.1801 Market Index 2.3088 0.1719 See annexure I - XXV Note: Risk and return are expressed on average basis The risk and return are expected to be related with the investment policy of mutual fund schemes. Growth and tax planning schemes which invest more than 70 percent in equity shares are expected to have higher return with higher risk. On the contrary, income schemes are expected to have relatively low return with low risk. The balanced schemes are expected to earn moderate return with moderate risk. Thus, it will be worthwhile to examine if the risk characteristic of the schemes are consistent with their stated objectives. The relationship 196

between schemes return and risk has been examined in terms of standard deviation and average return. As per table 6.1 equity fund schemes have high average risk (2.2150) than other mutual funds whereas it is low in income schemes (0.2408). It is moderate in balanced fund schemes (1.7271) and high in tax saving schemes. 2.5000 Performance on the basis of Total Risk 2.0000 1.5000 1.0000 0.5000 Average Risk 0.0000 Equity Income Balanced Tax Fund Fund Fund Saving Fund Figure (vi): Investment Objective Vs. Risk Figure (vi) shows the stated objectives of selected mutual funds with their total average risk. Equity fund schemes come under high risk category as there are more fluctuations in returns than other funds. On the other hand, income funds have low fluctuations in returns as their risk is lower than all. Rest of the two categories (balanced and tax saving) have also indicated results according to their investment objectives. Thus, selected mutual funds have performed well in terms of total risk. After evaluating different mutual funds on the basis of standard deviation further, average returns are presented in figure (vii) to define whether these major four mutual funds have performed well or not in terms of return. It clearly reflects that tax saving fund has high average 197

returns (0.1801) than other selected funds under study. Equity fund has also predicted high average return (0.1515) but low than tax saving fund as depicted in figure (vii). Income and balanced fund have a little difference in average return as their values are approximately same but income fund performed well in terms of risk whereas balanced fund has high risk. Thus, tax saving fund performed well on an average as their overall average return is more than the average return of market (.1719). Equity fund schemes are also performed good as total risk is less than the market index (2.3088).On the other hand balanced fund has low(not moderate) return as compared to their moderate risk. Similarly, Income fund performed well in terms of risk as per their stated investment objective but not in terms of average return. It can be concluded that the return and risk are not always in conformity with the stated investment objectives. Further it is felt that selection of the schemes purely on the basis of investment objective may mislead the investor. Performance on the basis of Return 0.2000 0.1800 0.1600 0.1400 0.1200 0.1000 0.0800 0.0600 0.0400 0,0200 0.0000 Equity Fund Income Fund Balanced Tax Saving Fund Fund Average Retum Figure (vii): Investment Objective Vs. Return 198

6.1(b) Performance based on Systematic Risk In previous chapter the individual performance of different mutual fund schemes has been evaluated by systematic risk (p). If one takes beta as a measure of risk, then growth schemes should reflect a relatively higher systematic risk than other schemes. The balanced schemes on the other hand should reflect a moderate amount of systematic risk. Table 6.2 Systematic Risk under Major Mutual Funds Categories of sample schemes Systematic Risk Equity Fund 0.8733 Income Fund 0.0635 Balanced Fund 0.5565 Tax Saving Fund 0.8859 Source: ibid In this part of measurement, overall performances of 120 different mutual fund schemes have been studied in terms of systematic risk. Table 6.2 categorized the overall values under each selected mutual fund namely, growth funds, income fund, balanced fund and tax saving fund. As per figure (viii) tax saving fund has high systematic risk (0.8859) whereas equity fund schemes have (0.8733) which is lower than tax saving fund. Balanced fund has moderate risk (0.5565) as per its objective and income schemes shows low risk than all categories (0.0635). 199

Systematic Risk ' Equity Fund Income Fund Balanced Fund Tax Saving Fund Figure (viii): Investment objective Vs. Systematic Risl< Thus, after distributing systematic risk according to ttie average analysis of selected mutual fund schemes it is found that systematic risk is higher in tax saving schemes instead of equity schemes under study. Other two funds (balanced and income) have beta according to their investment objective which is moderate and low respectively. Hence, a fund may have low systematic risk (p) and high total risk during selected period of time. 6.1(c) Performance in terms of various measures After computing systematic risk, the various sample schemes have been tested by Sharpe, Treynor and M^ measure. To find the overall performance, an average value has been selected to make comparison of Growth, Income, Balanced and Tax saving schemes. Table 6.3 Risk- Adjusted performance by Sr, Tr and M^ Measure Categories of Sample Schemes Schemes Outperformed (In overall) Equity Fund 13 Income Fund 0 Balanced Fund 14 Tax Saving Fund 17 Source: ibid Note: Average performance under BSE National Index 200

It has been found from Table 6.3 that there are four categories of funds under study. Each fund has equal number of schemes i.e. 30 schemes under major sample funds. Risk and returns were different during the selected period of time mentioned in previous chapter. Thus, the results would vary according to the various performance measures applied during the period of 52 weeks. Performance on the basis of ( Sr, Tr, M ) Equity Fund a Income Fund "Balanced Fund Tax Saving Fund Figure (ix): Overall Results by Risk Adjusted Measures. While making comparison with market benchmark it has been found in figure (ix) that majority of schemes showed positive return out of which some had outperformed and some had failed to perform well in market. Out of 30 schemes from each category 17 had outperformed in market by three performance measures (Sr, Tr and M^ Measure) under tax saving fund. Some of these were Fidelity Tax Advantage Fund, HDFC Tax Plan 2000, Sahara Tax Gain, ING Tax Saving Fund, Franklin India Tax Shield. This fund had performed well than other selected sample fund during the period of study. Balanced fund comes 201

under second rank as 14 schemes had predicted better performance in market such as Biria sun life 95, HDFC Balanced Fund, ICICI Prudential Balanced, UTI Balanced, FT India Balanced, HDFC Prudence, ICICI Prudential Child Care Plan-SP. Similarly, Equity Fund has acquired third rank among all sample funds as out of total schemes 13 had given better results as compared to the benchmark index. Some of these were namely, HDFC Equity, ICICI Prudential Dynamic, UTI Equity Fund, Kotak 50-G, Fidelity Equity Fund, UTI Master Value, HDFC Top 200, ICICI Top 100 fund. At last income schemes found worst performer among all funds and market benchmark. The worst schemes were: BirIa Sun Life Cash Manager, L&T Freedom Income, Sahara Classic Fund, Kodak Bond Regular Plan and Kodak bond deposit. However, Income Fund had low risk than other funds and market as well but the main reason behind their loose performance was low returns. Thus, the majority of sample mutual funds resulted into good performance. Most of the underperformed schemes belong to the income fund due to low return than risk free asset. Finally it can be concluded that risk component is useful while taking decision of investment but proportion of return is must for better results. 6.1(d) Performance Indication by Alpha and Differential Return Table 6.4 predicts the values of (a) and differential return of various mutual fund schemes categorised in four major parts. The value of Alpha has been calculated by Jensen measure for various schemes in previous chapter. A differential return has also been found under Sharpe differential measure for sample schemes. 202

Table 6.4 Distribution of Alpha and Differential Return Categories of Sample Schemes Alpha(a) Differential Return Equity Fund -0.0165-0.0193 Income Fund -0.0451-0.0463 Balanced Fund -0.0597-0.0652 Tax Saving Fund 0.0115 0.0099 Source: ibid A positive value of Alpha for the fund would indicate that the portfolio had generated an average return greater than the benchmark return thereby implying a superior performance. The Sharpe differential returns computed by subtracting the expected fund return from the observed fund return. This measure takes into consideration both the manager's stock selection ability as well as his ability to provide diversification. There was a combination of positive and negative values of Alpha under each category of sample fund but only tax saving fund has found positive value by taking average of 30 schemes under study. Its differential return also found positive which results good overall performance under study. Further, Tax saving fund has low Sharpe differential return (0.0099) than Alpha value (0.0115) under study. Fidelity Tax Advantage Fund, ING Tax Saving Fund, HDFC Tax Plan 2000 had high differential returns under tax saving schemes whereas JM Tax Fund, Escort Tax plan. Principal Tax Saving Fund had negative returns among all sample schemes. It clearly reflects that schemes under this category need little more diversification for best performance and better return. For well diversified portfolio these two measures should indicate same differential returns. However if portfolio is not fully diversified, the Sharpe differential return would be small in magnitude. This would 203

indicate a decline in fund performance owing to lacl< of diversification. Thus, few schemes under tax saving fund need more diversification. Equity fund has negative value of alpha (-0.0165) and differential return (-0.0193) based on the average of 30 schemes. The results also indicates that alpha values were highest in these schemes namely, HDFC Equity Fund, UTI Master Value, HDFC Top 200, Fidelity Equity which indicates that their fund manager were efficient to forecast future security prices in time. Similarly income fund has also least value of average alpha (-0.0451) which is nearly equal to its differential return (-0.0463). The highest negative alpha values were found in these schemes namely. Principal MIP-G, Fidelity Flexi Bond Fund whereas it had found lowest in HDFC Multiple Yield. Note that alpha and differential return value under equity and income fund schemes are almost equal to each other. In other words, their negative results were due to low return than risk free asset and market index or inefficiency of fund managers during the period of study. 0.02 Alfa(a) - Differential Return 0.07 Figure (x): Majority under Alpha and Differential Return. 204

As stated in Figure (x) that there is a majority between Jensen's value of alpha and Sharpe differential return as they have been plotted near to each other. Equity fund schemes, income schemes and tax saving schemes have a little difference in values whereas balanced fund has little more difference among alpha (-0.0597) and Sharpe differential return (-0.0652) than other funds. The analysis of balanced schemes explains that in overall 14 schemes had positive differential return and they were fully diversified in nature whereas rest of the schemes had negative values. Similarly, HDFC Children Gift Fund performed better among all sample schemes whereas UTI Mahila Unit scheme, Tata Young Citizen Fund, Biria Sunlife Freedom fund were the worst performers under this measure. In sample mutual funds a low difference in the average values has been observed between these two measures Jensen alpha and Shape differential under study, which indicates that decline in performance may be due to low inconstant return and high risk rather than lack of diversification as majority of schemes are diversified in nature. In overall, some of selected mutual funds schemes couldn't achieve desired return due to inefficiency of fund managers. 6.1(e)Performance Returns based on Determination and Variation in The coefficient of determination represents the proportion of variation in the excess return on sample schemes that is related to the variation in the excess return on the BSE National Index. Table 6.5 shows how much the movement in sample mutual fund schemes excess return can be explained by the movements in the excess return on BSE National Index. 205

Table 6.5 Results of Determination and Variation Categories of Sample Schemes Value of R' (C.V) Equity Fund 0.8306 13.7289 Income Fund 0.2392 2.60 Balanced Fund 0.7571 13.8573 Tax Saving Fund 0.9027 19.1658 Source: ibid The high value of R^ indicates that the Market Price of these schemes under study does not depend on the Market Index. Tax saving schemes has gained high value of R^(0.9027) based on NAV, which indicates that average systematic risk(0.8859) in this mutual fund was highest as compared to other mutual funds under study. The main leading mutual funds schemes under R^ measure were Franklin India Index Tax Fund, UTI Equity Tax Saving Plan, JP Morgan India tax advantage fund whereas it was low in JM Tax Gain Fund, IDFC Tax Advantage Fund and Reliance Tax Saver. In terms of variation again tax saving fund has high average value (19.1658) than other funds. Higher variability shows less reliability in returns. In other words, if coefficient of variation is higher there will be higher risk. This measure revealed that Principal Tax Saving fund. Escort Tax Plan and BP ELSS 96 had high variations in returns as compared to other schemes as their coefficient of variation was more than other selected Tax plan schemes. It is evident that, the reason behind their underperformance was low consistency in returns. In overall, all tax plan schemes had positive variation in returns which results average performance of these schemes under study. 206

Value of R2 ivalueof R2 Equity Fund Income Fund Balanced Tax Saving Fund Fund Figure(xi): Movements of Sample Schemes with Market Equity fund comes under second rank in terms of R^ (0.8306).Majority of schemes performed good in terms of this measure which predicts the proportion of movements in growth schemes excess return that is due to the movements in the excess return on BSE Index. In the previous chapter it is found that the value of R^ based on NAV, was highest in Baroda pioneer growth fund (.9870), which indicates that systemiatic risk in this particular scheme was highest as compared to other growth schemes which was (.9835).The high value of R^ indicates that the Market Price of this schemes under study does not depend on the Market Index. DSP Blackrock, Franklin Pharma, Kotak-50, indicated comparatively low value of R^, thereby implying that their systematic risk was low and they performed better under Treynor measure. In overall, more than 80 percent movement on an average are due to the benchmark (market) portfolio as per R^ presented In figure (xi). Further, equity fund found third rank in terms of coefficient of variation (13.7289) which is shown in Table 6.5. It is found that equity schemes under study have low variations in returns than tax saving and balanced fund schemes. This measure also revealed that Escorts 207

Growth Fund, Principal Growth Fund, Biria Sun Life Growth Equity Fund, Kodak Contra Schemes had high variations in returns as compared to other schemes under study as their coefficient of variation was more than other selected growth schemes. It is also evident that, the reason behind their underperformance was low consistency in returns. HDFC Equity Fund, ICICI Prudential Dynamic Plan, Kodak 50- G had low variations in returns which showed the better performance under both measures of Sharpe and Treynor index. In overall, 28 growth schemes had positive and only two schemes had negative variation in returns which results more consistency than tax saving and balanced fund in terms of variations. Balanced fund has got third rank in terms of average R^ (.7571) which is more than income fund schemes as shown in figure (xi). It is also found how much the movement in balanced schemes excess return can be explained by the movements in the excess return on BSE Index. The value of R^ based on NAV, was highest in FT India balanced fund, SBI Magnum Balanced fund, ICICI Prudential Balanced Plan which indicates that svstematic risk in this schemes was high in nature. UTI Mahila Unit scheme and UTI Retirement Benefit Pension Plan had low value of R^ thereby implying that their systematic risk was low and they would perform better under Treynor measure if there were positive returns. Value under coefficient of variation helps to find out the variability in returns of balanced schemes on the basis of total hsk and average return. Figure (xii) represents the reliability or volatility in returns of various balanced schemes. It is clear that out of total schemes under study, 3 balanced schemes had negative variation due to negative returns whereas, rest had positive coefficient of variations which ranked second (13.8573) among sample fund in Table 6.5. 208

25 value under VariationfC.V) 20 15 10 value under Variation(C.V) < ' X Equity Income Balanced Tax Saving Fund Fund Fund Fund Figure (xii): Overall Variability in Returns. High volatility had been found in Biria sunlife freedom fund, ICICI prudential child care plan -GP, principal balanced fund and they did not out perform in market due to more variability in returns. On the other hand, ICICI Prudential, HDFC Children Gift fund, BirIa Sun Life 95 fund, HDFC Children Gift Fund-SP outperformed due to more consistency in returns. Thus, some balanced schemes require more reliability in returns to get desired results. The value of R^ (0.2392) is lower in case of Income fund which presents the movement in excess return of income fund schemes that can be explained by the movements plotted under BSE Index. The value of R^ was highest in FT India monthly Income Plan, UTI MIS advantage, LIC MIP-G which indicates that system.atic risk (p) in these schemes was highest as compared to other sample schemes under study. Further, L&T freedom income, BirIa Sun Life Income Plus, ING Income Fund, indicated comparatively low value of R^, thereby implying that their systematic risk was low and they would performed better under Treynor measure if returns were not less than risk free asset. However, R^ found zero under two schemes namely-jm Short Term 209

Fund and Sahara Inconne Fund. In overall low average value of R^ depicted that inconne schemes has further scope of diversification as compared to equity, balanced and tax saving funds. Diversification reduces risk and thus, improves the performance. However it is the unsystematic risk that can be reduced by diversification and not the market risk which in any case has to be borne by the fund manager. Further, Coefficient of variation indicates the stability and risk among the return of selected income fund schemes as shown in figure (xii). Sahara Classic Fund, Biria Sun Life Cash Manager, L&T Freedom Income had low variation and low risk among all mutual funds which indicated more stability and less deviations in return whereas LIC MIP- G, HSBC MIP regular plan and Principal MIP generated more variability, which indicates these schemes fluctuate frequently, hence these were risky schemes as total risk was higher under these. Coefficient of variation ranged from Sahara Classic Fund (.2285) to LIC MIP -G (6.9091) as all income schemes had positive variation in returns. It can be concluded that income fund gained lowest rank among all mutual funds in terms of variability which is 2.60. Note that there were fewer variations in the returns of income schemes under study. Finally, Tax Saving Fund performed well in market under selected period of time even with high variations in returns and high risk. Equity and balanced fund performed on an average whereas income fund failed to get desirable return due to less diversification and inefficiency of fund manager. 6.2 Best and Worst Schemes under Selected Mutual Funds In this section an attempt has been made to find the performance of various schemes individually under all categories of mutual funds. 210

This section has also examined the better and worst schemes in overall basis during sample period. 6.2(a) Best Performers among all Categories Out of the total sample, 44 schemes had superior performance than the Benchmark portfolio in terms of risk adjusted measures calculated under study. The best performance of three major mutual funds such as Equity, balanced and tax saving fund were due favourable impact of risk and return. Apart from this superior performance, some of the schemes showed dismal result. The main reason behind this least performance was the bad performance of income fund as it has been found failed in all aspects of three measures (Sr, Tr, M^ measure) due to lower return than risk free asset. Further, it has been found that "HDFC Mutual Fund, ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund, Canara Robeco and Franklin Templeton" performed better in all three outperformed categories of sample schemes from equity, balanced and tax saving mutual funds. Best 20 schemes under these funds were namely, HDFC Equity Fund, HDFC Top 200 Fund, HDFC Balanced Fund, HDFC Prudence, HDFC Children Gift Fund, HDFC Children Gift Fund-SP, HDFC Tax Saver, HDFC Tax Plan 2000, ICICI Prudential Dynamic, ICICI Top 100, ICICI Prudential Balanced, ICICI Prudential Child Care-Plan, ICICI Prudential Tax Plan, Canara Robeco Multicap, Canara Robeco Balanced fund, Canara Robeco Equity Tax Saver, Franklin Pharma, FT India Balanced Fund, Franklin India Tax Shield Fund and Franklin India Index Tax Fund. The graphical presentation has been presented in fig. (xiii) with their return. 211

0.45 Average Return Figure (xiii): Best Mutual Fund Schemes with their Return. As per above figure it is clear that among these 20 best mutual funds HDFC children Gift fund(.4021), HDFC Equity Fund (.3661), HDFC Top 200 Fund (.3201), HDFC Prudence Fund (.3178), HDFC Tax Plan 2000 (.301) had attained highest returns. Rests are also performed well in market. Thus, it can be concluded that HDFC Mutual Fund is best mutual fund and fully diversified in nature. 6.2(b) Worst Performers among all Categories After analysing the sample schemes of four major funds under the study it has been found that some mutual funds were failed to perform well in market under Growth, Income, Balanced and Tax Saving funds such as "Biria Sunlife Mutual Fund, SBI Mutual Fund, Escort Mutual Fund, Principal Mutual Fund, Kotak Mutual Fund and JM Mutual Fund". Worst 28 schemes under these funds were namely, BirIa Sunlife Equity Fund, BirIa Sun life Income Plus, BirIa Sunlife Cash Manager, BirIa Sunlife Freedom Fund, BirIa Sunlife Relief 96, SBI 212

Magnum Multiplies Plus, SBI Magnum Income fund, SB! Magnum Balanced Fund, SBI Magnum Tax Gain Scheme-93, Escort Growth Plan, Escort Income Plan, Escort Balanced Fund, Escort Tax Plan, Principal Growth Fund, Phncipal MiP-G, Principal Income Fund - LT, Principal Balanced Fund, Principal Personal Tax Saver, Principal Tax Saving fund, JM Basic Fund, JM Short Term Fund, JM Balanced Fund, JM Tax Gain Fund, Kotak Contra Scheme, Kotak Bond Regular Plan, Kotak Bond Deposite, Kotak Balanced and Kotak Tax Saver. 0.2 0.1 -^A/^^-V -0.1-0.2 -Average Return -0.3-0.4-0.5-0.6 Figure (xiv): Worst Mutual Fund Schemes with their Return. The study of all mutual fund schemes predicted that as per figure (xiv), Biria sunlife freedom fund(.0115), Escort growth plan{.0372), Escort tax plan(.0331), Principal growth fund(.0449), Principal Balanced Fund (.0492) and JM Tax Gain Fund (.0265) had got low returns comparatively others whereas JM Basic Fund had generated negative return (-.5034). Thus, low returns were one of the major causes behind their underperformance in market. 213

Finally, it is found that majority of mutual funds were able to provide handsome returns to the investors except income fund. Tax saving fund performed well In market due to diversified activities of the fund managers, more returns as compared to risk free rate and high correlation with the market excess return. Average performance had been reflected under growth and balanced fund schemes whereas, it was poor under income fund schemes. Further, it has been found that "HDFC Mutual Fund, ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund, Canara Robeco and Franklin Templeton" performed better in all three best categories of sample fund whereas, some mutual funds schemes were not able to earn higher return due to selectivity and the inefficiency of their fund manager. They also failed to perform well in market namely, "Biria Sunlife Mutual Fund, SB! Mutual Fund, Escort Mutual Fund, Principal Mutual Fund, Kotak Mutual Fund and JM Mutual Fund". 214