Final

1
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE OF MUTUAL

FUNDS BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A mutual fund is a collection of stocks and or bonds. Mutual fund as a company

that brings together a group of people and invests their money in stocks bonds and other
securities. Each investor own shares, which represent a partier of the holdings of the
fund.
We can buy some mutual funds by confecting the funds companies directly
selling a fund is as easy as purchasing one. All mutual will redeem out shares on any
business day funds have lots of costs.
2
INDUSTRY PROFILE
A Mutual Fund is a trust that pools the savings of a number of investors who share
a common financial goal. The money thus collected is then invested in capital market
instruments such as shares, debentures and other securities. The income earned through
these investments and the capital appreciation realized are shared by its unit holders in
proportion to the number of units owned by them. Thus a Mutual Fund is the most
suitable investment for the common man as it offers an opportunity to invest in a
diversified, professionally managed basket of securities at a relatively low cost. The flow
chart below describes broadly the working of a mutual fund:
Mutual Fund Operation Flow Chart
1.1.1 ORGANIZATION OF A MUTUAL FUND
There are many entities involved and the diagram below illustrates the
organizational set up of a mutual fund:
3
1.1.2 ADVANTAGES OF MUTUAL FUNDS
• Professional Management
• Diversification
• Convenient Administration
• Return Potential
• Low Costs
• Liquidity
• Transparency
• Flexibility
• Choice of schemes
• Tax benefits
• Well regulated
1.1.3 TYPES OF MUTUAL FUND SCHEMES

4
Wide variety of Mutual Fund Schemes exist to cater to the needs such as financial
position, risk tolerance and return expectations etc. The table below gives an overview
into the existing types of schemes in the Industry.
1.1.4 TERMS USED IN MUTUAL FUND
Net Asset Value (NAV)
Net Asset Value is the market value of the assets of the scheme minus its liabilities.
The per unit NAV is the net asset value of the scheme divided by the number of units
outstanding on the Valuation Date.
5
Sale Price
Sales price is the price we pay when we invest in a scheme. Also called Offer
Price. It may include a sales load.
Repurchase Price
Is the price at which a close-ended scheme repurchases its units and it may
include a back-end load. This is also called Bid Price.
Redemption Price
Is the price at which open-ended schemes repurchase their units and close-ended
schemes redeem their units on maturity. Such prices are NAV related.
Sales Load
Is a charge collected by a scheme when it sells the units. Also called, ‘Front-end’
load. Schemes that do not charge a load are called ‘No Load’ schemes.
Repurchase or ‘Back-end’ Load
Is a charge collected by a scheme when it buys back the units from the unit holders.
6
1.2 COMPANY PROFILE
KARVY, is a premier integrated financial services provider, and ranked among

the top five in the country in all its business segments, services over 16 million individual
investors in various capacities, and provides investor services to over 300 corporate,
comprising the who is who of Corporate India. Karvy has a professional management
team and ranks among the best in technology, operations and research of various
industrial segments.
The group of professionals founded the parent company in 1982 and today it has
evolved as integrated financial service company of repute, offering various financial
services to suit every requirement/ need by investors. By virtue of its access to million of
Indian share holders, in addition to companies banks and financial institutions. Karvy has
in the process built up a positive reputation with regulatory authorities and other
government agencies emphasis on the following factors has been instrumental in helping
them attain the leadership in the financial service sector.
Financial services provided by Karvy:
 Stock broking
 Depository Participants
 Distribution of financial products
o Mutual funds,
o Bonds,
o Fixed deposit,
o Equities,
7
 Insurance Broking
 Commodities Broking
 Personal Finance Advisory Services
 Merchant Banking & Corporate Finance
 Placement of equity
 IPO’s
Milestones of KARVY:
Achievements
 Among the top 5 stock brokers in India (4% of NSE volumes)
 India's No. 1 Registrar & Securities Transfer Agents
 Among the to top 3 Depository Participants
 Largest Network of Branches & Business Associates
 ISO 9002 certified operations by DNV
 Among top 10 Investment bankers
 Largest Distributor of Financial Products
 Adjudged as one of the top 50 IT uses in India by MIS Asia

8
 Full Fledged IT driven operations

9
Quality Policy
To achieve and retain leadership, Karvy shall aim for complete customer
satisfaction, by combining its human and technological resources, to provide superior
quality financial services. In the process, Karvy will strive to exceed Customer's
expectations.
Quality Objectives:
As per the Quality Policy, Karvy will:
 Build in-house processes that will ensure transparent and harmonious relationships
with its clients and investors to provide high quality of services.
 Establish a partner relationship with its investor service agents and vendors that will
help in keeping up its commitments to the customers.
 Provide high quality of work life for all its employees and equip them with adequate
knowledge & skills so as to respond to customer's needs.
 Continue to uphold the values of honesty & integrity and strive to establish
unparalleled standards in business ethics.
 Use state-of-the art information technology in developing new and innovative
financial products and services to meet the changing needs of investors and
clients.
 Strive to be a reliable source of value-added financial products and services and
constantly guide the individuals and institutions in making a judicious choice of
it.
 Strives to keep all stake-holders (shareholders, clients, investors, employees,
suppliers and regulatory authorities) proud and satisfied.
10
CHAPTER II
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, SCOPE OF THE STUDY,

OBJECTIVES, LIMITATIONS AND METHODOLOGY OF THE
STUDY
2.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Mutual funds pool the funds of small investor and invest it in the securities. As
the investors do not know in which portfolio the fund managers will go investment, the
performance such as the risk and the return associated with each fund type will only
affect the investor. Here the risk associated with each type will vary, hence the return will
also vary. Since the investors are investing based on the scheme category such as private
or public sector funds.
Costs are the biggest problems with mutual funds. These costs eat into our return
and they are the main reason why the majority of funds reason why the majority of funds
end up with sub par performance. Some cities of the industry say that mutual funds
companies get away with the fees they charges only the average investors does not
understand what he/she is paying for: fees can be broken allow into two categories.
1. On going yearly fees to keep is invested in the fund.

2. Transaction fees paid when we buy or sell shares in a fund.
11
2.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study was undertaken with the existing mutual funds in the websites. This
funds are already used by the researcher for the analysis.
This study covers various schemes for analysis. They are Escorts mutual fund,
GIC mutual fund, JM mutual fund, Kotak mutual fund, ING Vysya mutual fund, Taurus
mutual fund, Reliance mutual fund.
2.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The analysis on the performance of private and public sector mutual funds is
made with
2.3.1 Primary Objectives
 To compare the public sector and private sector mutual fund performance.
 To compare the performance of market return with indices.
2.3.2 Secondary Objectives
 To evaluate the performance of the funds based on market risk.

 To increase returns on the portfolio through successful prediction of future
securing prices.
 To protect a company’s current earnings from competitive pressure through
economic moat.
 To provide a steady cash flow to investors.
 To evaluate the performance of the funds based on total risk.
12
13
2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
• Analysis and interpretation is only based on the open - end schemes.

• Dividend schemes were not taken into consideration in this study.
• This study considers the period between 2008-2010 and before and after this
period were not taken into consideration.
• The analysis and interpretation of the fund is based only on the past
performance.
14
2.5 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
The present study was conducted at Karvy Stock Broking Limited using the
secondary data. The main sources of secondary data are obtained from company
websites. Informal discussions were made with the industry staff. During the course of
discussions the staff expresses their opinions regarding the funds.
2.5.1 Data collection method
Secondary data were used for analyses such as (NAV) and performance of
various schemes of the asset management companies.
The net asset value (NAV) of the funds were collected from various websites. The
benchmark indices were collected from the respective company’s fact sheets and also
from the company’s common application forms.
2.5.2 Research design
For this study descriptive method is used for analyzing the performance of the
funds. Descriptive research study is concerned with describing the characteristics of
particular individual or of a group. In descriptive analysis the researcher must be able to
define clearly, what he wants to measure and must find adequate methods for measuring
analysis.
15
2.6 TOOLS USED FOR ANALYSIS
Sharpe, Treynor and Jensen Method
Portfolio performance was measured mostly in terms of returns in early days,

though there was an awareness of the concept of risk, which was difficult to quantify.
Risk could not be incorporated in evaluation, as there was no measures that combined
both return and risk. Returns on portfolios performance are Sharpe Ratio, Treynor
measure and Jensen measure. These are absolute measure of portfolio performance that
can be used to rank different portfolios.
2.6.1 RETURN
For each mutual fund scheme under study, the monthly returns are computed as:
N A Vt − N A Vt −1
Ri =
N A Vt _ 1
2.6.2 AVERAGE
R =ΣRi /n
I = 1,2,3 …………….. n
16
2.6.3 RISK
Standard deviation : Measurement of Total Risk
Financial analysts and statisticians prefer to use a quantitative risk surrogate

called the clash of returns, denoted by α I.
The standard deviation and the variance are equally acceptable and equivalent
quantitative measures of an asset’s total risk. The variance and standard deviation are
computed from logarithmic monthly returns.
[(
σI = Σ Ri − R ) 2
/n ]
1/ 2
2.6.4 BETA
Measurement of Systematic Risk
To obtain the measure of systematic risk (Beta) of the mutual fund scheme,
Market Model is applied.
NΣXY − EΣΣY
β =
NΣX 2 −( ΣX) 2
17
2.6.5 RISK-LESS ASSET
By definition, a risk less asset has zero variability of returns. If an investor buys
an asset at the beginning of the holding period with the known terminal value, such type
of asset can be called as risk-less or risk free asset. Government securities and
nationalized bank deposits fall under this category. As the government securities are not
easily available to the common man, we take the nationalized bank deposits as the risk
free asset and the interest rate on such deposits are considered as risk free return.
2.6.6 SHARPE RATIO
This is a measure of risk-adjusted return on a portfolio. It is a ratio of excess

return to the standard deviation of portfolio returns. An implicit assumption of the
Sharpe ratio is that the portfolio is not combined with other risky portfolios. It is relevant
for performance evaluation when comparing mutually exclusive portfolios.
The Sharpe measure follows his earlier work on capital asset pricing model
(CAPM) dealing specifically with capital market line (CML).
The Sharpe measure of performance denoted by S is given by
Ri − Rf
S =
σi
Where,
Ri = the average rate of return on portfolio ‘i’ during a specified time period.
Rf = the average rate of return on a risk free investment during the same period
18
2.6.7 TREYNOR MEASURE
This is also a measure of risk-adjusted return on a portfolio. It is a ratio of excess

return to the systematic risk (β ) of the portfolio. It is relevant for performance
measurement when evaluating portfolios separately or in combination with other
portfolios. A high treynor measure indicated a favourable relationship between risk and
return on the portfolio.
Sharpe Ratio and Treynor measure give the same results in the case of highly
diversified portfolios as the total risk of portfolios approaches that of a market portfolio.
Ri −Rf
T =
β
Where,
Ri = the average rate of return on portfolio ‘i' during a specified time period.
Rf = the average rate return on a risk free investment during the same period.
β = the slope of the fun’s characteristic line during that time period (this indicates
portfolio’s relative volatility with respect to market portfolio).
A larger ‘T’ value indicates a better portfolio performance for all investors
regardless of their risk performances. The numerator of this ratio (Ri-Rf) is the risk
premium and the denominator is a measure of market risk. The Treynor measure is risk
premium per unit of systematic risk.
19
2.6.8 JENSEN’S ALPHA
This is the difference between a fund’s actual return and the return on a
benchmark portfolio with the same systematic risk (β ) of the portfolio whose
performance is being valuated. It measures the ability of active fund management to earn
returns in excess of the reward for market risk. We can infer meaningful results if it is
used to compare two portfolios with similar betas.
Jensen’s measure is also based on capital asset pricing model. CAPM estimates
the expected return on any security or portfolio by the following expression:
E (Ri) = Rf + β i [E(Rm-Rf)
Where,
E (Ri) = expected return on security or portfolio I
Rf = Risk free return

β I = Systematic risk (beta) of security
E (Rm) = expected return on the market portfolio I
Jensen’s alpha (α ) is defined as:
Ri – Rf = α I + β I (Rm-Rf) + ε I
The value of ‘aj’ suggests whether the portfolio manager possesses superior
(inferior) market timing and stock selection skills. A positive (α ) is an indication of
superior fund management ability.
20
CHAPTER III
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
We cannot find only project on the comparison of the various types of funds. But
a related project is found, the fund families being rated on their performance. This study
was done by value research.
3.1 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
Methodology is a way to systematically solve the research problem. It explains

the various steps that are generally adopted by the researcher in studying the research
problems along with the logic behind it.
3.2 RESULTS OF THE STUDY
The rating scores of a fund house majority of whose funds are un-rated may not
depict the complete story.
21
EQ Dbt Hybrid ST
Escort Growth plan 12 - - 17
Escort income bond 6 4 13 6
Escort Income Plan 14 19 - 17
GIC Growth Plus II 22 21 14 1
Escort Tax Plan 10 10 - 21
GIC DMAT - 20 - 5
Taurus star share 5 3 6 12
LIC MF Equity Fund 11 1 7 -
LIC Bond Fund 4 5 1 7
LIC MF Govt. Security Fund 16 25 8 24
Escort Balanced Fund 2 9 2 23
Kotak Gilt Fund - 22 - 14
GIC Opportunity Fund 23 23 17 3
GIC Fortune 94 19 11 4 18
JM Equity Fund 15 2 5 8
Kotak Bond Fund 21 16 10 4
ING Financial 9 6 15 9
JM Balanced Fund 8 8 9 19
JM Basic Fund 1 14 - 16
Kotak Tech 20 24 - 2
Kotak MNC 18 15 16 11
LIC - MF Growth Fund - 17 - 22
Reliance Retail Plan Fund 3 7 3 20
It concusses, that Reliance Equity fund is performing well, and Escort mutual
fund is doing good in case of debt funds is performing well in hybrid funds. In short term
funds, LIC mutual funds performance is good.
22
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Table 1
Escorts Growth Plan
2003 2004 2005

Month
Return Index Return Index Return Index
Jan 2.654 3.645 1.615 4.986 12.003 3.187
Feb 2.624 0.637269 3.212 2.078 8.251 2.290
Mar 5.967 7.78365 6.712 3.636 7.997 2.355
Apr 2.476 3.91725 0.984 0.386 5.707 7.890
May 6.078 9.293456 12.282 16.583 10.699 8.805
Jun 7.791 11.55789 0.757 0.081 3.067 5.426
Jul 4.644 5.869298 7.607 5.973 10.888 5.262
Aug 10.761 13.31084 3.626 0.128 6.665 2.756
Sep 3.140 3.696144 5.150 6.963 3.895 7.624
Oct 15.648 9.291876 0.870 0.390 10.739 10.198
Nov 1.329 1.621901 6.262 9.221 7.754 12.835
Dec 9.519 14.45042 10.559 7.039 7.382 4.974
S.D 6.22 6.33 6.23

Beta 0.772 0.842 0.401
Sharpe 5.26 0.01 0.34

Treynor 7.64 0.05 5.62
Jensen 0.36 3.75 5.72
Correlation 0.91 0.93 0.08
23
INTERPRETATION
In Sharpe method, the Escorts Growth plan 2003 Portfolio has higher return than
other portfolio. That means the company performs better fund in the year 2003.
In Treynor’s method, the Portfolio of 2003 has higher return than other
portfolio.
In Jensen’s method, the Portfolio of 2005 has higher return than other portfolio.
It is known from the correlation that the relationship between the Escorts Growth
plan stock return and stock market index return is high in 2004.
24
25
Table 2
Escorts Income Bond
2003 2004 2005

Month
Jan 0.054 1.368 2.584 1.165 2.039 0.232
Feb 0.843 0.361 0.370 0.003 0.462 0.375
Mar 3.040 0.198 0.445 0.507 1.401 0.363
Apr 1.699 0.856 1.030 0.164 2.427 0.372
May 2.594 1.304 1.419 0.068 4.369 0.361
Jun 5.574 0.744 1.205 0.701 0.779 0.418
Jul 0.091 0.274 0.066 1.423 2.977 0.728
Aug 2.508 1.394 1.402 0.697 1.555 0.960
Sep 0.704 1.775 3.221 0.355 0.057 0.279
Oct 0.157 0.134 1.404 1.138 3.226 0.444
Nov 4.202 0.405 2.102 0.135 1.736 0.765
Dec 3.586 0.391 7.761 0.230 1.762 0.450
S.D 2.38 2.77 2.31

Beta 0.302 0.725 2.582
Sharpe 3.39 6.41 16.21

Treynor 7.17 6.28 2.16
Jensen 0.32 5.01 14.95
26
INTERPRETATION
In Sharpe method, the Escorts Income Bond 2005 Portfolio has higher return
than other portfolio. That means the company performs better fund in the year 2005.
portfolio.
It is known from the correlation that the relationship between the stock return
and stock market index return is high in 2005.
27
28
Table 3
Escorts Income Plan
2003 2004 2005

Month
Jan 0.803 5.299 0.228 5.360 0.391 2.714
Feb 0.464 0.768 0.666 1.769 0.566 2.107
Mar 1.205 7.617 0.865 4.361 0.400 2.339
Apr 1.579 5.105 0.363 1.294 0.374 7.987
May 1.044 7.300 0.275 16.024 0.416 8.911
Jun 0.612 11.722 0.127 0.153 0.324 6.374
Jul 0.580 4.878 0.174 6.187 0.214 4.539
Aug 0.490 13.448 0.448 0.445 0.328 2.873
Sep 0.546 2.991 0.147 6.729 0.402 8.133
Oct 0.502 9.505 0.232 0.662 0.353 9.852
Nov 0.856 0.849 0.526 8.958 0.427 11.124
Dec 1.324 13.398 0.435 6.037 0.110 5.098
S.D 0.37 0.27 0.11

Beta 0.018 0.005 0.001
Sharpe 0.83 0.86 0.88

Treynor 3.47 1.44 6.90
Jensen 0.94 0.37 0.36
29
INTERPRETATION
In Sharpe method, 2005 Portfolio has higher return than other portfolio. That
means the company performs better fund in the year 2005.
portfolio.
30
31
Table 4
Escorts Tax Plan
2003 2004 2005

Month
Jan 3.762 5.299 1.491 5.360 1.206 2.714
Feb 4.959 0.768 4.517 1.769 5.135 2.107
Mar 5.904 7.617 5.714 4.361 5.792 2.339
Apr 2.851 5.105 0.306 1.294 6.441 7.987
May 6.628 7.300 16.432 16.024 6.963 8.911
Jun 8.696 11.722 1.583 0.153 4.078 6.374
Jul 5.421 4.878 6.676 6.187 7.712 4.539
Aug 12.412 13.448 2.581 0.445 5.382 2.873
Sep 2.413 2.991 3.226 6.729 9.789 8.133
Oct 15.191 9.505 0.003 0.662 9.193 9.852
Nov 1.357 0.849 5.595 8.958 7.888 11.124
Dec 15.060 13.398 8.143 6.037 4.595 5.098
S.D 7.10 6.61 6.57

Beta 0.907 0.908 0.803
Sharpe 5.35 0.45 2.41

Treynor 4.90 3.21 1.12
Jensen 0.39 4.62 2.81
32
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
33
34
Table 5
Escort Balanced Fund
2003 2004 2005

Month
Jan 1.7970 8.452 4.370 4.078 4.400 2.962
Feb 3.1779 2.164 0.618 5.298 0.630 5.863
Mar 4.6906 5.747 6.015 0.835 6.004 5.221
Apr 1.2131 2.214 0.519 4.073 0.506 4.998
May 4.3139 8.495 11.183 0.488 11.274 1.886
Jun 5.9484 3.237 0.758 3.418 0.681 2.893
Jul 4.0678 6.972 5.820 0.615 5.829 4.094
Aug 11.1112 4.914 3.787 9.794 3.690 5.674
Sep 3.9788 2.368 7.027 0.602 6.951 4.945
Oct 11.5740 4.665 6.503 2.153 6.891 1.206
Nov 0.3638 1.396 5.650 3.488 5.547 1.583
Dec 12.4841 3.523 4.569 3.235 5.050 0.425
S.D 5.56 5.83 5.90

Beta 0.639 0.181 0.134
Sharpe 4.95 1.60 1.06

Treynor 33.19 35.74 28.57
Jensen 7.83 0.94 0.96
35
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
36
37
Table 6
GIC Growth Plus II
2003 2004 2005

Month
Jan 3.083 3.609 7.934 6.600 7.754 3.624
Feb 0.889 0.680 2.785 2.796 3.846 2.952
Mar 2.857 7.917 3.027 1.799 0.308 2.155
Apr 1.715 1.274 4.771 1.096 4.719 6.462
May 3.959 14.863 8.956 17.108 7.888 8.235
Jun 8.238 10.303 2.961 0.032 10.253 3.685
Jul 7.394 4.983 0.917 7.027 1.096 6.016
Aug 7.742 16.419 4.495 1.695 2.783 4.253
Sep 0.148 1.489 3.050 6.877 3.032 6.083
Oct 5.048 6.653 1.576 0.250 1.735 10.074
Nov 2.282 3.428 5.739 9.440 5.609 10.625
Dec 10.740 16.617 7.265 8.814 6.851 4.991
S.D 4.67 5.26 5.53

Beta 0.512 0.590 0.186
Sharpe 3.48 0.22 0.03

Treynor 52.18 2.62 1.09
Jensen 0.21 2.76 0.43
38
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
39
40
Table 7
GIC DMAT
2003 2004 2005

Month
Jan 2.284 3.645 1.179 4.986 0.181 3.187
Feb 0.774 0.637 2.058 2.078 2.110 2.290
Mar 3.585 7.784 2.536 3.636 6.184 2.355
Apr 0.265 3.917 0.483 0.386 3.761 7.890
May 6.842 9.293 11.983 16.583 8.612 8.805
Jun 8.712 11.558 2.596 0.081 4.666 5.426
Jul 6.208 5.869 2.115 5.973 9.572 5.262
Aug 10.267 13.311 1.698 0.128 2.618 2.756
Sep 1.332 3.696 5.034 6.963 10.151 7.624
Oct 15.543 9.292 2.609 0.390 2.499 10.198
Nov 1.031 1.622 7.543 9.221 2.521 12.835
Dec 11.695 14.450 9.007 7.039 2.510 4.974
S.D 6.16 5.52 5.56

Beta 0.753 0.690 0.428
Sharpe 5.18 0.21 0.93

Treynor 48.06 1.99 14.25
Jensen 0.11 3.41 0.86
41
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
42
43
Table 8
GIC Fortune 94
2003 2004 2005

Month
Jan 2.384 0.465 8.144 1.030 2.803 0.340
Feb 0.142 0.459 0.357 0.056 5.689 0.408
Mar 6.553 0.288 0.554 0.098 1.681 0.442
Apr 1.064 0.646 0.334 0.299 2.105 0.440
May 14.941 0.817 15.275 0.302 8.621 0.297
Jun 10.831 0.728 4.341 0.266 1.385 0.297
Jul 5.011 0.328 0.749 0.210 6.337 0.748
Aug 11.966 0.699 1.706 0.352 4.193 0.918
Sep 1.692 1.720 5.716 0.241 5.209 0.283
Oct 8.303 0.474 0.341 0.621 0.680 0.575
Nov 7.635 0.190 12.349 0.209 0.401 0.367
Dec 17.408 0.255 7.310 0.359 0.683 0.375
S.D 7.30 7.09 3.99

Beta 0.348 1.904 0.179
Sharpe 6.00 3.12 18.20

Treynor 6.76 0.50 28.03
Jensen 7.87 10.39 2.75
44
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
45
46
Table 9
LIC MF Equity Fund
2003 2004 2005

Month
Jan 1.210 5.299 4.011 5.360 2.219 2.714
Feb 2.853 0.768 6.131 1.769 5.212 2.107
Mar 4.515 7.617 3.590 4.361 0.431 2.339
Apr 0.138 5.105 1.590 1.294 2.278 7.987
May 8.642 7.300 14.867 16.024 7.738 8.911
Jun 8.657 11.722 0.154 0.153 5.173 6.374
Jul 7.471 4.878 5.387 6.187 3.419 4.539
Aug 14.590 13.448 3.024 0.445 9.789 2.873
Sep 2.857 2.991 5.000 6.729 3.393 8.133
Oct 11.459 9.505 0.455 0.662 9.727 9.852
Nov 4.180 0.849 5.416 8.958 10.068 11.124
Dec 13.379 13.398 8.815 6.037 3.930 5.098
S.D 5.98 6.36 5.70

Beta 0.781 0.881 0.747
Sharpe 4.70 0.40 2.35

Treynor 42.68 2.95 19.97
Jensen 1.09 4.08 1.58
47
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
48
49
Table 10
LIC MF Bond Fund
2003 2004 2005

Month Return Index Return Index Return Index
Jan 0.995 1.368 0.211 1.165 2.262 0.232
Feb 0.737 0.361 0.075 0.003 1.530 0.375
Mar 0.723 0.198 1.306 0.507 1.577 0.363
Apr 1.742 0.856 0.255 0.164 3.512 0.372
May 1.382 1.304 0.598 0.068 0.055 0.361
Jun 0.358 0.744 1.143 0.701 4.548 0.418
Jul 0.430 0.274 0.191 1.423 0.397 0.728
Aug 1.247 1.394 0.131 0.697 1.698 0.960
Sep 0.774 1.775 0.191 0.355 0.223 0.279
Oct 0.238 0.134 0.376 1.138 0.338 0.444
Nov 0.218 0.405 0.398 0.135 5.121 0.765
Dec 1.183 0.391 0.210 0.230 0.211 0.450
S.D 0.84 0.60 2.54

Beta 0.234 0.052 2.768
Sharpe 5.68 8.26 16.74

Treynor 12.52 13.47 2.08
Jensen 0.87 0.30 1.67
50
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
51
52
Table 11
LIC MF Govt. Securities Fund
2003 2004 2005

Jan 1.552 0.864 0.324 0.524 0.984 0.244
Feb 0.019 0.022 0.384 0.343 0.883 0.316
Mar 1.474 0.284 1.300 0.018 0.311 0.298
Apr 1.874 0.674 0.307 0.314 1.216 0.441
May 1.888 0.688 0.813 0.094 1.117 0.425
Jun 0.826 0.555 0.738 0.120 0.563 0.468
Jul 1.033 0.219 0.025 0.279 0.538 0.421
Aug 2.050 0.574 0.253 0.060 0.321 0.464
Sep 1.073 0.723 0.237 0.391 0.354 0.313
Oct 0.006 0.288 1.954 0.807 0.538 0.444
Nov 0.806 0.433 0.481 0.060 0.669 0.478
Dec 2.054 0.143 1.077 0.054 0.563 0.438
S.D 1.34 0.87 0.59

Beta 0.307 1.739 0.855
Sharpe 14.71 34.96 46.07

Treynor 12.38 5.65 10.27
Jensen 1.24 10.11 5.52
53
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
54
55
Table 12
LIC MF Growth Fund
2003 2004 2005

Jan 4.071 0.864 1.386 0.524 2.716 0.244
Feb 1.107 0.022 3.382 0.343 1.761 0.316
Mar 4.509 0.284 0.080 0.018 3.633 0.298
Apr 3.579 0.674 3.143 0.314 5.468 0.441
May 13.099 0.688 15.491 0.094 3.980 0.425
Jun 7.974 0.555 0.447 0.120 0.419 0.468
Jul 12.389 0.219 3.957 0.279 9.916 0.421
Aug 15.199 0.574 1.090 0.060 5.542 0.464
Sep 4.611 0.723 4.998 0.391 2.834 0.313
Oct 11.827 0.288 1.394 0.807 9.906 0.444
Nov 0.715 0.433 7.651 0.060 8.627 0.478
Dec 11.447 0.143 7.678 0.054 5.672 0.438
S.D 7.02 5.99 5.93

Beta 1.183 0.496 7.805
Sharpe 22.64 11.65 13.44

Treynor 4.95 6.60 3.33
Jensen 12.92 1.36 14.71
56
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
57
58
Table 13
ING Financial
2003 2004 2005

Jan 7.642 0.936 6.660 2.129 2.242 0.555
Feb 0.963 0.004 7.621 1.016 2.750 0.773
Mar 7.854 0.412 5.000 0.345 1.581 0.683
Apr 12.254 0.722 2.279 0.297 2.778 0.328
May 1.365 1.822 15.085 0.385 11.111 0.278
Jun 11.960 0.970 1.095 1.072 2.215 0.554
Jul 2.530 0.634 4.272 1.815 9.406 1.270
Aug 7.407 1.409 3.145 0.356 6.220 1.530
Sep 4.948 2.004 5.966 0.475 1.145 1.553
Oct 9.789 2.269 0.662 1.335 7.203 0.779
Nov 2.305 1.043 9.201 0.109 8.422 1.094
Dec 10.972 1.237 12.340 0.216 7.834 0.635
S.D 7.87 7.61 5.72

Beta 0.471 1.500 1.724
Sharpe 0.18 2.40 10.89

Treynor 0.40 1.63 4.63
Jensen 0.90 10.34 7.24
59
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
60
61
Table 14
Kotak Gilt
2003 2004 2005

Jan 0.261 1.498 0.242 5.138 0.194 0.679
Feb 0.422 0.588 0.278 1.451 1.545 0.709
Mar 0.528 0.594 0.370 2.699 0.321 0.907
Apr 0.731 1.082 0.183 0.044 0.191 0.439
May 0.392 2.815 0.190 0.112 0.190 0.355
Jun 0.309 1.164 1.940 1.703 1.879 0.035
Jul 0.416 0.954 1.641 3.652 1.645 1.879
Aug 0.506 2.044 0.191 1.515 0.192 3.481
Sep 0.368 3.066 0.191 1.515 0.190 3.376
Oct 0.238 0.728 0.194 1.812 0.194 0.801
Nov 0.244 2.055 0.197 0.069 0.194 2.140
Dec 0.234 0.973 0.191 0.235 0.379 0.490
S.D 0.15 0.62 0.84

Beta 0.034 0.121 0.016
Sharpe 3.49 2.19 3.53

Treynor 15.23 9.54 5.68
Jensen 0.18 1.20 0.24
62
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
63
64
Table 15
Kotak Opportunities
2003 2004 2005

Jan 1.078 3.609 1.270 6.600 0.511 3.624
Feb 0.817 0.680 2.113 2.796 3.189 2.952
Mar 2.228 7.917 1.598 1.799 4.592 2.155
Apr 0.670 1.274 0.308 1.096 2.978 6.462
May 4.623 14.863 7.579 17.108 2.625 8.235
Jun 3.993 10.303 0.815 0.032 0.759 3.685
Jul 2.682 4.983 2.934 7.027 2.260 6.016
Aug 3.993 16.419 1.080 1.695 2.196 4.253
Sep 1.885 1.489 1.854 6.877 3.571 6.083
Oct 6.038 6.653 0.596 0.250 6.358 10.074
Nov 0.051 3.428 3.361 9.440 3.148 10.625
Dec 9.683 16.617 5.017 8.814 3.051 4.991
S.D 3.40 3.21 3.40

Beta 0.368 0.418 0.486
Sharpe 2.31 0.09 0.93

Treynor 18.11 1.45 11.42
Jensen 0.31 1.93 2.34
65
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
66
67
Table 16
Kotak Bond Fund
2003 2004 2005

Jan 0.939 1.368 0.231 1.165 0.386 0.232
Feb 0.312 0.361 0.027 0.003 0.550 0.375
Mar 0.464 0.198 1.258 0.507 0.288 0.363
Apr 1.736 0.856 0.133 0.164 0.189 0.372
May 1.460 1.304 0.729 0.068 0.916 0.361
Jun 0.380 0.744 1.124 0.701 0.440 0.418
Jul 0.754 0.274 0.344 1.423 0.635 0.728
Aug 1.584 1.394 0.079 0.697 0.292 0.960
Sep 0.965 1.775 0.234 0.355 0.317 0.279
Oct 0.295 0.134 0.162 1.138 0.389 0.444
Nov 0.512 0.405 0.050 0.135 0.384 0.765
Dec 1.382 0.391 1.030 0.230 0.308 0.450
S.D 0.92 0.65 0.31

Beta 0.509 0.009 0.381
Sharpe 2.42 8.30 11.32

Treynor 3.05 19.19 10.22
Jensen 2.48 0.04 1.89
68
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
69
70
Table 17
Kotak Tech
2003 2004 2005

Jan 9.393 0.465 8.995 1.030 2.099 0.340
Feb 1.079 0.459 0.504 0.056 4.502 0.408
Mar 8.729 0.288 7.499 0.098 1.809 0.442
Apr 14.926 0.646 2.249 0.299 12.888 0.440
May 1.853 0.817 0.585 0.302 14.537 0.297
Jun 11.157 0.728 2.115 0.266 5.168 0.297
Jul 4.774 0.328 6.637 0.210 1.509 0.748
Aug 7.270 0.699 4.740 0.352 6.403 0.918
Sep 17.595 1.720 4.768 0.241 2.783 0.283
Oct 1.523 0.474 5.090 0.621 5.941 0.575
Nov 5.933 0.190 8.946 0.209 7.713 0.367
Dec 6.553 0.255 0.576 0.359 9.229 0.375
S.D 9.31 5.37 7.32

Beta 10.282 4.014 3.539
Sharpe 9.07 5.95 7.26

Treynor 6.06 4.26 5.48
Jensen 59.20 25.17 23.39
71
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
It is known from the correlation that the relationship between the stock return and stock
market index return is high in 2003.
72
Table 18
Kotak MNC
2003 2004 2005

Jan 2.729 3.609 9.812 6.600 0.739 3.624
Feb 0.471 0.680 4.875 2.796 19.191 2.952
Mar 7.951 7.917 1.556 1.799 0.745 2.155
Apr 5.388 1.274 4.179 1.096 3.413 6.462
May 13.788 14.863 10.335 17.108 8.640 8.235
Jun 4.853 10.303 4.037 0.032 1.717 3.685
Jul 7.394 4.983 3.862 7.027 6.025 6.016
Aug 8.780 16.419 6.923 1.695 8.649 4.253
Sep 4.943 1.489 8.460 6.877 0.446 6.083
Oct 5.718 6.653 0.398 0.250 6.832 10.074
Nov 7.770 3.428 6.983 9.440 10.886 10.625
Dec 18.635 16.617 8.152 8.814 6.365 4.991
S.D 7.67 6.44 8.30

Beta 0.814 0.781 0.576
Sharpe 5.93 0.73 1.38

Treynor 55.91 6.64 14.29
Jensen 0.12 2.44 2.21
73
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
74
75
Table 19
JM Equity Fund
2003 2004 2005

Jan 1.210 5.299 4.011 5.360 2.219 2.714
Feb 2.853 0.768 6.131 1.769 5.212 2.107
Mar 4.515 7.617 3.590 4.361 0.431 2.339
Apr 0.138 5.105 3.446 1.294 2.278 7.987
May 8.642 7.300 14.867 16.024 7.738 8.911
Jun 8.657 11.722 0.154 -0.153 5.173 6.374
Jul 7.471 4.878 5.387 6.187 3.419 4.539
Aug 14.590 13.448 3.024 0.445 9.789 2.873
Sep 2.857 2.991 5.000 6.729 3.393 8.133
Oct 11.459 9.505 0.455 0.662 9.727 9.852
Nov 4.180 0.849 5.416 8.958 10.068 11.124
Dec 13.379 13.398 8.815 6.037 3.930 5.098
S.D 5.98 6.40 5.70

Beta 0.781 0.875 0.747
Sharpe 4.70 0.38 2.35

Treynor 42.68 2.81 19.97
Jensen 1.09 3.89 1.58
76
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
77
78
Table 20
JM Balanced Fund
2003 2004 2005

Jan 2.226 8.452 3.519 4.078 2.306 2.962
Feb 1.105 2.164 3.170 5.298 2.431 5.863
Mar 3.961 5.747 1.301 0.835 1.760 5.221
Apr 0.631 2.214 0.345 4.073 2.754 4.998
May 6.946 8.495 10.193 0.488 3.777 1.886
Jun 5.377 3.237 0.484 3.418 1.665 2.893
Jul 5.824 6.972 3.920 0.615 3.481 4.094
Aug 5.071 4.914 1.382 9.794 5.480 5.674
Sep 34.058 2.368 3.258 0.602 3.269 4.945
Oct 6.063 4.665 0.173 2.153 6.977 1.206
Nov 2.468 1.396 4.041 3.488 8.402 1.583
Dec 21.589 3.523 5.998 3.235 3.119 0.425
S.D 12.65 4.31 4.20

Beta 1.426 0.083 0.238
Sharpe 8.15 1.36 0.13

Treynor 24.48 66.43 1.99
Jensen 10.79 1.08 0.08
79
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
80
81
Table 21
JM Basic Fund
2003 2004 2005

Jan 3.941 3.645 17.542 4.986 7.759 3.187
Feb 4.936 0.637 2.941 2.078 1.382 2.290
Mar 30.000 7.784 6.255 3.636 4.541 2.355
Apr 1.472 3.917 1.408 0.386 4.631 7.890
May 13.281 9.293 19.508 16.583 3.603 8.805
Jun 8.236 11.558 1.762 -0.081 0.749 5.426
Jul 4.889 5.869 8.082 5.973 0.472 5.262
Aug 17.305 13.311 2.075 0.128 4.757 2.756
Sep 6.038 3.696 3.946 6.963 7.143 7.624
Oct 0.736 9.292 2.000 0.390 9.136 10.198
Nov 15.195 1.622 3.114 9.221 12.156 12.835
Dec 7.205 14.450 3.584 7.039 2.893 4.974
S.D 12.90 8.40 6.24

Beta 1.351 0.982 0.817
Sharpe 8.77 0.44 2.17

Treynor 45.38 2.98 17.48
Jensen 8.11 8.32 4.36
82
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
83
84
Table 22
Taurus Star Share
2003 2004 2005

Jan 3.934 3.645 10.184 4.986 5.172 3.187
Feb 0.333 0.637 6.648 2.078 13.901 2.290
Mar 10.265 7.784 7.082 3.636 2.683 2.355
Apr 4.936 3.917 3.153 0.386 4.569 7.890
May 12.132 9.293 5.487 16.583 10.268 8.805
Jun 14.352 11.558 6.290 0.081 3.073 5.426
Jul 2.838 5.869 9.357 5.973 12.000 5.262
Aug 17.318 13.311 14.184 0.128 16.955 2.756
Sep 0.657 3.696 6.376 6.963 0.039 7.624
Oct 9.189 9.292 0.216 0.390 12.187 10.198
Nov 10.572 1.622 6.938 9.221 14.493 12.835
Dec 10.445 14.450 16.040 7.039 7.227 4.974
S.D 8.22 8.62 9.63

Beta 0.938 0.830 0.995
Sharpe 6.64 0.23 3.35

Treynor 49.47 1.89 22.15
Jensen 0.01 2.08 1.96
85
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
86
87
Table 23
Reliance Retail Plan Fund
2003 2004 2005

Jan 1.294 5.299 0.298 5.360 0.556 2.714
Feb 0.441 0.768 0.044 1.769 0.787 2.107
Mar 0.982 7.617 1.506 4.361 0.502 2.339
Apr 1.682 5.105 0.512 1.294 0.271 7.987
May 1.378 7.300 0.700 16.024 0.860 8.911
Jun 0.437 11.722 1.353 0.153 0.626 6.374
Jul 0.840 4.878 0.313 6.187 0.488 4.539
Aug 1.559 13.448 0.573 0.445 0.246 2.873
Sep 1.097 2.991 0.474 6.729 0.302 8.133
Oct 0.342 9.505 0.282 0.662 0.231 9.852
Nov 0.471 0.849 0.367 8.958 0.354 11.124
Dec 1.610 13.398 0.692 6.037 0.189 5.098
S.D 1.02 0.75 0.22

Beta 0.080 0.027 0.010
Sharpe 0.27 0.88 0.82

Treynor 24.40 13.45 54.11
Jensen 0.08 0.06 0.39
INTERPRETATION
portfolio.
88
89
90
Ranking
Table 24
Sharpe Method
S.
Name of the Fund 2003 Rank 2004 Rank 2005 Rank
No.
1 Escorts Growth plan 5.26 11 0.01 23 0.34 21
2 Escorts income bond 3.39 18 6.41 5 16.21 4
3 Escorts Income Plan 0.83 21 0.86 13 0.88 19
4 GIC Growth Plus II 3.48 17 0.22 20 0.03 23
5 Escorts Tax Plan 5.35 10 0.45 15 2.41 11
6 GIC DMAT 5.18 12 0.21 21 0.93 17
7 Taurus star share 6.64 6 0.23 19 3.35 10
8 LIC MF Equity Fund 4.7 14 0.4 17 2.35 12
9 LIC Bond Fund 5.68 9 8.26 4 16.74 3
10 LIC MF Govt. Security Fund 14.71 2 34.96 1 46.07 1
11 Escort Balanced Fund 4.95 13 1.6 10 1.06 16
12 Kotak Gilt Fund 3.49 16 2.19 9 3.53 9
13 Kotak Opportunity Fund 2.31 20 0.09 22 0.93 18
14 GIC Fortune 94 6 7 3.12 7 18.2 2
15 JM Equity Fund 4.7 15 0.38 18 2.35 13
16 Kotak Bond Fund 2.42 19 8.3 3 11.32 6
17 ING Financial 0.18 23 2.4 8 10.89 7
18 JM Balanced Fund 8.15 5 1.36 11 0.13 22
19 JM Basic Fund 8.77 4 0.44 16 2.17 14
20 Kotak Tech 9.07 3 5.95 6 7.26 8
21 Kotak MNC 5.93 8 0.73 14 1.38 15
22 LIC MF Growth Fund 22.64 1 11.65 2 13.44 5
23 Reliance Retail Plan Fund 0.27 22 0.88 12 0.82 20
91
Table 25
Treynor’s Method
S.
No.
5 Escorts Tax Plan 4.9 20 3.21 12 1.12 22
6 GIC DMAT 48.06 4 1.99 17 14.25 9
9 LIC Bond Fund 12.52 13 13.47 4 2.08 20
12 Kotak Gilt Fund 15.23 12 9.54 6 5.68 14
14 GIC Fortune 94 6.76 17 0.5 22 28.03 3
15 JM Equity Fund 42.68 7 2.81 15 19.97 6
16 Kotak Bond Fund 3.05 22 19.19 3 10.22 12
17 ING Financial 0.4 23 1.63 19 4.63 17
18 JM Balanced Fund 24.48 9 66.43 1 1.99 21
19 JM Basic Fund 45.38 5 2.98 13 17.48 7
20 Kotak Tech 6.06 18 4.26 11 5.48 16
21 Kotak MNC 55.91 1 6.64 7 14.29 8
92
Table 26
Jensen’s Method
S.
No.
5 Escorts Tax Plan 0.39 14 4.62 7 2.81 8
6 GIC DMAT 0.11 21 3.41 11 0.86 18
9 LIC Bond Fund 0.87 13 0.3 21 1.67 14
12 Kotak Gilt Fund 0.18 19 1.2 17 0.24 22
14 GIC Fortune 94 7.87 5 10.39 2 2.75 9
15 Jm Equity Fund 1.09 10 3.89 9 1.58 16
16 Kotak Bond Fund 2.48 7 0.04 23 1.89 13
17 ING Financial 0.9 12 10.34 3 7.24 4
18 JM Balanced Fund 10.79 3 1.08 18 0.08 23
19 JM Basic Fund 8.11 4 8.32 5 4.36 7
20 Kotak Tech 59.2 1 25.17 1 23.39 1
21 Kotak MNC 0.12 20 2.44 13 2.21 11
93
CHAPTER V
FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.1 FINDINGS
 The ability of the portfolio manager to minimize the amount of insurable risk.
 Incase of Security fund LIC MF govt. security fund showed increase in

performance based on both sharpe ratio under the period of analysis.
 Incase of mutual plan Reliance retail plan showed increase in performance based
on both treynor ratio under the period of analysis.
 Investors treat their holdings like rented goods.
 Most of the investors ignore the long – term periods.
 Economic moat prevents competitors from stealing market share.
 Bond / income fund is to provide a steady cashflow to investors.

94
5.2 SUGGESTIONS
 Investors should know about the basic elements of mutual fund.
 Investors should choose their risk level and according to that they has to choose
the funds.
 Investors should analyze the company performance and then invest the funds.
 Investors should know the market trends.
 Investors should wait for the long - term returns.
 Effects of differential degrees of risk on the return of the portfolios must be taken
into account.
95
5.3 CONCLUSION
I conclude that LIC mutual fund doing better performance incase of bond fund.
Escort growth plan doing better performance incase of growth fund. Incase of ranking
LIC MF govt. security fund shows a better ranking in Sharpe method. And Reliance
Retail Plan shows a better ranking in Treynor method. Kotak tech shows a better ranking
in Jensen method. Other finds has to perform better according to the analysis.
96
Chart Pages
22,25,28,31,34,37,40,43,46,49,52,55,58,61,64,67,70,73,76,79,82,85,88
Text Pages
1-
21,23,24,26,27,29,30,32,33,35,36,38,39,41,42,44,45,47,48,50,51,53,54,56,57,59,60,62,6
3,65,66,68,69,71,72,74,75,77,78,80,81,83,84,86,87,89-94

Final

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Final

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE OF MUTUAL

A mutual fund is a collection of stocks and or bonds. Mutual fund as a company

Mutual Fund Operation Flow Chart

1.1.1 ORGANIZATION OF A MUTUAL FUND

1.1.2 ADVANTAGES OF MUTUAL FUNDS

1.1.3 TYPES OF MUTUAL FUND SCHEMES

1.1.4 TERMS USED IN MUTUAL FUND

Net Asset Value (NAV)

Repurchase or ‘Back-end’ Load

1.2 COMPANY PROFILE

KARVY, is a premier integrated financial services provider, and ranked among

Financial services provided by Karvy:

 Among the top 5 stock brokers in India (4% of NSE volumes)

 India's No. 1 Registrar & Securities Transfer Agents

 Among the to top 3 Depository Participants

 Largest Network of Branches & Business Associates

 ISO 9002 certified operations by DNV

 Among top 10 Investment bankers

 Largest Distributor of Financial Products

 Adjudged as one of the top 50 IT uses in India by MIS Asia

 Full Fledged IT driven operations

As per the Quality Policy, Karvy will:

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, SCOPE OF THE STUDY,

2.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

1. On going yearly fees to keep is invested in the fund.

2.2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

2.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

2.3.1 Primary Objectives

2.3.2 Secondary Objectives

 To evaluate the performance of the funds based on market risk.

2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

• Analysis and interpretation is only based on the open - end schemes.

2.5 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

2.5.1 Data collection method

2.5.2 Research design

2.6 TOOLS USED FOR ANALYSIS

Sharpe, Treynor and Jensen Method

Portfolio performance was measured mostly in terms of returns in early days,

Standard deviation : Measurement of Total Risk

Financial analysts and statisticians prefer to use a quantitative risk surrogate

Measurement of Systematic Risk

2.6.5 RISK-LESS ASSET

2.6.6 SHARPE RATIO

This is a measure of risk-adjusted return on a portfolio. It is a ratio of excess

The Sharpe measure of performance denoted by S is given by

2.6.7 TREYNOR MEASURE

This is also a measure of risk-adjusted return on a portfolio. It is a ratio of excess

2.6.8 JENSEN’S ALPHA

E (Ri) = expected return on security or portfolio I

Rf = Risk free return

E (Rm) = expected return on the market portfolio I

Jensen’s alpha (α ) is defined as:

3.1 METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Methodology is a way to systematically solve the research problem. It explains

3.2 RESULTS OF THE STUDY

2003 2004 2005

S.D 6.22 6.33 6.23

Sharpe 5.26 0.01 0.34

2003 2004 2005

S.D 2.38 2.77 2.31

Sharpe 3.39 6.41 16.21

2003 2004 2005