{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027927927927927927, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010810810810810811, 'mean_word_length': 5.1722222222222225, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mutual Funds: Performance Evaluation of Select Equity Schemes

In this paper an attempt is made to evaluate the performance of six growth-oriented equity schemes of Mutual Funds (HDFC, Morgan Stanley, Principal, LIC, Sundaram and SBI) on the basis of monthly returns compared to the benchmark returns (Sensex and Nifty). For this purpose, risk adjusted performance measures suggested by William Sharpe (1966), Jack Treynor (1965) and Michael Jensen (1968) are employed. It is found that, HDFC is the best among this sample followed by Sundaram and Principal respectively. All the select schemes have outperformed the benchmark indices. Though Principal is not a very well diversified portfolio as compared with other schemes, it shows least overall risk and also least beta risk for the portfolio. Despite being a very well diversified scheme, Morgan has very high levels of risk, which needs appropriate control measures. SBI needs to concentrate upon further diversification of its investments in order to improve its average returns as well as in reducing its risk levels (both systematic and unsystematic).