I feel author has some wasted intrest otherwise he would have not concluded the matter on incomplete informations. If there is one NFO perfomed beeter than the existing one, there are 10-15 NFO`s with poor perfomance record.
I don't know why rediff posts stories written by half backed so called authors. The author must be one of among mutual fund distributors. This type of stories downgrade rediff's image.
I am sorry to say that the person who has written this article has less knowledge. The Person is trying to miss guide the Investors. The Fund performance ultimatly shows the Returns as per the portfolio rather than of its NAV (being high or low). If the Person who has written this article logic is right then why don't he compare any of the IPO's with the Reliance Growth Fund which has the highest NAV (RS.156/-) & inspight of the NAV being high its performing outstandingly compared with the peer Funds. Request you to don't Mis guide the Investors because they will other wise will invest into all the Wrong NFOs.
I again caution honest people from investing into these Mutual Funds as many of them do not give you a positive yeild , but may endup giving you a loss. I had invested Rs.10,000/ in SBI Tax Magnum in 2001 and got Rs.4118/ in 2004(60% erosion). After that experience , I have adviced several people to exercise utmost caution in investing in these kind of schemes
If anyone,including the author wants to know the reason,please mail me back. You always knew half baked kowledge was bad,read this article and know just why.
dear sir, the article by Mr. Dharmarajan is informative but the funds he has considered for comparision are not from objectives and so the returns are not comparable. for eg. he has compared the returns of India Opportunities fund and Growth fund of Sundaram MF. the India Opportunities fund is a Mid Cap Fund and Growth fund is a Large Cap fund. these kind of comparisions are not proper and so the analyst should disclose these facts while analysing such performances.
each fund is different from the other in the portfolio they maintain. If the newer funds have performed better, it is merely due to the better market timing they achieved and a different set of stocks to put money in.
ld funds cant do too much regular churning. Also the logic of higer returns from fund just because u invested in IPO is not correct.
If Sundaram growth had had the same percentage returns as the new fund, ur absolute return would have been same. I do not think by quoting a handful of IPO's outperforming earlier funds at just one given instance, u can generalize it?
Do more thorough reseach, talking more funds, over time,say for last 10 years. If you get the same result then u can prove ur point, else its case of poor judgement
