
Active mutual funds beat their benchmarks in only 30-52% of rolling periods for large-cap, mid-cap and large & mid-cap categories, according to a study by Apurv Gupta of Otto Money. The analysis…
Active mutual funds beat their benchmarks in only 30-52% of rolling periods for large-cap, mid-cap and large & mid-cap categories, according to a study by Apurv Gupta of Otto Money. The analysis covered 44,500 fund-window observations from January 2013 across seven equity categories. Active funds outperformed in 57-65% of periods for flexi-cap, focused and value funds. Small-cap funds were the standout, beating benchmarks in 90% of seven-year windows. The median advantage over benchmarks was less than 1% annually for categories where active funds did better.
The study found a wide gap between top and bottom performers within the same category. Over seven years, the best flexi-cap fund beat its benchmark by 5.8%, while the worst underperformed by 4.3%. Regular plans, which carry commissions, sharply reduced active funds' chances of beating benchmarks compared with direct plans. For large-cap funds, active direct plans beat benchmarks in 30% of periods versus 11% for regular plans.
The financial press loves the active-versus-passive debate because it lets them give two contradictory opinions in the same article. A reader would be forgiven for throwing up their hands. But the data is actually quite precise: for the large- and mid-cap core of your portfolio, index funds win. For small-caps, an actively managed direct plan does better. The real question is whether the average investor picking a flexi-cap fund is willing to accept a 10-percentage-point gap between the best and worst performer. Until SEBI mandates clear, category-wise success rates on every fund fact sheet, the noise will continue.
Source: livemint.com
This story was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.