measured from the disclosures, not quoted from a brochure — each links to how it was done
P5Cost, measured
Cannot be measured: needs both a Direct and a Regular growth class.
The Regular and Direct plans hold the same portfolio; the Regular one pays a distributor out of your money every day. The gap between the two NAVs is that cost, measured from the NAVs rather than quoted from a document.
Not known yet: no factsheet named a manager for this fund.
How long the people running it now have been running it, read from the monthly factsheets. A five-year record earned under someone else is not evidence about these managers.
Not replicated: the portfolio cannot be priced line by line in this build.
Each day, the NAV the fund published against the NAV its last disclosed portfolio would have produced at that day's prices. A gap that opens and stays is a change the fund has made and not disclosed yet.
Not measurable yet: needs three years of NAV and a category median.
Take every three-year stretch since the fund had a NAV, one starting each month, and ask two things of each: did it beat the typical fund in its category, and by how much. Counting the wins tells you the record does not depend on when you happen to look; averaging the margin tells you whether winning often was worth anything, because four small wins do not pay for one large loss.
33 month-ends · ₹13.38 → ₹16.06, 1.2× since Sep 2014
Deepest fall (max drawdown)
not computed
Worst month
not computed
Days to recover
not computed
from the deepest trough back to the old high
Drawdown is measured on the last year of daily NAV; trailing returns are CAGR of the regular growth class. A single end date decides them — the consistency card (P4) below is the record that does not, and it reports both how often the fund beat its category and by how much, because the first without the second can point the wrong way.
Holdings
Apr 2017 disclosure · 31 lines · when each was first held and the change over the last three disclosures
Showing 1–25 of 31 · page 1 of 2rows per page102550all
Largest sectors, Apr 2017 · grey: a year ago
Banks7.8% · 8.2%
Industrial Products4.6% · 2.7%
Software3.2% · 4.1%
Consumer Non Durables2.3% · 0.8%
Petroleum Products2.2% · 2.4%
Pharmaceuticals1.9% · 3.8%
Construction Project1.8% · 1.4%
Industrial Capital Goods1.1% · 1.2%
share of the book05%10%
By market cap, Apr 2017
Large cap13.2%
Mid cap6.5%
Small / micro cap1.7%
Cash & equivalents6.0%
Not classified5.6%
Other67.0%
share of the book025%50%75%100%
"Not classified" is what no cap tier could be inferred for — newly listed names, or lines without an ISIN.
Composition by market cap, month by month — what the fund actually held against what its label says
Large cap 13%
Mid cap 7%
Small / micro 2%
Cash & other 6%
The seven checks, in full
each: the plain claim, where it sits in the category, and — folded — how it is measured and the case against. A flag fires only where headline and record disagree.
P4Consistency, not a single end date
Not measurable yet. Needs at least three years of month-end NAV and a category median; not computed for this fund yet.
What this means. Take every three-year stretch since the fund had a NAV, one starting each month, and ask two things of each: did it beat the typical fund in its category, and by how much. Counting the wins tells you the record does not depend on when you happen to look; averaging the margin tells you whether winning often was worth anything, because four small wins do not pay for one large loss.
How it is measured, and the case against
A fund that beats its category in most rolling three-year windows has a record; one that beats it in a few has an end date. How often it won and by how much are different questions, and this card answers both, because a fund can win four windows in five and still be behind across all five.
How often has it beaten its category, across every window?
Why this might matterRolling every three-year window forward month by month gives hundreds of overlapping observations instead of one. A single end date decides a headline five-year figure; the share of windows won cannot be flattered by when you happen to look. The average margin across every window is that share and the payoff multiplied together — win share x average beat plus loss share x average shortfall is exactly the average — so a high share bought with a few ruinous windows cannot hide behind the count.
Why it might notRolling windows overlap heavily, so they are not independent observations and the true sample is far smaller than the count suggests — the card says how many non-overlapping windows the same span holds, and it is usually a handful. A fund that changed manager or mandate carries a record that is only partly its own. The average margin is only as meaningful as the category: where a category is a grab bag (“Other ETFs” holds gold beside equity), a large shortfall says the comparison is wrong, not that the fund is. And none of this forecasts: our own study found the share of windows won does not predict the next three years, and weighting it by payoff gives no reason to think otherwise.
P5Cost, measured
Not measurable yet. Needs a Direct and a Regular growth class with overlapping NAV history.
What this means. The Regular and Direct plans hold the same portfolio; the Regular one pays a distributor out of your money every day. The gap between the two NAVs is that cost, measured from the NAVs rather than quoted from a document.
How it is measured, and the case against
The Direct plan is the same portfolio, priced differently; the divergence of the two NAVs is the cost, measured rather than quoted.
What does the Regular plan actually cost against its Direct twin?
Why this might matterSame manager, same holdings, same day. The gap between the two NAV series is the one number on this page that is knowable today rather than hoped for, and it compounds for as long as the units are held.
Why it might notA Regular plan buys advice. If that advice stops someone selling in a drawdown it can be worth more than the fee — the cost is visible and the behavioural saving is not, which makes this comparison unfair in exactly one direction.
P1Churn, and what it bought
Turns over 17% of the portfolio a year
+0.25 pts of excess return per unit of turnover
What this means. How much of the portfolio was bought and sold in a year, computed from what the fund disclosed each month. Trading costs something certain; the extra return it is meant to buy is not.
No category distribution for this measure yet.
excess return per unit of turnover+0.25 pts
How it is measured, and the case against
Turnover measured from consecutive disclosures — Σ|Δweight|/2 — costs something certain; the excess return it is meant to buy is not.
Is the trading paying for itself?
Why this might matterAMCs define their own turnover figure inconsistently. This one is computed from what the fund disclosed month to month, so two funds are comparable on it. Read it beside the excess return per unit of turnover.
Why it might notTurnover computed from month-end snapshots misses everything bought and sold inside a month, and a fund forced to sell by redemptions is charged for churn it did not choose.
P2Conviction or inertia
Typical top-10 holding kept 30 months
What this means. How long a typical top-10 position has been in the top ten. Long-held positions are a decision; a top ten that changes every quarter is a reaction.
No category distribution for this measure yet.
active sharenot yet computable — needs index constituent files
How it is measured, and the case against
The median months a top-10 position has been held separates a portfolio somebody chose from one that drifted.
How long does a top-10 position stay a top-10 position?
Why this might matterConcentration is how a manager expresses conviction, and persistence is how long they keep it. Long-held positions with a rising weight are a decision; a top ten that turns over every quarter is a reaction.
Why it might notPersistence without active share is inertia: a portfolio of 166 names that tracks its category closely has diversified away the reason to pay for it. Active share needs index constituent files, which are not loaded yet.
P3Hit rate of the top ten
5 of 10 top picks beat their peers over the next 6 months, and averaged 0.1 points behind them
519 positions judged, one disclosure at a time · ahead by 15.0 points when it won, behind by 14.1 when it lost
What this means. Take each month's ten largest holdings and check whether each one beat the typical stock its category holds over the next six months, and by how much. A blended return can hide two wins and eight losses; a count of wins can hide one position that lost half its value.
How often, and by how much. The count and the average agree. Ahead by 15.0 points in the 248 positions it won and behind by 14.1 in the 271 it lost, so the average across all 519 is −0.1 points. The worst position was INE062A01012 at the Sep 2014 disclosure, 100.7 points behind.
No category distribution for this measure yet.
positions judged519beat the median stock248average across every position−0.10 pts · median −0.73when ahead, by how much+15.04 pts over 248 positionswhen behind, by how much−14.07 pts over 271 positionsworst position−100.65 pts, INE062A01012 at the Sep 2014 disclosurebest position+85.14 pts, INE465A01025 at the Feb 2014 disclosure
How it is measured, and the case against
A manager's largest bets, judged one by one over the following six months, say more than the fund's blended return — and how far each one beat or missed the median stock says more than counting how many did.
Of its top-10 positions, how often did they beat the category-median stock?
Why this might matterA fund can beat its category on two positions and lose on eight; the hit rate shows the pattern the aggregate hides. The average margin then shows what the hit rate hides in turn: six winners worth a point each do not pay for four losers worth ten, and only the margin says which happened.
Why it might notSix months is short, sizing matters more than counting, and a manager who is right on the biggest position and wrong on nine small ones has done their job — the margins here are unweighted, so they answer the counting question better, not the sizing one. Overlapping disclosures judge the same position again each month it is held, so one long-held winner is counted many times. And this is a description of six months already past, not a forecast of the next six.
P6Size against edge
₹147 Cr, 54th percentile in category
smaller than 46% of the funds in its category (26 funds) · AUM Jun 2014 → Jun 2017
What this means. Where the fund sits by size in its category, and how much of its growth was money arriving rather than the portfolio compounding. A very large fund cannot buy what a small one can; size should buy a lower fee in return.
54th percentile by AUM
largestsmallest
46th percentile · below median of 26 funds
median holding weight, trendfallingAUM, Jun 2014 → Jun 2017₹179 Cr → ₹147 Cr (−6% a year)
Assets under management, ₹ crore, Jun 2012 – Jun 2017
21 points · months without a factsheet figure use AMFI's quarterly average
How it is measured, and the case against
Past a certain size the smaller end of a mandate becomes unreachable, and the fund starts to look like its index; what size should buy in return is a lower expense ratio.
Has the fund outgrown the universe it invests in — and did size buy a lower fee?
Why this might matterSize narrows what the manager can meaningfully hold and should lower what the investor pays. Read the AUM history beside the expense ratio: a fund that has tripled through inflows while its Regular-plan TER sits above the category median has kept the benefit of scale for the house. The flow decomposition says how much of the growth was money arriving rather than the portfolio compounding.
Why it might notScale funds research teams, and plenty of large funds have gone on compounding for decades. Inflows follow performance, so a fund growing fast is usually one that did well; the constraint is real but not automatically binding, and a TER is a ceiling the AMC can cut at any time.
P7Whose record is this
Not measurable yet. Needs manager names from the monthly factsheet archive; none were parsed for this fund yet.
What this means. How long the people running it now have been running it, read from the monthly factsheets. A five-year record earned under someone else is not evidence about these managers.
How it is measured, and the case against
A record earned under different people is not evidence about these ones.
Does the displayed record predate the people running it?
Why this might matterA five-year figure on a fund whose longest-serving manager joined two years ago is the house's record more than the person's. The tenure here comes from what each monthly factsheet named, so a change of hands is dated to the month it was disclosed, and the fund's return against its category can be read over exactly those months.
Why it might notFund houses have processes, research desks and mandates that outlast individuals, so a manager change is not a reset. Co-managed funds attribute the same months to every named manager, and a factsheet names the manager of record, not necessarily the person making the calls.
Tracking gap
the NAV the fund published, against the NAV its last disclosed portfolio would have produced at each day's prices
No signal. About 73% of this fund is outside listed Indian equity — a foreign or derivative sleeve, or debt — and there are no daily prices to replicate it with. A wrong signal would be worse than none.
Share classes
latest NAV per AMFI code
Plan
Option
NAV
Date
regular Reliance Dual Advantage Fixed Tenure Fund II - Plan G - Growth Option
growth
₹16.06
29 May 2017
regular Reliance Dual Advantage Fixed Tenure Fund II - Plan G - Dividend Payout Option
idcw
₹16.06
29 May 2017
The Direct / Regular gap, in rupees
This fund does not have both a Direct and a Regular growth class in the data, so the gap cannot be measured.
A Regular plan buys advice. The fee is visible and the behavioural saving is not; both are shown, neither is netted off.