ANVESHAN Create account
Explore · Research

Postulates being tested, and what they found

A postulate here is a claim about what public data shows — about funds, about the market, or about how people decide — stated so it can be checked. Each card gives the claim in one line, what is measured and how, the data and how often it refreshes, the test, and the verdict so far. A verdict describes a finished sample; none of it is a forecast, a rating or advice.

2 tested and carried information · 12 tested with no evidence · 5 running · 0 pending

What each status means
Running
measured and published; too early for a verdict
Tested — carried information
tested with a correction for testing many ideas at once, on non-overlapping periods and beside a random control, and the effect held over the sample tested
Tested — no evidence
tested the same way; no reliable effect was found
Pending
designed, not yet measured

Fund postulates

Claims about what a mutual fund’s own record and disclosures show. Each is measured for every fund and printed on the fund page as a description of the past. Each was also tested as a forecast of which fund beats its peers next.

P1 Churn, and what it boughtTrading costs something certain; a fund that trades more should show extra return that pays for it. Tested — no evidence
Measured
Turnover computed from consecutive monthly portfolios: half the sum of every change in a holding’s weight, over a year. Shown beside the excess return per unit of turnover.
Data
Monthly portfolio disclosures from 38 fund houses, daily NAVs (net asset value: the price of one unit) from AMFI, and monthly factsheets. Refreshes: Monthly, about ten days after each month ends.
Test
Forecast test: on 120 month-end dates (Sep 2016 – Aug 2026), rebuild what was knowable that day for 646 equity funds (including 60 that later closed or merged), sort funds into fifths on the measure, and compare the top fifth with the bottom fifth over the next 12 months against the typical fund with a similar portfolio. Corrected for testing 22 measures at once (Benjamini–Hochberg), checked on non-overlapping windows, and run beside a random label that must show nothing.
Verdict so far
Shown as a description. As a forecast it points the wrong way: the lowest-turnover fifth trailed the highest by 1.72 percentage points a year (p = 0.017), which does not survive the correction for testing many measures.
Numbers
  • Top fifth minus bottom fifth, 12 months −1.72 percentage points a year
  • Survives the multiple-testing correction No
Started
22 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
Fund houses define their own turnover figures inconsistently; this one is computed the same way for every fund, so two funds can be compared on it.
Why it might not
Month-end snapshots miss everything bought and sold inside a month, and a fund forced to sell by withdrawals is charged for churn it did not choose.
On the site
Funds, by turnover · Does any of it predict?
P2 Conviction or inertiaLong-held top-ten positions mark a portfolio someone chose; a top ten that changes every quarter is a reaction. Tested — no evidence
Measured
The median number of months each current top-ten holding has been in the top ten without a break.
Data
Monthly portfolio disclosures from 38 fund houses, daily NAVs (net asset value: the price of one unit) from AMFI, and monthly factsheets. Refreshes: Monthly.
Test
Forecast test: on 120 month-end dates (Sep 2016 – Aug 2026), rebuild what was knowable that day for 646 equity funds (including 60 that later closed or merged), sort funds into fifths on the measure, and compare the top fifth with the bottom fifth over the next 12 months against the typical fund with a similar portfolio. Corrected for testing 22 measures at once (Benjamini–Hochberg), checked on non-overlapping windows, and run beside a random label that must show nothing.
Verdict so far
Shown as a description. As a forecast: top fifth minus bottom fifth +0.19 percentage points a year, indistinguishable from zero (p = 0.74).
Numbers
  • Top fifth minus bottom fifth, 12 months +0.19 percentage points a year
Started
22 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
Persistence is how long a manager keeps a conviction; it separates a decision from drift.
Why it might not
Persistence without a different portfolio from the index is inertia, and the measure cannot yet tell the two apart.
On the site
Funds, by how long top holdings are kept · Does any of it predict?
P3 Hit rate of the top tenA manager’s largest positions, judged one by one over the next six months, say more than the fund’s blended return. Tested — no evidence
Measured
Of each month’s ten largest holdings, the share that beat the typical stock held in the same category over the following six months, and by how much on average.
Data
Monthly portfolio disclosures from 38 fund houses, daily NAVs (net asset value: the price of one unit) from AMFI, and monthly factsheets. Daily NSE and BSE closing prices. Refreshes: Monthly.
Test
Forecast test: on 120 month-end dates (Sep 2016 – Aug 2026), rebuild what was knowable that day for 646 equity funds (including 60 that later closed or merged), sort funds into fifths on the measure, and compare the top fifth with the bottom fifth over the next 12 months against the typical fund with a similar portfolio. Corrected for testing 22 measures at once (Benjamini–Hochberg), checked on non-overlapping windows, and run beside a random label that must show nothing.
Verdict so far
Shown as a description of six months already past. As a forecast: top fifth minus bottom fifth −0.66 percentage points a year (p = 0.64).
Numbers
  • Top fifth minus bottom fifth, 12 months −0.66 percentage points a year
Started
22 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
A fund can beat its category on two positions and lose on eight; the count and the margin show what the blended return hides.
Why it might not
Six months is short, sizing matters more than counting, and a long-held winner is counted again every month it is held.
On the site
Funds, by top-ten hit rate · How often is not how much
P4 Consistency, not a single end dateA fund that beats its category in most rolling three-year stretches has a record; one that beats it in a few has an end date. Tested — no evidence
Measured
Every three-year stretch since the fund had a NAV, one starting each month: the share it beat the category’s typical fund, and the average margin across all of them (win share × average win + loss share × average loss).
Data
Daily NAVs from AMFI, and the category each fund is filed under. Refreshes: Monthly, at each month end.
Test
Forecast test: on 120 month-end dates (Sep 2016 – Aug 2026), rebuild what was knowable that day for 646 equity funds (including 60 that later closed or merged), sort funds into fifths on the measure, and compare the top fifth with the bottom fifth over the next 12 months against the typical fund with a similar portfolio. Corrected for testing 22 measures at once (Benjamini–Hochberg), checked on non-overlapping windows, and run beside a random label that must show nothing.
Verdict so far
Shown as a description. As a forecast: top fifth minus bottom fifth −0.68 percentage points a year on the three-year share (p = 0.56). Winning often is also not winning by much: across 523 funds the share of stretches won correlates only 0.32 with the average margin.
Numbers
  • Top fifth minus bottom fifth, 12 months −0.68 percentage points a year
  • Share won vs average margin, correlation 0.32
Started
22 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
Hundreds of overlapping stretches cannot be flattered by one end date the way a headline five-year figure can.
Why it might not
The stretches overlap, so the true number of independent observations is a handful; a fund that changed manager carries a record only partly its own.
On the site
Funds, by average margin · How often is not how much
P5 Cost, measuredThe Regular plan (sold through a distributor, who is paid from the fund every day) and the Direct plan hold the same portfolio; the gap between their NAVs is the cost. Tested — carried information
Measured
The yearly growth of the Direct plan’s NAV minus the Regular plan’s, over the same dates.
Data
Daily NAVs for both plans of every fund, from AMFI. Refreshes: Monthly.
Test
The gap is arithmetic on a fee rather than a forecast, so the test is its size and spread across every fund-date in the study.
Verdict so far
The one reliable number in the study: choosing Direct over Regular was worth a median 1.21 percentage points a year (middle half 0.91 to 1.58), measured on 33,028 fund-dates — larger than every skill measure combined.
Numbers
  • Median gap 1.21 percentage points a year
  • Middle half of funds 0.91 to 1.58
  • Fund-dates measured 33,028
Started
22 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
It is the one number on a fund page that is knowable today rather than hoped for, and it compounds for as long as the units are held.
Why it might not
A Regular plan pays for advice; if that advice stops a sale in a fall, it can be worth more than the fee. The cost is visible and that saving is not.
On the site
What the Regular plan costs · Funds, by Regular-plan mark-up
P6 Size against edgePast a certain size a fund cannot buy what a small one can, and should charge less in return. Tested — no evidence
Measured
Where the fund sits by size in its category, how much of its growth was new money rather than returns, and its expense ratio (the yearly fee, as a share of assets).
Data
Monthly portfolio disclosures from 38 fund houses, daily NAVs (net asset value: the price of one unit) from AMFI, and monthly factsheets. AMFI quarterly average assets and daily expense ratios. Refreshes: Monthly; assets quarterly.
Test
Forecast test: on 120 month-end dates (Sep 2016 – Aug 2026), rebuild what was knowable that day for 646 equity funds (including 60 that later closed or merged), sort funds into fifths on the measure, and compare the top fifth with the bottom fifth over the next 12 months against the typical fund with a similar portfolio. Corrected for testing 22 measures at once (Benjamini–Hochberg), checked on non-overlapping windows, and run beside a random label that must show nothing.
Verdict so far
The only measure with a weak signal: smaller funds did slightly better inside their own category (+1.18 percentage points a year; t = 2.07 after controls), but it does not survive the multiple-testing correction and is tangled up with a decade in which small and mid-sized companies did well.
Numbers
  • Top fifth minus bottom fifth, 12 months +1.18 percentage points a year
  • After controls (Fama–MacBeth t) 2.07
  • Survives the multiple-testing correction No
Started
22 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
A fund that has tripled through new money while charging above its category median has kept the benefit of scale for the fund house.
Why it might not
Scale pays for research teams, and money follows past performance, so a fast-growing fund is usually one that did well. In India the fee cap falls as a fund grows, so fee and size are the same fact seen twice.
On the site
Funds, by expense ratio · Does any of it predict?
P7 Whose record is thisA record earned under different managers is not evidence about the ones running the fund now. Tested — no evidence
Measured
How long each manager named on the monthly factsheet has been named, dated to the month the change was disclosed. Where the archive starts after a manager did, the figure is a floor and is marked so.
Data
Monthly factsheets from 38 fund houses. Refreshes: Monthly.
Test
Forecast test: on 120 month-end dates (Sep 2016 – Aug 2026), rebuild what was knowable that day for 646 equity funds (including 60 that later closed or merged), sort funds into fifths on the measure, and compare the top fifth with the bottom fifth over the next 12 months against the typical fund with a similar portfolio. Corrected for testing 22 measures at once (Benjamini–Hochberg), checked on non-overlapping windows, and run beside a random label that must show nothing.
Verdict so far
Shown as a description. As a forecast: top fifth minus bottom fifth −0.53 percentage points a year (p = 0.57), on the shorter sample from 2018 where manager names are available.
Numbers
  • Top fifth minus bottom fifth, 12 months −0.53 percentage points a year
Started
22 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
A five-year figure on a fund whose longest-serving manager joined two years ago is the fund house’s record more than the person’s.
Why it might not
Fund houses have processes and research desks that outlast individuals, and a factsheet names the manager of record, not necessarily the person making the calls.
On the site
Managers · Whose record is it?
P8 Manager decisionsScore a fund’s decisions rather than its holdings: adding to a stock that then beat its benchmark, or cutting one that then lagged, is a right call. Tested — no evidence
Measured
For every pair of monthly portfolios, the active change in each weight — the actual weight minus the weight the position would have had with no trading — classed as entry, add, trim or exit, then judged over the next three months against stocks of the same size tier and sector. Changes forced by money arriving or leaving are flagged.
Data
Monthly portfolio disclosures from 38 fund houses, daily NAVs (net asset value: the price of one unit) from AMFI, and monthly factsheets. Daily prices adjusted for splits and bonuses. Refreshes: Monthly.
Test
Ships only if the score persists from one window to the next and a run with shuffled future returns shows nothing. 584 funds, 405,589 calls, Jan 2013 – Aug 2026.
Verdict so far
Not shipped as a fund measure. 51.3% of calls were right; the same funds’ untouched holdings beat the same benchmark 51.4% of the time, so the score measures the portfolio, not the decisions. It does not persist between windows. The size-weighted version is positive for the industry as a whole (about +0.6 percentage points a year) but cannot tell one fund from another.
Numbers
  • Calls right 51.3%
  • Untouched holdings ahead 51.4%
  • Industry-wide, size-weighted about +0.6 percentage points a year
Started
24 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
It is the only postulate about what a manager changed rather than what the fund owns, and the active-weight correction stops it quietly scoring momentum.
Why it might not
Monthly portfolios hide trades made and undone inside a month, and a portfolio is public only about ten days after the month it describes.
On the site
Does any of it predict?

Market postulates

Claims about what exchange data (delivery, breadth) and the funds’ combined portfolios show about sectors and stocks. Tested on month-end dates from 2015 to 2026, rebuilt only from what was public on each date.

M1 Delivery breakoutWhen more of a stock’s traded value is taken into demat accounts than usual, buyers are holding rather than trading, and the move is more likely to be accumulation. Tested — carried information
Measured
Delivery % (the share of traded shares taken into a demat account, the account that holds shares, rather than sold the same day) over 20 sessions against its 200-session level, and delivered value against its 200-session average. One of five inputs to the heating label.
Data
NSE daily bhavcopy (the exchange’s end-of-day price file) and delivery data. Refreshes: Every trading day, published the next day.
Test
Rebuilt at 135 month ends (2015–2026) from data public on each date; the next 3 and 6 months’ price return compared with the average liquid stock, corrected for 24 tests, checked on non-overlapping dates, beside a random label.
Verdict so far
Stocks labelled heating (delivery, breadth and fund buying together) were ahead of the average stock by 1.7 points over 3 months and cleared every bar. The same label on sectors carried nothing, and at 6 months the stock result was suggestive only.
Numbers
  • Heating stocks, 3 months +1.7 points (t 3.37; non-overlapping t 2.03)
  • Heating sectors, 3 months +1.1 points, no reliable difference
Started
18 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
Delivery separates buying to hold from same-day trading, which a price chart alone cannot show.
Why it might not
Block deals, index rebalancing and pledged shares all move delivery without anyone accumulating. A historical average over about 11 years says nothing about one stock from here.
On the site
Sectors · Stocks
M2 Delivery–price divergenceA stock near its 52-week high on heavy trading but falling delivery is being passed around, not held — a sign of distribution near the end of a move. Tested — no evidence
Measured
Within 3% of the 52-week high, delivery % at or below 85% of its 200-session level, traded value at least 110% of its 200-session level. One of the late-leg conditions.
Data
NSE daily bhavcopy and delivery data. Refreshes: Every trading day.
Test
As M1: 135 month ends, 3 and 6 months forward, corrected for 24 tests, non-overlapping check, random control; and late-leg members compared directly with every stock in the top fifth by 12-month return.
Verdict so far
The late-leg label (strong past year plus at least two exhaustion signs, this one included) was followed by returns ahead of the average, not behind it — and no better than every other strong performer: late-leg minus top fifth by 12-month return was −0.4 points over 3 months (t −0.96). What the label shows is momentum; the exhaustion signs added nothing detectable.
Numbers
  • Late-leg stocks, 3 months +1.4 points vs average
  • Late-leg minus plain momentum, stocks, 3 months −0.4 points (t −0.96)
Started
18 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
It names the pattern the postulates associate with the end of a move, so it can be checked rather than assumed.
Why it might not
The record does not support reading it as “about to fall”; it describes the momentum every strong stock shared.
On the site
Stocks
M3 Sector breadthA sector rise carried by most of its members is sturdier than one carried by two large names. Tested — no evidence
Measured
The share of a sector’s regularly traded stocks above their 50- and 200-session average price, the advance/decline ratio over 20 sessions, and how much of a three-month gain came from the two largest contributors.
Data
NSE daily prices; sector from the industry fund holders most often print. Refreshes: Every trading day.
Test
As M1, at sector level: each label against the average sector, 3 and 6 months forward.
Verdict so far
Most sector labels carried nothing: heating, ascendant, cooling and basing sectors showed no reliable difference from the average sector. Only the late-leg sectors were ahead (+2.5 points over 3 months), and that is the momentum they share with every strong sector.
Numbers
  • Heating / ascendant / cooling / basing sectors no reliable difference
  • Late-leg sectors, 3 months +2.5 points (plain momentum +2.1)
Started
18 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
Breadth is visible every day and is the plainest check on whether a sector move is wide or narrow.
Why it might not
Sector labels are today’s labels applied to past dates, and sectors are equal-weighted over liquid members, so an NSE sector index can move differently.
On the site
Sectors
M4 Active weight against the passive bookWhen active funds as a group add to a stock or sector beyond what prices explain, their buying leads the price. Tested — no evidence
Measured
The flow-adjusted change in the combined weight of all actively managed equity funds: today’s weight minus the earlier weight carried forward at price. Shown today against the combined holdings of Nifty 500 index funds (the passive book).
Data
Monthly portfolios of every active equity fund and every broad index fund. Refreshes: Monthly, about ten days after each month ends.
Test
As M1. The literal comparison with the index funds exists only from 2018–2019, so the backtest uses the flow-adjusted change.
Verdict so far
On its own no reliable effect. It is an input to the heating label, which carried information for stocks at 3 months (+1.7 points) but not for sectors.
Started
18 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
It separates what managers chose from what prices did, which a raw weight change cannot.
Why it might not
Portfolios are public about ten days after month end, and money arriving in funds forces buying that is not a view.
On the site
Sectors · Stocks
M5 Under-owned and basingA stock or sector that funds own less of than at any time in five years, trading quietly, has little selling left in it. Tested — no evidence
Measured
Ownership in the lowest fifth of its own last 60 monthly readings, delivery within its usual band, and three-month volatility below 90% of one-year volatility.
Data
Monthly fund portfolios and NSE daily prices and delivery. Refreshes: Monthly for ownership, daily for price.
Test
As M1.
Verdict so far
No reliable difference from the average, for stocks or sectors, at 3 or 6 months (stocks, 3 months: −0.1 points).
Numbers
  • Basing stocks, 3 months −0.1 points
  • Basing sectors, 3 months −0.4 points
Started
18 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
Low ownership is the opposite end of crowding, which is the risk most visible in a disclosure.
Why it might not
Few dates qualify (60 for stocks), and a stock can stay under-owned for a reason.
On the site
Sectors
M6 Cash deployment in sector fundsWhen sector and thematic funds put their cash to work, the managers closest to the sector expect it to do well. Tested — no evidence
Measured
Month-on-month change in the cash share (overnight lending, money-market paper, treasury bills, liquid-fund units) of sectoral and thematic funds whose name maps to the sector. A fall means cash was invested.
Data
Monthly portfolios of sectoral and thematic funds. Refreshes: Monthly.
Test
As M1, as one of the five inputs to a sector’s heat.
Verdict so far
Only testable as part of the heating label, and heating sectors showed no reliable difference from the average sector (+1.1 points over 3 months, t 1.36).
Started
18 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
A sector fund manager has no mandate to leave the sector, so cash is the one lever they hold.
Why it might not
Only sectors with a matching fund can be measured, and a fall in cash can be money arriving and invested on the mandate, not a view.
On the site
Sectors

SIF measures

Specialised Investment Funds (SIFs) are a newer, higher-minimum product regulated alongside mutual funds. They are measured, never rated, and kept out of the paper-money draw.

SIF SIFs, against what they could replaceA Specialised Investment Fund should be judged against the mutual fund it could replace, over its own dates, and by what it costs and when money can be taken out. Running
Measured
Return against the right substitute (arbitrage, balanced advantage, flexi-cap or mid- and small-cap funds) over the SIF’s own dates, net exposure from its mandate, cost against the substitute, concentration, the risk band it declares, and growth in assets. Nothing is annualised under six months.
Data
AMFI’s SIF documents and monthly NAVs; portfolios every other month. Refreshes: NAVs monthly; portfolios every other month.
Test
Description only. Every SIF launched after the March 2026 low, so there is no record long enough to test yet.
Verdict so far
Measured and published, never rated. No verdict is possible until the funds have lived through more than one kind of market.
Started
29 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
A new product sold at a ₹10 lakh minimum is compared with the cheaper fund it could replace, rather than with nothing.
Why it might not
Every SIF is younger than a year, and a young record flatters or punishes by the date it started.
On the site
SIFs · What the SIF label does not say

Experiment hypotheses

Questions the Fearless trade experiments ask of participants’ paper-money decisions. Answers are published as monthly aggregates only; any group smaller than five people is withheld.

The monthly reveal publishes the aggregate results. Paper money only: prices are a day late, nothing is bought or sold for real, no reward is tied to returns, and it does not train anyone for real trading.

E1 Self-picking against a blind drawChoosing a stock or fund oneself does no better than one drawn at random from the same list, over the same dates. Running
Measured
Each participant places paper money either by a blind draw from the monthly list or by choosing. Each allocation is valued at the next day’s settled price and set beside the same rupees, on the same days, in the headline index.
Data
Participants’ paper-money allocations; NSE and BSE settled prices and AMFI NAVs, a day late. Refreshes: Daily after the close; published as a monthly aggregate.
Test
Per monthly sign-up group: median return of self-picks, of blind draws and of the index on the same days; the share of participants whose self-picks beat their own draws. Any figure resting on fewer than five participants is withheld.
Verdict so far
Running. The backtest behind the draw (163 monthly cycles, 2013–2026) found the list’s own score did not separate winners from losers, so a draw from the list is the fair yardstick. Participant results are published monthly once groups are large enough.
Started
22 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
It is the direct test of stock-picking skill in ordinary hands, with timing held constant.
Why it might not
Paper money is not real money; people take risks with it they would not take with savings, and months of data are needed before any gap means anything.
On the site
Monthly reveal · Fearless trade experiments
E2 Reading before choosingReading more before choosing — screening, opening a fund’s measures, comparing — changes the result of the choice. Running
Measured
Research depth stamped on each self-pick at the moment it is placed, on a ladder from delegated (a blind draw) through browsed, screened, inspected and analysed to compared. Self-picks are grouped by depth and their returns set side by side.
Data
Pages and panels opened before each allocation (the experiment’s own event log); settled prices a day late. Refreshes: Daily; published as a monthly aggregate.
Test
Returns of self-picks by depth, per monthly group, each group of fewer than five participants withheld.
Verdict so far
Running. Too few allocations so far for any comparison.
Started
22 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
If reading changes nothing about returns, what reading is for is understanding cost and risk, not finding winners.
Why it might not
People who read more may differ in other ways, and depth is recorded, not assigned, so this is an observation, not a controlled trial.
On the site
Monthly reveal
E3 Exits after a fallSelling after a fall costs money: what was sold goes on to do better than what the money went into. Running
Measured
Every sale with whether it was at a loss and how long it was held; gains taken against losses taken (the disposition effect: selling winners quickly while holding losers). The sold position keeps being priced after the sale.
Data
Participants’ paper-money sales; settled prices a day late. Refreshes: Daily; published as a monthly aggregate.
Test
Per monthly group: share of sales at a loss, gains taken per loss taken, and the sold position’s return after the sale, each group of fewer than five participants withheld.
Verdict so far
Running. Too few sales so far for any comparison.
Started
22 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
Panic selling in a fall is among the most expensive habits documented in investor behaviour, and paper money shows it without the loss.
Why it might not
A fall in paper money does not hurt the way a real one does, so behaviour here may understate the habit.
On the site
Monthly reveal
E4 Behaviour: deployment, churn, idle moneyHow money is placed — how much of the monthly amount is put to work, how often positions change, how long paper money sits unused — matters more to the result than which name is chosen. Running
Measured
Share of each month’s paper money placed, number of orders and sales, median days a position was held before sale, and paper money left unplaced.
Data
Participants’ paper-money orders and balances. Refreshes: Daily; published as a monthly aggregate.
Test
Described per monthly group, never ranked; groups of fewer than five participants withheld.
Verdict so far
Running. Measured for each participant today; the aggregate appears once groups are large enough.
Started
22 Sep 2026
Why it might matter
Cash left idle and positions changed often are the costs a statement shows most clearly and a fund page never does.
Why it might not
A single month is short, and paper money has no tax or transaction cost, so churn here is cheaper than it would be.
On the site
Monthly reveal
Read this first

Every verdict above describes data already past. Nothing here says what a fund, a stock or a sector will do next, and nothing is a suggestion to buy, sell, switch or hold. Anveshan and Lineage Money are not advisers or research analysts registered with SEBI (the market regulator).