&w=3840&q=100)
Earnings recovery can revive value funds, invest with 5-year horizon
premium
Sarbajeet K Sen
Listen to This Article
Value funds delivered strong returns in 2023 (up 35.2 per cent) and 2024 (20.1) per cent. However, they have had a turbulent 2025, with a category average loss of 2.8 per cent over the previous year. Despite this, investors remain optimistic, pouring in Rs 1,470 crore in July 2025. As many as 38 schemes managed assets worth Rs 2.04 trillion (as on July 31), according to data from the Association of Mutual Funds in India.
'Value funds had a good run over three to four years as the economic recovery played out post-Covid. Some cyclical adjustment may have played out
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Landmark Group to invest Rs 400 cr for construction of Gurugram housing project
Realty firm Landmark Group will invest Rs 400 crore in the construction of its new housing project in Gurugram. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Realty firm Landmark Group will invest Rs 400 crore in the construction of its new housing project in company is developing 240 apartments in its new residential project, spread over 4 acre of land parcel, at Sector 103 (Dwarka Expressway) in Gurugram."We will invest Rs 400 crore on construction of our new project ' Landmark SKYVUE '," Landmark Group Chairman Sandeep Chillar told reporters said the company has owned this land parcel since 2009, and all approval charges have been paid to the said the company would fund the construction cost with the help of internal accruals, bank loans and advances from customers against Group will sell apartments in a price range of Rs 5-7 crore per unit. The launch price is Rs 17,500 per sq chairman further said the demand continues to be strong in the Gurugram market, helped by infrastructure projects, including the opening up of Dwarka company has so far delivered 15 housing and five commercial projects, mostly in Delhi-NCR.
Economic Times
22 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Enmas EPC Power Projects raises Rs 57 crore from investors to fuel global expansion
Enmas EPC Power Projects, an EPC solutions provider to power and process industries, on Tuesday announced raising Rs 57 crore from a clutch of investors in its maiden funding round. Ahead Venture Fund, a Category I AIF, managed by Abakkus Asset Manager LLP, and Amit Agarwal were among the lead investors in the funding round, the company said in a statement. The fundraise also saw participation from investors such as Biyani Growth Ventures LLP, family members of JyotiVardhan Sonthalia, Vitamin M Securities, SVK Realty & Investment, Ankush Kedia and multiple marquee HNIs. The growth capital will be channelled towards expanding execution bandwidth across biomass, biogas and waste-to-energy verticals, while aggressively capitalising on high-value international opportunities backed by the surging demand for high-efficiency, large-scale energy infrastructure, the statement said. "Backed by this strategic investment from our esteemed investors, we will accelerate our global expansion, deliver cutting-edge renewable and thermal projects with unmatched speed and precision, and set new benchmarks for engineering excellence in the energy transition," Alur Chakrapani, Managing Director of Enmas EPC, said. Enmas EPC has executed more than 700 MW of power projects and more than 2,000 MW in boilers and balance of plant contracts in more than 14 countries.
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Elon Musk Wants to Give You Money for Nothing
A Journal report last week explained how tech titans, including Tesla's Elon Musk and OpenAI's Sam Altman, envision a 'massive wealth-redistribution system' to placate worries over technology displacing human work. Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey and Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes have spent millions in recent years on pilot projects that offer unconditional monthly cash payments to low-income people. Software billionaire Marc Benioff, another 'evangelist for universal basic income,' according to the Journal, 'sees Covid-19 stimulus checks as a model for broader income distribution.' Oh, brother. It's often forgotten that in the early days of the country's 'war on poverty,' the general understanding was that you alleviate privation by reducing dependency on the government and creating incentives to become more productive. The goal was 'to help our less fortunate citizens to help themselves,' President John F. Kennedy said. 'We must find ways of returning far more of our dependent people to independence.' Paying people not to work might lift families above the poverty line, but it also increases dependency. In the 1960s and '70s, as welfare-state programs proliferated, the number of people receiving public assistance more than doubled. Giving out money for nothing is a concept typically associated with the political left. Yet over the decades luminaries on the right—Richard Nixon, Milton Friedman, Charles Murray—have advocated policies that would provide a federally guaranteed income floor and relieve able-bodied adults of the need to work. Given the economic uncertainty surrounding AI, the idea of a social insurance program in the form of a minimum level of income for everyone has an understandable appeal. But be wary of tech moguls preaching supposedly altruistic wealth-redistribution schemes to burnish their public image. As with the environmental, social and governance advocacy, there's an agenda beneath the happy talk. Silicon Valley would do better to focus less on some liberal concept of social responsibility and more on innovations that will improve productivity and produce profits for shareholders. Mr. Musk and company didn't become rich at the expense of the poor, and taking from workers to give to those who refuse to work is a recipe for resentment and a bumper crop of layabouts. Some argue that we already have a kind of guaranteed-income system that's implemented haphazardly via hundreds of welfare programs at the federal, state and local levels. A single unrestricted cash-transfer system that replaces the welfare state bureaucracy, the thinking goes, would be more efficient. Unfortunately, the country's thriving poverty industry, which includes powerful lobbyists and politicians who get elected to protect it, are unlikely to take that trade. The more probable outcome is that an income guarantee would be added to the hundreds of existing entitlement programs instead of replacing them. Nor do we have any reason to believe that issuing no-strings-attached cash stipends to poor families works as intended. 'Significant but indirect evidence has suggested that unconditional cash aid would help children flourish,' the New York Times reported last month. 'But now a rigorous experiment, in a more direct test, found that years of monthly payments did nothing to boost children's well-being, a result that defied researchers' predictions.' The study, titled 'Baby's First Years,' concluded that after four years of monthly payments of $333, children whose parents received money 'fared no better than similar children without that help.' Co-author Greg J. Duncan, an economist at the University of California, Irvine, told the Times that he was 'very surprised—we were all very surprised' by the results. 'The money did not make a difference.' That study didn't find that mothers worked less, but other research involving larger stipends has concluded they can negatively affect work habits. Last year, the National Bureau of Economic Research published a working paper on the employment effects of guaranteed income, which was described as the most comprehensive study of its kind to date. Researchers found that families who received $1,000 monthly payments for three years worked fewer hours. The problem America faces today is a lack of work incentives, and that problem is exacerbated by government programs that make not working more attractive than getting a job. 'Nearly 7 million men in the prime of life—over a tenth of the 25-to-54 age group—are neither working nor looking for work these days,' writes Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute. 'Today, for every 'prime age' man who is actually unemployed—out of a job but looking—there are three who are neither working nor looking for work.' The reasons for this are complex, but it isn't hard to understand why giving people more money to live on without working won't help matters.
