The answer in plain English
A 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 or 2025 headline may reflect a different market cycle, tax framework, scheme name or mandate. The year in a search is important: a fund’s performance after that year cannot be used to justify a decision supposedly made before it. Missing or merged schemes also need explicit treatment.
What to check
- State the exact historical observation date and trailing period; calendar-year return and five-year CAGR answer different questions.
- Use the plan and option that the original comparison intended.
- Check old names, mergers, benchmark changes and mandates in dated AMC disclosures.
- Keep the historical exercise separate from a current suitability review.
A useful comparison
| Historical question | Correct input | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Who led at that date? | Contemporaneous NAVs and available schemes | Selecting winners using later results |
| What happened to the old holding? | Merger/name-change and transaction records | Treating renamed funds as unrelated histories |
| What should I compare now? | Current documents and goals | Buying solely because a past list used a familiar name |
Make the distinction clear
Example: a fund returning 30% in one year and −20% in the next grows ₹100 to ₹104, not ₹110. The annualised two-year result is about 1.98%. The order and window of observations matter. The figures are an illustration, not a historical scheme return. MF Analyser’s current research tools can support a fresh comparison, but a current table does not certify an old league table.
One final question before acting
Does the figure or document match the exact scheme, plan, option, period and purpose in your question? Keep the source date with the answer. For a real transaction or personal decision, the current scheme documents and your own records take priority over a saved educational example.