No. [1] How well has the Blue Chip Growth Fund performed in recent years?

s? In making that assessment, what

benchmark(s) are you using? How do you measure investment performance? What does good
performance mean to you?
1 Blue-Chip Growth Fund, managed by Larry Puglia demonstrated phenomenal performance not only in
recent years but also long-term basis since its inception in 1993, across market cycles and sits in the 92nd
percentile of funds on a five-year basis. Last year’s returns are more than 17% beating S&P Index with a
wide margin of over 3%. Not only the benchmark, it also outperformed its peers with the decent margin.
Best way to measure fund performance is to compare risk adjusted returns with benchmark and peers.
Because if we see the returns on the absolute basis then it its not giving the true picture as returns might
derived by taking undue risk and invest in highly volatile stocks. For the funds’ performance consistency is
the key. A fund which rises little more then the benchmark during growth and falls little less during bad time
and beating the benchmark and its peers with a decent margin consistently is indeed a good fund.

2 The Blue Ship Growth Fund is considered an excellent performance until the end of 2016, depending on the
case study. And then until today, it appears that the fund continues to distinguish when compare with the
index according to the chart below. The benchmark that was used according to the case study of the SP500
Market Index. The fund’s performance was measured through its returns that exceeded the returns of the
SP500 index. For me, good performance is fund that achieves the highest possible returns with the lowest
possible risk, and the fund manager uses a successful and clear investment policy like Puglia.

3 Since 2016, Blue Chip Growth Fund has performed much better than the S&P 500 as shown in the Exhibit
1.1 below. In addition, after the market crush in Marsh 2019 it recovered better than Large Growth and S&P
500 Keeping the Blue Chip Growth Found making profit year after year is a key for good performance.

4 Blue-Chip Growth Fund showed exceptional performance not only in recent years but also long-term basis
since 1993 under Larry Puglia management. With average annual total return of 10.12%, the fund surpassed
9.12% return of the fund’s benchmark. Comparing risk adjusted returns with benchmark and peers is best
way to measure fund performance. A good performance fund will rise little more than the benchmark
during growth and falls little less during bad time and beating the benchmark and its peers with a decent
margin.

5 The performance of the fund was good, and there was a growth in assets after the global crisis significantly,
as the value of the fund doubled and achieved a growth in assets of 25b, this evaluation relied on increasing
the fund’s assets growth higher than the index and the returns of similar funds, From my opinion a good
investment should be superior to the average market return and industry return, to ensure that you don’t
lose the opportunity cost.
6 The Blue-Chip Growth Fund has been outperforming the S&P500 index and the funds in the same category,
with 41.57% return in 2013. The benchmark is the S&P500 index and the funds in the same category. I
measure the investment performance by the return of it, and the return on the blue-chip fund is
outstanding. From my perspective, the good performance is the investment that has a trendy, slightly safe
investment (not fluctuating so hard) is the right investment for me.

7 The Blue-Chip Growth Fund performed an average of 10.12% annual total return on average it performed
like this in bull years of the 90’s and bear years of the 2000’s. this performance outperforms the funds
benchmark which is S&P 500 which has a return on average of 9.12%. This investment fund measure
investment not by income but by investment long-term capital growth. Good performance means focusing
on companies with leading market positions, seasoned management and strong financial fundamentals.

8 The analysis and historic assessment of data of Blue Chip Growth Fund indicates that the organization is
performing well. For instance, the firm’s investment of $10,000 on January 6, 2006 was estimated to yield
more than 241.51% returns today, which indicates that the organization’s performance is favorable. This
shows that the firm makes a profit that doubles capital plus an extra 40%. Moreover, Morningstar has
compared the performance of Blue Chip Growth Fund with other organizations, ranking it top three. Those
are some of the indicators that could be used to benchmark. A good performance means that the
organization’s risks are few and exhibits increased profit level.

9 I use the return as if we invest in both TRBCX and SPY in 30-06-1993 till now. The return percentage can give
indicator how will the fund performance since many consider beating S&P 500 in any year is accomplished.
the chart comparison between TRBCX vs SPY return percentage shows that there blue Chip Growth fund
return was slightly above the average return of S&P 500 ETF till mid of 2010 and the blue chip growth return
became 25% more than S&P 500 while in the end of march 2012, the return became 50% more than S&P
500 return till the mid of 2014, and as it show in the was increase in the return double than S&P 500 return.
While in January 2021 is reach up to 350% return. The investor is looking for the return and the growth of
his wealth so if he get higher return it mean better but higher risk but for portfolio is diversify so it safer
than other investment where the investor but his money in one basket where he can be easily go up or
down .
10 During the past 10 years from 2010 to 2020 the Blue-Chip Growth Fund has outperformed the S&P500 index
total return, the Blue-Chip Growth Fund annualized total return for the past 10 years was 17.63% while the
S&P500 was 13.86%. The benchmark is S&P500. The investment performance would be measured by
comparing it with the benchmark, taking in consideration the risk involved in the investment not only the
return (Risk Adjusted returns). A good performance means the investment is outperforming the benchmark
in a sustained manner.

11 In my opinion Blue Chip Growth fund will perform very well in these days because they are using a good
strategy. In Puglia’s view, a leading market position conferred both cost advantages and pricing advantages.
A company with superior market share generally made its products more cheaply, and also enjoyed more
pricing flexibility. As important as growing market share was growing market size. Superior market share in a
declining marketplace was not a good indicator, so Puglia also evaluated the market for a company’s
products and how large the total addressable market could grow over time. And also he has a strong
network including 1- Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter’s competitive analysis to identify
companies with sustainable competitive advantage 2- Strong fundamentals including above-average
earnings growth, stable-to-improving margins, strong free cash which will help the company to be ready to
choose the best choices during this rises 3- Seasoned management with a demonstrated track record which
will help the company to pass these days with the best profit they can made Also Puglia has very highly
regarded global research team that included more than 250 industry analysts, as well as portfolio managers
responsible for other funds. Together, members of the research team covered more than 2,300 public
companies around the globe, almost two-thirds of global markets by market capitalization with all of this
capabilities I think they will do well in these days. Also I think the Earning per share is the best way to
measure the investment performance because this will give you a good indicator about your investment
from the investor perspective but if we are talking about the company perspective then the good
performance means that the T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund making a positive outcome even if there
are some company loss.
12 Blue Chip Growth Fund has a remarkable record using actively run strategy in the recent years. The
assessment was based on comparison with either broad market index, such as the S&P 500 or equivalent
category index which is in Blue Chip Growth Fund case islarge-cap growth category (LCG) that represented
by Russell 1000 Growth Index. In correlation to S&P’s 500 Index, Blue Chip Growth Fund has outperformed
in 19 years out of 27 years as it shown in below figure. Average return is 2.62% over S&P 500 and has 11.9%
in its average annual total return within highlighted period. In correlation to Russell 1000 Growth Index,
Blue Chip Growth Fund has outperformed in 12 years out of 18 years as it shown in below figure. Average
return is 0.30% over Russell 1000 Growth Index and has 11.0% in its average annual total return within
highlighted period. Also, Morningstar has rated them a 5-star fund rating. Investment performance could be
measured by an increase or decrease in net asset value (NAV) in addition to income distributions or by
annual total return. NAV is calculated through market value of assets minus liabilities divided by shares
outstanding. Total return is equal to NAV plus dividends and capital gain distributions divided by the net
asset values in the beginning of the year. A good performance means that fund could perform very well in
an investment compare another fund in the same category. According to Morningstar, a high rating could
reflect above-average returns, below-average risk, or both.

13 Since T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund establishment in mid-1993 until September 30, 2016 (the case
study date), Larry Puglia –the sole open-ended mutual-fund manager– was able to achieve an average
annual return of 10.12%, outperforming the 9.12% return of the S&P500 benchmark. Puglia has
outperformed rival funds either (large cap growth category) in both bull markets, such as that of the late
1990s, as well as bear markets, such as that of the first decade of the 21 st century. Looking at Morningstar
data –provided with the case study–, we see that the Blue Chip Fund outperforms both benchmark and
rivals in absolute value growth of $10,000 especially in the last 5 years with 14.45%, compared to 1.64% for
S&P500 and 3.34% for LG category. The annual ten-year average growth also shows an impressive
outperformance of the fund with 9.22%, 1.69% for S&P500, 1.70% for LG rivals. Yet, if we take a look at
average total returns, we see Blue-Chip outperforming as well; The average annual returns for five years of
the mutual-fund outperform the index by 1.64% and rivals by 3.34%, as well as the average annual returns
for the last ten years of the fund also outperforms by 1.69% and 1.70% respectively The benchmark used
was the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (S&P 500); The performance was also compared with competing funds
of large capitalization growth category There are two metrics most commonly used for mutual-fund
performance: (1) the total return on investment which is the annual growth rate of net asset value (NAV)
assuming that all dividends and capital gains are reinvested and (2) the absolute dollar value today of an
investment made at some point in the past. In our analysis we took $10k. • In my view, setting goals for the
investment is a priority for me. Is the goal more long-term capital gains, or is current income more
important? What is the purpose of investing? Is it for buying a house, increasing money for future
investments, or what are the motives? For me, I prefer long-term capital gains. I should also consider taking
personal risks. Can I accept large fluctuations in portfolio value? Or is a more conservative investment more
appropriate? Risk and reward are directly proportional, and here I prefer the balance with the tendency to
be more conservative. Also, the required time horizon building must be addressed. How long do I want to
keep the investment? This is because mutual funds have sales fees, and this can erode returns in the short
run; To mitigate the impact of these fees, an investment horizon of at least five years is ideal. The second
and essential step that I see is looking at historical data and comparing it to the index and similar portfolios,
by reading the performance for a year, three, five, ten or even more, and building an overview of the
portfolio’s performance. Comparing the performance with the index and the competitors will give me the
ability to know the management whether it is active or passive, and to know whether the ups and downs
are in line with the market conditions Also try to read portfolio news and announcements and compare
them with performance over the years to get a broader idea of how decisions are made. Lastly, reading
portfolio managers' biographies is ideal: educational competence, years of experience, stories of efficient
dealing with funds are all critical factors in making an investment decision.
14 It performs well in recent years and the most important is maintaining good performance for long period.
To benchmark the performance, I would start looking at the S&P500 composite index performance
comparing the average annual total return with the Blue Chip Growth fund performance , when Puglia’s
fund outperformed the S&P500 by 1% ( 10.12% vs. 9.12%) for 23 years period, then I can compare that
performance with other growth fund which is also impressive and sustainable performance as long run
investment. Finally, I believe Puglia success was essentially due to his stocks selection focuses on good
company potential, market share, management, competitive advantage, continuous earning growth and
profitability, here I would say this is a great fund strategy that can keep maintaining good performance and
outperformed other funds.

15 The Blue Chip Growth Fund shows a greater performance in recent years, he outperformed the S&P 500 and
large-growth indices on average for the past 3, 5, 10, and over the life of the fund. overall, the fund had
returned an average annual total return of 10.12%, outperforming the 9.12% return of the fund’s
benchmark, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (S&P 500). Despite of that his overall long-term performance
relative to the index was impressive, he rarely had the best overall performance in any given year, and other
managers had beaten his results over short-term periods. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index is used as a
benchmark, due to its broader scope. The S&P 500 is largely considered an essential benchmark index for
the U.S. stock market. The two most frequently used measures of mutual-fund performance: 1. the annual
growth rate of NAV assuming reinvestment of all dividend and capital-gain distributions (the total return on
investment). 2. the absolute dollar value today of an investment made at some time in the past. Those
measures were then compared with the performance of a benchmark portfolio such as the Russell 2000
Index or the S&P 500 Composite Index. For me a good performance is when the fund is consistently
outperforming the benchmark and has withstood a market downturn.

16 Last year’s returns are beating S&P Index with a wide margin. Not only the benchmark, it also outperformed
its peers with the decent margin. Best way to measure fund performance is to compare risk adjusted returns
with benchmark and peers. Because if we see the returns on the absolute basis then it its not giving the true
picture as returns might derived by taking undue risk and invest in highly volatile stocks. For the funds’
performance consistency is the key. A fund which rises little more then the benchmark during growth and
falls little less during bad time and beating the benchmark and its peers with a decent margin consistently is
indeed a good fund. the graph below shows the performance of the fund over 5y :
17 By late 2016, Larry J. Puglia had been managing the $33 billion T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund for
more than 23 years. One of the fund’s original managers, Puglia had been the sole manager of the open-
ended mutual fund since 1997 and had generated superior returns on average for his investors over the life
of the fund, While Puglia rarely had an overall best performance back to his days working in Baltimore from
T. Rowe Price. Since inception in mid-1993 through September 30, 2016, the fund had returned an average
annual total return of 10.12%, outperforming the 9.12% return of the fund’s benchmark, the Standard &
Poor’s 500 Index (S&P 500). He ranked 20th out of 558 U.S. stock mutual funds with a single portfolio
manager, and Morningstar had awarded the Blue Chip Growth Fund its coveted five-star rating for the
fund’s five-year performance, placing it in the top 10% of 1,285 mutual funds investing in largecapitalization
growth stocks. There are two ways to measure investment performance: 1- The annual growth rate of NAV
assuming reinvestment of all dividend and capitalgain distributions (the total return on investment) 2- The
absolute dollar value today of an investment made at some time in the past. These measures then
compared with the performance of a benchmark portfolio such as the Russel 2000 Index or the S&P 500
Composite Index. A good performance is the one that relates to the relationship between risk and return.
Different types of securities yielded different levels of total return, and each type of security was associated
with differing degrees of risk. Thus the relationship between risk and return was reliable both on average
and over time. For instance, it would be expected that a conservatively managed mutual fund would yield a
lower return precisely because it took fewer risks.

18 Since 1993 till 2016, the fund had returned an average annual total return of 10.12%, outperforming the
9.12% return of the fund’s benchmark, the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (S&P 500). In my opinion the easy
way to measure investment is to compare it to other investment, in this case either we compare the fund to
indexes or other funds in the same category. A good performance is to outperform the indexes or a similar
investment.

19 The Blue Chip Growth Fund at its inception, in mid-1993 to 2016, had returned an average annual total
return of 10.12%, outperforming the 9.12% return of the fund's benchmark, the S&P 500. Morningstar, the
investment community's well-known statistical service, gave the Blue Chip Growth Fund second-highest
rating, four stars for overall results, putting it in the top 32.5 percent of 1,482 funds in its category. The two
most frequently used measures of mutual-fund performance were (1) the annual growth rate of NAV
assuming reinvestment of all dividend and capital-gain distributions (the total return on investment) and (2)
the absolute dollar value today of an investment made at some time in the past. Those measures were then
compared with the performance of a benchmark portfolio such as the Russell 2000 Index or the S&P 500
Composite Index. The key to successful and good performance: The fund manager characteristics help
explain fund performance and propensity to risk taking. for example: manager age, tenure of the manager
with the fund, years of education, whether the manager holds a MBA or CA/CFA qualification, management
team size. We can expect better risk-adjusted performance from a fund manager who holds a CA/CFA
qualification. Studies reveal that these managers outperform managers without these qualifications. Puglia
graduated summa cum laude from the University of Notre Dame and went one to earn an MBA from the
Darden School of Business, where he graduated with highest honors. A Certified Public Accountant (CPA),
Puglia also held the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation. Puglia learned his first lessons about
investing from his father, a traditional buy-and-hold investor. “He would buy good companies and literally
hold them for 15 or 20 years.”
20 Beside the investment return the Blue Chip Growth Fund performed standpoint performance The fund has
returned 34.36% over the past year, 20.35%over the past 3 years, 19.05% over the past 5 years and 17.88%
over the past 10 years. The Blue Chip Growth Fund’s performance is also reflected by its dividend
distributions, whereby its “Distribution NAV” has gradually increased in recent year.by keeping the
benchmark that used is that the performance of the Fund itself by measuring the rate of return on fund as a
measure for investment performance. In my opinion, The benchmark acts as a standard for funds'
performance. If my fund is outperforming the benchmark consistently, it's a signal that the fund is doing
well. Or by comparing the average return throughout a selected timeframe with its peer funds within the
same category.

21 The Blue Chip Growth Fund has performed extremely well not only in recent years but also long-term basis
since its inception in 1993. In recent years, A 3 or 5 year comparison earns an average of 14% returns, and
an investment of $10,000 on the 6th of June 2006 would have yielded a 241.51% return 10 years later,
doubling its initial capital and earning 40% additionally. When compared to its 5 Year annual returns,
Morningstar has put the Blue Chip Growth Fund in the top 3% of 1,270 funds in its category, which is its all-
time high rating. This shows how Productive its performance is in recent years. The trailing total returns
have also increased with total returns ranging between 6.27% to 14.45% in a 3-year to the 15-year
comparison. Besides, The Blue Chip Growth Fund' Distribution net asset value has gradually increased in
recent years. The first benchmark that was used is the performance of the Fund itself. As I mentioned
before on its 3-year to 5-year performance, it has an average of 14% returns. Also, an investment of $10,000
on the 6th of June 2006 generated more returns of $24,101.23 on the 6th of June 2016, in comparison with
the S&P 500 Total Returns which generated $20,644.18 and the Large Growth Fund that generated $19,
527.63. Moreover, Morningstar gave the Blue Chip Growth Fund a 4 stars rating for overall performance,
placing it in the top 32.5% of 1,482 funds in its category. Morningstar states that a high rating could reflect
above-average returns, below-average risk, or both. In addition, when comparing the trailing total returns
between the Fund, the S&P 500 Total Returns, and the Large Growth Fund , the Blue Chip Growth Fund has
difference of total returns ranging between 0.74% to 2.84% in a 3-year to 15-year comparison with the S&P
500 Total Returns and 1.47% to 3.17% in a 3-year to 15-year comparison with the Large Growth Fund. The
best way to measure fund performance is to compare risk adjusted returns with benchmark and peers.
Because if we see the returns on the absolute basis then it's not giving the true picture as returns might be
derived by invest in highly volatile stocks and taking unnecessary risk. Looking at the five-year average
annual return but also look at the ten-year average annual return if investors are considering a longer-term
investment. Aslo Fund investors often try to assess the performance of a mutual fund based on their NAV
differentials between two dates.A fund that rises a little more than the benchmark during growth and falls a
little less during a bad time and beating the benchmark and its peers with a decent margin consistently is
indeed a good fund.
22 Blue-Chip Growth Fund, managed by Larry Puglia demonstrated phenomenal performance not only in
recent years but also long-term basis since its inception in 1993, across market cycles, and sits in the 92nd
percentile of funds on a five-year basis. Last year’s returns are more than 17% beating S&P Index with a
wide margin of over 3%. Not only the benchmark, but it also outperformed its peers with a decent margin.
The best way to measure fund performance is to compare risk-adjusted returns with benchmarks and peers.
Because if we see the returns on the absolute basis then it’s not giving the true picture as returns might be
derived by taking undue risk and invest in highly volatile stocks. For the funds’ performance consistency is
the key. A fund that rises a little more than the benchmark during growth and falls a little less during a bad
time and beating the benchmark and its peers with a decent margin consistently is indeed good.

23 The T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth fund targets large-cap and medium-cap U.S. stocks. The fund seeks
companies that are well-established and that have the potential to generate aboveaverage growth over
time, As of December 23, 2020, the fund has assets totaling almost $91.71 billion invested in 121 different
holdings,The fund has returned 34.36 percent over the past year, 20.35 percent over the past three years,
19.05 percent over the past five years and 17.88 percent over the past decade. TRBCX is listed as #13 among
1,263 Large Growth Funds, When looking at a fund's performance, it is also important to note the standard
deviation of the returns. The lower the standard deviation, the less volatility the fund experiences. The
standard deviation of TRBCX over the past three years is 13.6% compared to the category average of 9.82%.
Over the past 5 years, the standard deviation of the fund is 13.67% compared to the category average of
10.14%. This makes the fund more volatile than its peers over the past half-decade If the fund is
outperforming the benchmark consistently, it is a sign that the fund is doing well. we can also compare the
average return during a specific time frame with its peer funds in the same category

24 Blue-Chip Growth Fund, managed by Larry Puglia demonstrated phenomenal performance not only in
recent years but also long-term basis since its inception in 1993, across market cycles and sits in the 92nd
percentile of funds on a five-year basis. From a statistical and historical performance standpoint, the Blue
Chip Growth Fund has performed extremely well in recent years. As showing in (appendix1) an investment
of 10,000 USD on the 6th of June 2006 would have yielded a 241.51% return on 6th of June 2016, doubling
its initial capital and earning 40% additionally. On a shorter time frame, even a 3 year or 5 year comparison
would still earn an average of 14% returns. The trailing total returns have also increased in recent years,
with its total returns ranging between 6.27% to 14.45% in a 3-year to 15-year comparison. The Blue Chip
Growth Fund’s performance is also reflected by its dividend distributions, whereby its “Distribution NAV”
has gradually increased in recent years (Appendix 2). Best way to measure fund performance is to compare
risk adjusted returns with benchmark and peers. Because if we see the returns on the absolute basis then it
its not giving the true picture as returns might derived by taking undue risk and invest in highly volatile
stocks. For the funds’ performance consistency is the key. A fund which rises little more than the benchmark
during growth and falls little less during bad time and beating the benchmark and its peers with a decent
margin consistently is indeed a good fund.
25 Since its inception in 1993, Blue Chip Growth Fund had returned an average annual total return of 10.12%,
outperforming the 9.12% return of the fund's Benchmark. In general, the fund's long-term performance
compared to the index was very high as the fund's performance beat Standard & Poor's 500 Index (S&P 500)
average return during 3,5 and 10 years. The Benchmark that used in the assessment is S&P 500. The reason
behind choosing the S&P 500 index is that for most fund managers, beating the S&P 500 in any single year
was an accomplishment. The investment performance can be measured by using one of the most frequently
used methods, which are: 1. the annual growth rate of NAV assuming reinvestment of all dividend and
capital-gain distributions (the total return on investment) 2. the absolute dollar value today of an
investment made at some time in the past. Finally, good performance is evaluated based on the following:
1. The risk-adjusted returns as the potential return from an investment consider the degree of risk 2. The
funds' performance compared to the Benchmark as beating the index is an indicator for good performance
3. Beat the performance of peers' mutual fund of the same category

26 TRBCX has been doing very well considering its outperformance of its benchmark (S&P 500) with average
annual total return of 10.12% in comparison to 9.12% S&P. Investment performance can be measured using
alpha, by comparing the average annual return of the fund to the return of a benchmark index (S&P 500) in
this case. A positive alpha means the fund has outperformed the index. I calculated the alpha using the
following formula R-Rf -beta (Rm -Rf) and the result was 3.66
[2] What might explain the fund’s performance? To what extent do you believe an investment strategy,
such as Puglia’s, explains performance?

Funds consistent long-term index beating glorious history explain its excellent performance. Since its
inception in 1993 it has posted a superb long-term record that beats the Russell 1000 Growth Index and
large-growth peers. The fund stayed reliably consistent over time in terms of its portfolio construction
despite its growing asset base (Current asset $100 billion). Knowing investment strategy is very important to
evaluate the funds performance. At Puglia's bluechip fund, they seem to believe in diversification (which
also reduce the concentration risk, sudden fall in bad times and enhance liquidity) and stick to the quality
stock with long term conviction. Amazon stock has double digit stake in funds portfolio and contributed
greatly in the funds’ performance.

The fund performance could explain with long term investment by using compare with indices. I believe an
investment strategy, such as Puglia’s, explains performance clearly. because Puglia follow his strategy when
he chose the companies, with his team, and they beat the market until today. the case study mentioned
that " The fund’s objective was long-term capital growth, with income only a secondary consideration.
Consequently, Puglia invested in well-established large and medium-sized companies that he believed had
the potential for above-average earnings growth. More specifically, Puglia looked for companies with
leading market positions, seasoned management that allocated capital effectively, and strong returns on
invested capital. To be included in his portfolio, a company needed several things"

I looked it the TRBCX equity holdings (Exhibit 2.1), and I can see the diversification in their portfolio and they
have stocks on almost all the leading company and they have ben starting to invest in them since long time.
Such as having 11.28% of Amazon shares starting from 2004 when the company was so cheap. Puglia has
the vision to make TRBCX invest in Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, etc. and this explain how good is the
performance

Since its inception in 1993, Funds consistent long-term has put up a superb long-term record that beats the
Russell 1000 Growth Index and largegrowth peers which explain its excellent performance. I believe
reducing the concentration risk, sudden fall in bad times and enhance liquidity and stick to the quality stock
with long term conviction which are Puglia's blue-chip fund diversification is a good investment strategy.

The good performance of the fund is due to the method used and the wonderful strategy followed by *****
and the investment team and their focus on growth, this is reflected in the performance of the fund and
their choices of the companies with the strength and competitive advantages in their industries. One of the
biggest reasons that helped them achieve their strategy is management, constant focus and continuous
follow-up of all investments while managing expenditures, and this helped in increasing the returns. one
other reason is that the Investors' transfer money to the fund in the recent period that’s what increased the
value of the assets.
Puglia’s passive strategy is to invest in long term large-cap growth stocks, leading positions companies and
strong returns.

The fund performance comes from focusing on long-term investment strategies, while in short term other
managers had beaten Mr. Puglia results, but the long run performance was truly impressive. He ranked 20th
over 558 U.S. stock mutual funds with single manager. For me personally I believe in the long run results it
giving you time to study the company’s performance more carefully as you are going to sit longer time with
them and enable you to focus on the core business, management and potential of the companies.

The firm’s excellent performance could be used to explain how funds are utilized in the organization.
Besides, the consistency of funds on long-term basis can indicate the excellent performance. Since its
foundation in 1993, the records it been positing are favorable and beat Russell 1000 Growth Index and
other groups. The investment strategy could also be regarded excellent due to its reliable and consistent
portfolio. The understanding of an investment approach is also essential in the evaluation of funds’
performance. Accordingly, the Puglia's blue-chip fund utilizes diversification in its investment which helps in
the spreading of risks. This aspect contributes immensely to its excellent performance.

The performance can be explained through that it is rely on valuation of the companies where fund want to
invest on and the deep study of assets and its products and how the product will be growth in the market
also the productivities and its return. And the blue Chip Growth fund rely on companies for long term
investment.
The risk adjusted returns can measure the performance of the fund when comparing the results with the
benchmark. I believe that the outcome of investment strategy in terms of return when compared to the
benchmark is a good tool to measure the performance of the strategy, the more historical data the more
accurate the analysis of the investment strategy.

In my opinion the long term performance is the most important factor to explain the fund’s performance
and the T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund is a good example for that. More than 23 years with average
annual return of 10.12 % will make you comfortable that they have a good investment strategy and good
performance. This is for sure not coming from luck unless you have great team and perfect strategy.
There are two categories of measuring fund performance: 1. Total return without risk adjusting • NAV
Annual growth rate assuming reinvestment of all dividend and capital-gain distributions (the total return on
investment). • Absolute dollar value today of an investment made at some time in the past. 2. Risk-adjusted
return • Alpha measures risk-adjusted performance to a benchmark index (CAPM). • Beta measures
systematic risk. • R-squared explains percentage of a fund’s movement that could be explained by
movement in a benchmark index. • standard deviation measures the dispersion of data from its average. •
Sharpe ratio measures reward to volatility. The fund’s strategy is to invest in well-established large and
medium-sized companies with durable, sustainable above-average earnings growth and income a secondary
goal. Puglia sought for companies with leading market positions and seasoned management that allocated
capital effectively. The fund’s strategy remained competitive in recent years even with growing size and
intensive threats from cheaper passively managed offerings like index fund or ETF, which became
substitutive to actively managed funds. T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth under Puglia's management
demonstrated a skillful execution and consistently strong results comparing to market index or LCG index.

It is true that other funds outperform Blue Chip's short-term results, but overall, the long-term performance
is really impressive. This is the key point in the Puglia strategy, long-term investment with an actively
management. By traditional buy-and-hold investment, Puglia has been buying and hold good companies
literally for 15 or 20 years. Puglia relied on long-term investment in companies with durable and sustainable
growth in earnings per share, allowing them to obtain a higher average of price to earnings ratio (P/E),
which leads to long-term capital growth as a primary consideration, while income being viewed as a
secondary one. Accordingly, Puglia has invested in well-established large and medium-sized companies that
are characterized by leading market positions, expert management that allocates capital effectively, and
strong returns on invested capital. The fund has a high diversity of investment in major sectors such as
customer cyclical, technology as well as healthcare. • Puglia's strategy is solidly grounded, focusing on
companies with leading market positions, seasoned management, strong fundamentals, growing companies
in growing industries, strong free cash flows, high net profit margins, good operating margins, and a high-
risk return rate. All these factors are being studied by many collaborating researchers to extract the best
opportunities to invest in them in the long term, so I think that Blue Chip's success was not a coincidence.
The fund’s performance shows the good investment strategy of Puglia that seeks long term capital growth
as main objective and secondary the dividends (income), where most of the asset allocation are set to
stocks of large and medium blue chip growth companies. These companies are selected based on
profitability, stability, market position in the industry, sustainable growth and relatively working on safe
investment. I believe this strategy achieve the superior performance during Puglia management of 10.12%
as an average annual return for 23 years outperformed the S&P500 index and other mutual fund as long
term investment performance. By the end , it might be part of his performance due to luck but, he was
following a strategy and did the detailed analysis with his team during trading.

Fund performance is due to Puglia invested in well-established large and medium-sized companies that he
believed had potential for above-average earnings growth. More specifically, Puglia looked for companies
with leading market positions, seasoned management that allocated capital effectively, and strong returns
on invested capital. Puglia invested most of the cash in stock market with high weighted in risky sector and
keep little portion of fund assets as cash. Moreover, we can also say that the high return can be explained
by the high risk of the fund's invested assets. Unlike TRBCX, we find that most mutual funds are low risk and
well diversified and therefore may have low returns. I believe The superior performance of the TRBCX can
be well explained by the manager's stock selection ability and active management skills. while other funds
have the tendency to keep some portion of fund assets in cash either to invest in attractive investment
opportunities or to meet shareholder redemptions, Larry Puglia keep little portion of fund assets in cash. I
do not agree with those who attribute the performance of the fund to luck, a person may be lucky once or
at a certain moment, but we cannot say that he was lucky for a very long time. If the superior performance
of the fund is continuous for a long time, this will indicate the skill of the manager and not his luck.

Having investment strategy is very important to evaluate the funds performance. At Puglia's blue-chip fund,
they seem to believe in diversification and stick to the quality stock with long term conviction. Amazon stock
has double digit stake in funds portfolio and contributed greatly in the funds’ performance.
The approach was research-intensive and highly concentrated when 50% of its assets were invested in just
10 large-capitalization companies by trading slightly more often than others to keep his assets in companies
that are growing opportunities and he was not averse to take large positions in the stocks of growth
companies.

According to the book the fund investment seeks long-term capital growth, income is a secondary objective.
The fund will normally invest at least 80% of its net assets (including any borrowings for investment
purposes) in the common stocks of large and medium-sized blue chip growth companies It focuses on
companies with leading market positions. I think the impact of the investment strategy on the fund's
performance is very strong, as the book also mentioned while Puglia, working out of T. Rowe Price’s
Baltimore, Maryland, headquarters, rarely had the best overall performance in any given year, and other
managers had beaten his results over short-term periods, his overall long-term performance relative to the
index was truly impressive. So, his investment strategy was in the long run and he achieved it.

The common explanation for the fund's performance was the investing style of Puglia. The fund’s objective
was long-term capital growth, with income only a secondary consideration. Consequently, Puglia invested in
well-established large and mediumsized companies that he believed had potential for above-average
earnings growth. More specifically, Puglia looked for companies with leading market positions, seasoned
management that allocated capital effectively, and strong returns on invested capital. Puglia was assisted in
this process by a very highly regarded global research team that included more than 250 industry analysts,
as well as portfolio managers responsible for other funds. By conducting quantitative screening for market
capitalization, solid revenue growth, consistent earnings, attractive free cash flow and above-average return
on invested capital. T. Rowe Price conducts traditional fundamental analysis before the manager invests in
companies he believes are well established in their industries, have strong financial fundamentals (focusing
on strong growth in earnings per share or operating cash flow). The manager places emphasis on a
company's future growth prospects and looks for stocks that he believes are attractively priced relative to
their anticipated longterm value. According to Morningstar, $10,000 invested in the Blue Chip Growth Fund
at its inception in mid-1993 would have grown to $94,021 in assets on September 30, 2016. Puglia’s fund
significantly outperformed the average growth for the large-cap-growth category of $56,185 and growth
from investing in the S&P 500, which returned $76,100.
Looking at and comparing value Trust to other mutual funds, we will see that the other funds performing
playacting well too. I think we can notice several explanations to the mutual funds success. to start with,
U.S. mutual fund industry had been growing fast, attracting more people to invest. In middle 2000s, mutual
funds owned more than 200th of the outstanding stock of U.S. companies. It people folks believed that
market was increasing, so investing more money. The more you buy, the more it pushes the price up.
Secondly, value Trust only had very well researched 36 stocks, 10 which had a share more than 500th within
the assets. Compared to S&P 500 index, which has 500 widely held common stocks, it's a little a small. It
means that the stocks were very carefully selected, and it provides an opportunity to beat the market.
Miller’s explanation for its performance that includes purchase low price, high intrinsic value stocks; take
heart in pessimistic markets; bear in mind that the lowest average cost wins; be wary of valuation illusions;
take the long view; look for cyclical and secular under-pricing; buy low-expectations stocks; take risks, make
sense. However, I also believe the performance included a great amount of luck buying at the right time.

Since its inception in 1993, it has posted an excellent long-term record that beats its peers. The fund stayed
reliably consistent over time in terms of its portfolio construction. Knowing investment strategy is very
important to evaluate the fund's performance. At Puglia's blue-chip fund, they seem to believe in
diversification and stick to the quality stock with long term conviction.
Funds consistent long-term index beating glorious history explain its excellent performance. Since its
inception in 1993 it has posted a superb long-term record that beats the Russell 1000 Growth Index and
large-growth peers. The fund stayed reliably consistent over time in terms of its portfolio construction
despite its growing asset base (Current asset $100 billion). Knowing investment strategy is very important to
evaluate the funds performance. At Puglia's blue-chip fund, they seem to believe in diversification (which
also reduce the concentration risk, sudden fall in bad times and enhance liquidity) and stick to the quality
stock with long term conviction. Amazon stock has double digit stake in funds portfolio and contributed
greatly in the funds’ performance.

The fund maintains its long-term appeal under manager Larry Puglia, according to Morningstar. The fund's
low fees and the strength of parent T. Rowe Price are also part of its longevity. TRBCX has 138 stock holdings
and 0 bond holdings, The top 10 holdings are one of the big companies in such industry, top 10 holdings
represent 49.07% of total assets. Following are the top holdings. • Amazon.com Inc • Visa Inc Class A •
Facebook Inc A • Mastercard Inc A • Microsoft Corp • PayPal Holdings Inc • Alibaba Group Holding Ltd ADR
• Tencent Holdings Ltd • Alphabet Inc Class C • Apple Inc The following are TRBCX strengths from some
financial analyst perspective as published on finny.com: • TRBCX 3-year return is 18.55%, which is higher
than the 3-year return of the benchmark index (S&P 500 TR USD), 12.89%. • TRBCX 5-year return is 22.78%,
which is higher than the 5-year return of the benchmark index (S&P 500 TR USD), 17.8%. • TRBCX 10-year
return is 17.74%, which is higher than the 10-year return of the benchmark index (S&P 500 TR USD), 13.88%.
• TRBCX 15-year return is 12.8%, which is higher than the 15-year return of the benchmark index (S&P 500
TR USD), 9.98%. • Good news: this fund does not have 12b1, front-end or back-end sales fees.

Funds consistent long-term index beating glorious history explain its excellent performance. Since its
inception in 1993 it has posted a superb long-term record that beats the Russell 1000 Growth Index and
large-growth peers. The fund stayed reliably consistent over time in terms of its portfolio construction
despite its growing asset base (Current asset $100 billion). Knowing investment strategy is very important to
evaluate the funds performance. At Puglia's blue-chip fund, they seem to believe in diversification (which
also reduce the concentration risk, sudden fall in bad times and enhance liquidity) and stick to the quality
stock with long term conviction. Amazon stock has double digit stake in funds portfolio and contributed
greatly in the funds’ performance.
Puglia's strategy is to invest in growing companies in growing markets. He trades slightly more often than
others to keep his assets in companies that provide growth opportunities. Since its inception in 1993, the
fund posted an outstanding long-term record that beats the S&P 500 Index and large-growth peers.
Following a strong investment strategy is very important to evaluate the fund's performance. Puglia believes
in diversification to reduce the concentration risk, economic cycle effects and enhance the fund's liquidity.
Moreover, Puglia invests in quality stock with long term conviction. All these factors improve the fund's
performance since its inception.

the fund’s good performance can be explained by Puglia’s active investment strategy, he invested in well-
established large and medium-sized companies that he believed had potential for above-average earnings
growth, companies with leading market positions, he used seasoned management that allocated capital
effectively, and strong returns on invested capital. To be included in his portfolio, companies should have:
above-average earnings growth, stable-to-improving margins, strong free cash flow and return on equity.
[3] How easy will it be to sustain Puglia’s historical performance record into the future? What factors
support your conclusion?

Replication glorious historical performance was never easy for any fund nor it will be for this fund but
considering the strategy fund is following, buying quality companies, diversifying across sectors and product
cycle and identifying technological advancement in the early stage and then investing in related companies
is giving kind of assurance and increasing the provability the fund will perform well in coming years and fund
has very experience and successful fund manager Larry Puglia, who adds a lot value.

According to Michael Jensen, Burton Malkiel, Lawrence Summers, and Robert shiller it is hard for Puglia to
sustain the same historical performance. Because some of them refer the success of fund managers to luck.
And other some believe that EMH is the "most remarkable error in the history of economic theory". my view
is possible for Puglia to sustain his historical performance record into the future, at least partially, if he
completes and improves his strategy by adding more variables.

Making a good record like Puglia is not an easy job. You have to identify in which company you will invest
and when to buy or sell. What is the purpose of investing in an XX company and how will it will perform in
the long run.

It is not easy, but the fund's plan is some sort of guarantee that the fund will do well in the years ahead. In
addition, Larry Puglia, a very experienced and effective fund manager, brings a lot of value to the fund.

In the case of applying the same followed strategy, it will achieve returns that are close to its historical
record because the strategy does not focus on short-term investment, but rather focuses on analysis of the
best sources and their diversity in order to reach the best possible growth rate in many worlds markets, and
we assume in this case that the global economy remains stable and not exposed to economic crises affect it.
It’s not easy for me, but someone like Puglia with such an experience and analytical skills plus the investors
trust, I believe he can remain growing with the 30 billion available to invest.

It is not easy to sustain the performance of Mr. Puglia. As we know his fund mainly investing in blue chip
companies. In the past years it was the birth and growth of these companies (Silicon Valley companies) we
should not forget that 22.42% of the holdings of the fund is on amazon, google, factbook, Priceline and
Microsoft. These companies were growth companies back in the 90’s, which give little or no dividends, but it
made huge steps in growth. As these companies are now already in sizeable shape it is not anymore, a
growth companies it became a dividends company as the growth already happened. This well stop the fund
from making this huge growth as he is focusing on long term investment and not on income.

The replication excellent performance throughout its history was not easy going since the organization was
inclined to strategize intensively to achieve its successful journey. In this regard, it was hard to maintain the
excellent performance history, which forced the fit to incorporate strategies such as buying of quality firms,
intensive diversification in its operations, and integrating technological advancement to maintain its
relevance across various year. These approaches provided an assurance to the firm to succeed and augment
the probability that funds will perform well in future.

It can be sustained if they keep good team who look everywhere to search for information as Puglia
mentioned they are looking even under the stone to find information to support their decision to invest and
well valuation for the companies where they will invest. also, to keep eye to their Key performance
indicators and their competitor and choosing good managements.
It is very difficult to sustain the same performance in the future and it is difficult to estimate, since the
factors affecting the fund’s performance are too many to obtain. But at least we can estimate that the fund
will continue to outperform the benchmark, and with a close monitoring to the performance we can
indicate any deficiencies in the fund performance trend.

The historical performance of Puglia for sure will affect the future performance. If someone has all of these
assets with a great team like the Puglia’ team and also huge experience for more than 23 years and covering
more than 250 industries all of these indicators shows that they will continue one of the best in the world
It will be more difficult to continue this historical record amid intensive competition with other funds or
cheap passively operated ETF. In addition, there are limited stocks in targeted companies that fulfilled
Puglia’ strategy as more money is invested into this fund (limited supply and growing demand). Eventually,
Blue Chip Growth Fund may have to increase its number of stocks to continue, which will be resulting in
having highly correlated stocks that do not provide similar returns.

The Puglia company's (T. Rowe Price) culture and structure encouraged and facilitated close and frequent
collaboration between managers, analysts, and equity and fixed-income professionals. Management
regularly enhanced the strength and contributions of the research team to stakeholders that support its
approach to active management. Although most of the investment candidates are identified by analyst
recommendations, Puglia has also used other quantitative methods, including screaming databases of
various characteristics, such as steady earning growth and ROE over a period of one, three and five years.
Also calculate the company's self-sustainable growth rate by multiplying the return on equity by 1 minus the
return percentage. • The use of both quantitative and qualitative researches inevitably leads to
synchronization with the market inevitably, and thus rapid decision-making by Puglia and recognize the shift
to reduce losses, which often leads to outperforming the S&P500. With the news of Puglia's performance
record spreading, more and more investors transferred their money to the Blue Chip Growth Fund, so that
more than $15 billion in new funds were added over the life of the fund, thus ensuring its sustainability in
the future.
It is very challenging to keep beating the market historical performance such Puglia’s record, however, if a
fund can keep monitoring a good strategy with investment selection choosing a well-established company
like Puglia did focusing on profitability, stability, market position in the industry, moat, sustainable growth
and relatively safety investment,…etc, this is in addition to the continuous effort in analysis and research to
be educated about the recent market changes and flexible to react.

Due to his performance many investors want to invest in this fund which will increase the assets of the fund,
it will be difficult for the fund manager to find investment opportunities equivalent to the size of the assets.
When opportunities become less than the assets, it may affect the return of the fund negatively. Also, the
fund considers as high risk fund, because he doesn’t invest in low risk market like bond market. Also, he just
keeps a low amount of cash its only weight 0.06% of assets in the fund, and invest the rest in the stock
market at least up to 80%. Therefore, managing high risks for a long time of period cannot be easy and may
have a significant impact on the future performance of the fund. However, due to his well-established
portfolio strategy, investing in leading companies in the U.S., and with the sport of his highly regarded global
research team, he will be able to maintain the performance of the fund in the future.

Getting good historical performance was never easy for any fund or it will be for this fund , There some
factors that helps Puglia’s to get that record : 1. diversifying across sectors and product 2. buying quality
companies 3. identifying technological advancement in the early stage and then investing in related
companies 4. fund has very experience and successful fund manager Larry Puglia, who adds a lot value. this
giving kind of assurance and increasing the provability the fund will perform well in coming years .
It will not be easy for him because when Puglia worked closely with portfolio manager Tom Broadus who
warned the young analyst that his investment style would sometimes be out of sync with the market. Part of
the portfolio manager’s job, he told Puglia, was to recognize that and lose as little as possible. The belief
that capital markets incorporated all the relevant information into existing securities’ prices was known as
the efficient market hypothesis (EMH), and was widely, though not universally, accepted by financial
economists. If EMH were correct and all current prices reflected the true value of the underlying securities,
then arguably it would be impossible to beat the market with superior skill or intellect. “In such a market,”
as one economist said, “we would observe lucky and unlucky investors, but we wouldn’t find any superior
investment managers who can consistently beat the market.

In my opinion, now the markets are heading to higher efficiency than before, it is very difficult to maintain
consistent performance outperforming the market.

It's important to mention that a mutual fund's past performance doesn't guarantee its future results. Just
because the T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund delivered strong performance over the past couple of
decades, it doesn't mean it will continue to do so. In addition to that, he might be lucky to beat the market.
His long-run, market-beating performance defied conventional academic theories. The belief that capital
markets incorporated all the relevant information into existing securities’ prices was known as the efficient
market hypothesis and was widely accepted by financial economists. If this hypothesis was correct and all
current prices reflected the true value of the underlying securities, then it would be impossible to beat the
market with superior skill or intellect. Proponents of EMH were skeptical and critical of the services of active
mutual-fund managers.
I believe it'll be hard to sustain Miller’s historical performance record in the future. The fund has grown
pretty fast, and if he needs to grow it at identical pace, he has to deviate from his original concepts. He
already has large number shares of the companies that he thinks are successful, and it might not be
recommended to increase the percentage of shares. Miller has got to begin looking for new companies to
invest in, which despite to his research may not prove to be nearly as good as the ones he already has

It is not easy to sustain Puglia’s historical performance record in the future, because it needs a lot of effort
and needs the corporation to form many parties to get more accurate information on what to invest. By
looking at the case, we know that a global research team that has around 250 industry analysts and
portfolio managers assisted Puglia to made the investment decision. The members of the research team
have covered more than 2,300 public companies around the world. Furthermore, the company’s
recruitment and mentoring programming also attract talented investment analysts in the market. Other
than that, Puglia also employed another group of people in screening the company which has stable
earnings growth and return on equity over one, three, and five years. The case did mention Puglia's words,
“We’ll look under every stone” searching news reports, economic data, and even rivals’ portfolios for
investment ideas.
Replication glorious historical performance was never easy for any fund nor it will be for this fund but
considering the strategy fund is following, buying quality companies, diversifying across sectors and product
cycle and identifying technological advancement in the early stage, and then investing in related companies
is giving kind of assurance and increasing the provability the fund will perform well in coming years and fund
has very experience and successful fund manager Larry Puglia, who adds a lot of value

It's always important to be aware of the downsides to any future investment, so one should not discount
the risks that come with this segment. In TRBCX's case, the fund lost 50.09% in the most recent bear market
and underperformed comparable funds by 1.23%. This means that the fund could possibly be a worse
choice than its peers during a down market environment.

Sustaining historical performance was never easy for any fund nor it will be for this fund but considering the
strategy fund is following, buying quality companies, diversifying across sectors and product cycle and
identifying technological advancement in the early stage and then investing in related companies is giving
kind of assurance and increasing the provability the fund will perform well in coming years and fund has
very experience and successful fund manager Larry Puglia and his global research team, who adds a lot
value
Sustain the historical performance into the future is not easy. However, Puglia might continue the high
performance due to the diversification strategy that he follows as the fund invested in consumer cyclical,
healthcare, technology, industrial and financial service sectors. Concerning cyclical stocks, it provides higher
profits when the economy is growing and performing strongly, which means that the companies' stocks will
also rise in value, that leads to greater profits. While the healthcare sector will not be affected by the
economic cycle, it will present the opportunity to invest in companies that are constantly innovating to
improve quality of life and raise productivity. Moreover, Technology generally carries more risk than other
stocks, but they also promise significantly more growth. Tech stocks have been at the forefront of the rise,
with the biggest tech stocks all outperforming the S&P 500 over the past five and ten years. Another reason
that leads the fund to continue the high performance is that the fund's top 5 holdings are listed in the top
stocks' list in the S&P index. Finally, Puglia focused on identifying companies with durable free-cash-flow
growth. Moreover, Puglia employed other identification methods, including screening databases for various
characteristics, such as steady earnings growth and return on equity over one, three, and five years,
searching news reports, economic data, and even rivals' portfolios for investment ideas.

with over 95 billion dollars’ worth of net assets as of 2020, it’s challenging to sustain the historical
performance into the future but taking into consideration his approach to the market and the extensive
research to identify and choose the most successful long-term investments I believe the fund’s performance
can be sustained
[4] Consider the mutual-fund industry. What roles do portfolio managers play? What are the differences
between fundamental and technical securities analysis? How well do mutual funds generally perform
relative to the overall market?
Portfolio manage is the key for the fund’s performance. He is the person who decides what to buy and what
not to and how log to hold and when to sell. Often, we think that what to buy/sell is most important but
portfolio manager is one who analyse the market, sector and stock and find out when to buy/sell along with
what to buy/sell. Return can only be realized when one sells the stock and so selling decisions are very
importance and portfolio manager is one who takes the final call (I said final call, because there is always a
team behind a fund). Both Technical and Fundamental analysis are techniques used to make investment
related decisions. They are however different in several ways; fundamental analysis seeks to determine the
intrinsic value of stocks using relevant data while technical analysis uses the historic market activities and
trends to predict future price expectations. There are several categories in mutual funds so in general
commenting on the mutual fund industry in comparison with the overall market performance is difficult. We
choose the fund on the basis of goal and risk appetite. But if a fund has experience fund manager, long term
good performance believe in diversification, stick to quality business and identify market trends at an early
stage then there is a possibility that it will beat the market with an wide margin.

A portfolio manager is responsible for investing the mutual fund's assets, implementing its investment
strategy, and managing day to day operations. A portfolio manager has therefore a great influence on the
fund's return. Technical analysis: This approach involved the identification of profitable investment
opportunities based on trends in stock prices, volume, market sentiment, and the like. Fundamental
analysis: This approach relied on insights afforded by an analysis of the economic fundamentals of a
company and its industry: supply and demand, costs, growth prospects, and the like. There are several
categories in mutual funds so in general commenting on the mutual fund industry in comparison with the
overall market performance is difficult. We choose the fund on the basis of goal and risk appetite. But if a
fund has an experienced fund manager, long-term good performance believes in diversification, sticks to
quality business, and identifies market trends at an early stage then there is a possibility that it will beat the
market with a wide margin.

The portfolio manager is the one who set the investment strategy, responsible for investing a mutual,
managing day-to-day portfolio trading and exchange traded or closed-end fund’s assets. Fundamental
analysis is a way of measuring a security’s intrinsic value by examining related economic and financial factor.
Moreover, this performed to identify the value of a stock by analyzing public data. Mutual funds are part of
the overall market and it will follow the market when it arise or falls. But, what it make one mutual funds is
better than other mutual funds is what stocks they have in their portfolio and how well they perform when
the market rise or drops.

Portfolio leadership is the key to the output of the portfolio. He is the one who decides what to purchase
and what not to buy and when to sell and how to hold logs. It can only be realized if one sells the stock and
so selling decisions are very important. Technical and fundamental analysis are both methods which are
used to make investment-related decisions. We choose for the investment on the basis of goal and risk
appetite. Good long-term performance would beat the market if a fund had a fund manager with
experience.

Portfolio managers' work focuses on the professional and expert management of the fund and focus on
analyzing investments and making the best possible price for the investments. Technical analysis focuses on
selecting the security based on the stock’s orientation from previous trends and data and is expected based
on the behaviors of the previous security. The fundamental analysis focuses on the economic situation,
industry and expected growth Mutual funds that invest in long-term investments usually achieve better
growth than the market because management costs become lower in the long term and growth
compensates for this in the value of the fund as a whole.
I think the portfolio manager is responsible for investing the assets, implementing its investment strategy
and managing day to day operations. Fundamental analysis is used to measure the fair value of the security
by examining the economy and industry conditions to the financial condition and management of the
company, also, the profitability of the company. Mostly used by long-term investors to determine whether
to be a part of the company or not. Technical analysis uses price and volume as the input assuming that all
known fundamental factors are already factored in the price. The aim is not to find the fair value but to
identify patterns and trends to suggest what the stock will do in future. It combines the behavior of the
investors with the historical performance of the companies’ price.

Portfolio managers have many roles one of them is to give the ability to individual to diversify those
investments with high efficiency. This high efficiency could be archived by the scale of economies which
mutual funds provide, for example in trading and transactions costs. Also, they provide professional
expertise and analysis in the investment which induvial doesn’t have. Fundamental Analysis study all factors
which have an impact on the company’s future, such as financial statement, management process, industry,
etc. They do so through analyze the intrinsic value of the firm. On the other hand, technical analysis uses
past charts, patterns and trends to forecast the price movements of the entity in the coming time. Regarding
the performance mutual funds tend to give higher returns then overall market but we shouldn’t forget that
there is expenses and charges which mutual funds charge to those investors.

Portfolio managers are crucial in the fund’s performance. They are the people who decide what, how, and
when to buy. They also provide information on when to sell to ensure that the firm maximizes its
profitability level. In most cases, individuals may perceive that what they buy or sell is most crucial aspect in
an organization; nonetheless, portfolio managers play crucial roles in market analysis, assessing the entire
sector and advising the firm appropriately. In this regard, they are the most determinants of the smooth
operation of a firm. In this case, returns are attained when an individual distributes appropriate Return can
only be realized when one sells the stock appropriately - this is majorly determined by portfolio managers.

The portfolio managers are playing very important role who built the investing strategies and managing the
trading portfolio. Also, according to the case 31% of the outstanding stock of US companies owned by
mutual fund which give the power and influence to the market since they can move the huge amount of
money in and out on behalf of millions og individual investors. Technical analysis is the approach that
involved the identification of profitable investment opportunities based on the trends in stock prices,
volume, market sentiment. While the fundamental analysis is relied on insight afforded by analysis of
economic fundamental of a company and its industry and the supply and demand, cost, and growth
prospects. Generally, most of the mutual funds are underperforming comparing to the overall market and
beating the market is accomplished for funds manager
A fund manager is responsible for implementing a fund's investing strategy and managing its portfolio
trading activities. Investors should fully review the investment style of fund managers before they consider
investing in a fund. The main benefit of investing in a fund is trusting the investment management decisions
to the professionals. That's why fund managers play an important role in the investment and financial
world. They provide investors with peace of mind, knowing their money is in the hands of an expert. While a
fund's performance may have a lot to do with market forces, the manager's skills are also a contributing
factor. A highly trained manager can lead his or her fund to beat its competitors and their benchmark
indexes. This kind of fund manager is known as an active or alpha manager, while those who take a backseat
approach are called passive fund managers. Fundamental and technical analysis are two major schools of
thought when it comes to approaching the markets, yet are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Investors and
traders use both to research and forecast future stock prices. Like any investment strategy or philosophy,
both have advocates and adversaries. Fundamental Analysis Fundamental analysis evaluates stocks by
attempting to measure their intrinsic value. Fundamental analysts study everything from the overall
economy and industry conditions to the financial strength and management of individual companies.
Earnings, expenses, assets and liabilities all come under scrutiny by fundamental analysts. Technical Analysis
Technical analysis differs from fundamental analysis, in that traders attempt to identify opportunities by
looking at statistical trends, such as movements in a stock's price and volume. The core assumption is that
all known fundamentals are factored into price, thus there is no need to pay close attention to them.
Technical analysts do not attempt to measure a security's intrinsic value. Instead, they use stock charts to
identify patterns and trends that suggest what a stock will do in the future. Mutual funds generally
underperform because a large number of active fund managers have been underperforming the market
since a longer period of time.

Portfolio manage is the one who responsible for the fund’s performance. He is the person who decides what
to buy and what not to and how log to hold and when to sell. The decision of buying or selling is a very
important job but portfolio manager is also analyses the market, sector and stock and find out when to buy
or sell. - Both Technical and Fundamental analysis are techniques used to make investment related
decisions. But fundamental analysis seeks to determine the intrinsic value of stocks using relevant data
while technical analysis uses the historic market activities and trends to predict future price expectations. -
It is difficult to say because we have so many category of mutual funds but in my opinion if the mutual fund
has experience fund manager, with long term and good performance, also believe in diversification, stick to
quality business and identify market trends at an early stage then there is a possibility that it will beat the
market with a good margin.
Portfolio managers are playing key roles in investment process which involves assisting in portfolio
construction or strategy selection/amendment, control cost performance and determine risk profile of their
client. Fundamental analysis relies on assessment of firm value of the economic fundamentals, seasoned
management, growth prospects, dividend prospects, and earnings. Technical analysis relies on identifying
mispriced securities that focuses on recurrent and predictable patterns of stock price/proxy that will result
in profitable investment opportunities. As many studies exhibited that mutual funds generally tend to
underperform relative to the overall market due to higher operating expenses, management fees and
loading fees.

Fund managers primarily research and select the best stocks, bonds, or other securities to match the fund's
strategy as outlined in the prospectus, and then buy and sell them. Some of the other responsibilities
include preparing reports on the fund's performance for clients, developing reports for potential clients to
know the fund's risks and objectives, and identifying clients and companies that their might fit as clients. •
Most mutual fund managers have relied on some differences from the two classic schools of securities
analysis to select investments: Fundamental analysis: This approach is based on the insights provided by
analyzing the economic fundamentals of the company and its industry: supply and demand, costs, growth
prospects, and the like. Technical analysis: This approach involved identifying profitable investment
opportunities based on trends in stock prices, volume, market sentiment, and the like. • Fund managers fall
into two categories: active managers and passive managers: Active fund managers try to outrun their peers
and benchmarks. Managers who participate in active money management study trends in the market,
analyze economic data, and stay up-todate with company news, with Larry Puglia being one of them. On the
other hand, passive fund managers trade securities that are held in a benchmark index. This type of fund
manager applies the same weight to their portfolio as the underlying index. Instead of trying to outperform
the benchmark. Many exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and mutual-index funds are passively managed.
A portfolio manager is professional person who is responsible for investing a mutual fund’s asset,
implementing the fund’s investment strategy and managing daily portfolio trading. He is one of important
factors to consider when you want to decide investing in mutual fund and which one is suitable to you such
as choosing passive or active management. Fundamental Analysis studies the essentials of the investment
starting with economy and industry conditions to the financial condition and management, this analysis
evaluating assets and attempting find the intrinsic value of the security. Technical Analysis is evaluation of
securities by means of studying statistics generated by market record, such as past prices, dividends, and
volume. Technical analysts use stock charts and historical activity to identify the expected patterns and
trends of stock in the future.

Portfolio managers are playing the role of managing investments and assets for clients to maximize the rate
of return and generate abnormal gain by beating the rate of return on the market. The differences between
fundamental and technical securities analysis are: Technical analysis: This approach involved the
identification of profitable investment opportunities based on trends in stock prices, volume, market
sentiment, and the like. Fundamental analysis: This approach relied on insights afforded by an analysis of
the economic fundamentals of a company and its industry: supply and demand, costs, growth prospects,
and the like. Academic research indicated that mutual funds had the ability to perform up to the market on
a grossreturn basis, but when all expenses were factored in, the funds underperformed the market
benchmarks. In a paper first published in 1968, Michael Jensen reported that gross risk-adjusted returns
were −0.4% and that net risk-adjusted returns (i.e., net of expenses) were −1.1%. Later studies found that, in
a sample of 70 mutual funds, net risk-adjusted returns were essentially zero, and some analysts attributed
this general result to the average 1.3% expense ratio of mutual funds and their tendency to hold cash.

Portfolio managers are playing the role of managing the portfolio they will be trying to maximize the rate of
return and they will be trying to generate abnormal gain by beating the rate of return on the market.
Fundamental analysis is related to analysis of all the balance sheet and the financial reports of the company
as well as the the fundamental aspect of the business as the technical aspect of the business is a related to
detailing about the pricing and the volume and the past trends of the company and determining the future
Trend. Fundamental analysis is more often associated with investing whereas, technical analysis is more
often associated with trading. But if a fund has experience fund manager, long term good performance
believe in diversification, stick to quality business and identify market trends at an early stage then there is a
possibility that it will beat the market with an wide margin.
Part of the portfolio manager’s job to recognize the loss and make it as little as possible. Fundamental
analysis: used to determine the quality of long-term investments by knowing the difference between a
stock's value, and the price at which it is trading. Technical analysis: used to determine short-term
investment decisions about the trading of stocks by knowing the price action Mutual funds were able to
perform up to the market on the basis of a gross return it tends to underperform compared to the market
average during bull markets, but they outperform the market average during bear markets

A fund manager is responsible for implementing a fund's investment strategy and managing its trading
activities. Technical analysis: This approach involved the identification of profitable investment
opportunities based on trends in stock prices, volume, market sentiment, and the like. Fundamental
analysis: This approach relied on insights afforded by an analysis of the economic fundamentals of a
company and its industry: supply and demand, costs, growth prospects, and the like. Academic research
indicated that mutual funds had the ability to perform up to the market on a gross-return basis, but when
all expenses were factored in, the funds underperformed the market benchmarks. In a paper first published
in 1968, Michael Jensen reported that gross risk-adjusted returns were −0.4% and that net risk-adjusted
returns (i.e., net of expenses) were −1.1%. Later studies found that, in a sample of 70 mutual funds, net risk-
adjusted returns were essentially zero, and some analysts attributed this general result to the average 1.3%
expense ratio of mutual funds and their tendency to hold cash.

A portfolio manager is responsible for investing a fund's assets, applying a fund's investing strategy and
managing its portfolio. A fund can be managed by one person, by two people as co- managers, or even by a
team of three or more people. Portfolio managers can take an active or passive management role. For
actively managed mutual funds, the fund manager is basically in charge of stocks, bonds, or other assets the
fund will buy with the money given by investors. Technical analysis: This involved the identification of
profitable investment opportunities based on trends in stock prices, volume, market sentiment, and the like.
Fundamental analysis: This approach relied on insights afforded by an analysis of the economic
fundamentals of a company and its industry: supply and demand, costs, growth prospects, etc. Mutual
funds can perform up to the market on a gross-returns basis; but when we considered expenses, mutual
funds underperformed the market.
portfolio managers play act taker for implementing mutual-fund investment strategies and managing day-
after-day portfolio management. Portfolio managers will take an active or passive management role by what
strategies the portfolio managers play. Technical analysis is a approach involved the identification of
profitable investment opportunities supported trends in stock prices, volume, market sentiment. Whole is
fundamental analysis is a approach relied on insights afforded by an analysis of the economic fundamentals
of a company and its industry. mutual funds had the ability to perform up to the market on a gross-return
basis, but when all expenses are factored in, the funds underperformed the market benchmarks

The portfolio manager is the key to the fund’s performance. He is the person who analyzes the market,
sector, and stock and finds out what to buy/sell and when to buy/sell, and for how long to hold before sell.
Return can only be realized when one sells the stock, so selling decisions are very important and the
portfolio manager is the one who takes the final call. The difference between fundamental and technical
securities analysis is that technical analysis is an approach that involved the identification of profitable
investment opportunities based on trends in stock prices, volume, market sentiment, so it's using the
historic market activities and trends to predict future price expectations While fundamental analysis is an
approach that relied on insights afforded by an analysis of the economic fundamentals of a company and its
industry: supply and demand, costs, growth prospects, So it seeks to determine the intrinsic value of stocks
using relevant data. In general, it is difficult to comment on the mutual fund industry in comparison with the
overall market performance because there are several categories in mutual funds. we choose the fund
based on goal and risk appetite and if the fund has an experienced fund manager, long term good
performance believe in diversification, stick to quality business and identify market trends at an early stage
then there is a possibility that it will beat the market with a wide margin.
Portfolio managers are primarily responsible for creating and managing investment allocations for private
clients. He is the person who decides what to buy and what not to and how long to hold and when to sell.
Often, we think that what to buy/sell is most important but a portfolio manager is one who analysis the
market, sector, and stock and find out when to buy/sell along with what to buy/sell. Return can only be
realized when one sells the stock and so selling decisions are very important and the portfolio manager is
the one who takes the final call. Both Technical and Fundamental analysis are techniques used to invest
related decisions. They are however different in several ways; fundamental analysis seeks to determine the
intrinsic value of stocks using relevant data while technical analysis uses the historic market activities and
trends to predict future price expectations. There are several categories in mutual funds so in general
commenting on the mutual fund industry in comparison with the overall market performance is difficult. We
choose the fund based on goal and risk appetite. But if a fund has an experienced fund manager, long-term
good performance believes in diversification, sticks to quality business, and identifies market trends at an
early stage then there is a possibility that it will be at the market with a wide margin.

A fund manager is responsible for implementing a fund's investment strategy and managing its trading
activities, They oversee mutual funds or pensions, manage analysts, conduct research, and make important
investment decisions. Most fund managers are highly educated, have professional credentials, and possess
management experience. Fund managers fall into two categories: active managers and passive managers.
Fundamental analysis is a way of assessing security to comprehend its intrinsic value for opportunities
leading to long term investments. Contrary to this, technical analysis is a way of evaluating and predicting
the security’s future price based on the movement of the current as well as previous price and the
transaction volumes. This is also a substantial way to understand how the stock will be working in the
future. In comparison to technical analysis that is used for short term trades, the fundamental analysis uses
more extended periods to analyse stocks. Thus, this strategy is integrated by such investors who wish to
invest in those stocks that have more probability of having an increased value in a few years. Another
significant fundamental and technical analysis difference is while in fundamental analysis decisions are
taken on the basis of available statistics and information evaluation; technical analysis allows investors to
decide by keeping the stock price and market trends in mind. Historically, mutual funds tend to
underperform compared to the market average during bull markets, but they outperform the market
average during bear markets, . In fact, research shows that the number of active mutual funds
outperforming the market on a consistent basis isn't just low, it's zero.

A portfolio manager is a person or group of people responsible for investing a mutual, exchange-traded or
closed-end fund's assets, implementing its investing strategy and managing day-to-day portfolio trading. A
portfolio manager is one of the most important factors to consider when looking at fund investing. Portfolio
Management can be active or passive, and historical performance records indicate that only a minority of
active fund manger consistently beat the market. • Fundamental Analysis: is a method of evaluating
securities by attempting to measure the intrinsic value of a stock. Fundamental analysts study everything
from the overall economy and industry conditions to the financial condition and management of companies.
• Technical Analysis: is the evaluation of securities by means of studying statistics generated by market
activity, such as past prices and volume. Technical analysts do not attempt to measure a security's intrinsic
value but instead use stock charts to identify patterns and trends that may suggest what a stock will do in
the future. Mutual fund generally underperforms because a large number of active fund manager have
been underperforming the market since a longer period of time.
The fund managers are responsible for implementing a fund's investment strategy and managing its trading
activities. They oversee mutual funds, manage analysts, conduct research, and make investment decisions.
The difference between fundamental and technical securities analysis is that technical analysis is the
approach that involved the identification of profitable investment opportunities based on trends in stock
prices, volume, market sentiment, and the like. In contrast, fundamental analysis is the approach that relied
on insights afforded by an analysis of the economic fundamentals of a company and its industry: supply and
demand, costs, growth prospects, and the like. Most mutual funds are aimed at long-term investors and
seek consistent growth with less volatility than the market as a whole. In general, mutual funds tend to
underperform in the short term, but they outperform the market average in the long term.

portfolio managers play an important role in managing the fund and implementing the investment
strategy .funds can be either actively managed to outperform the market or passively managed to just track
the benchmark. Technical analysis is based on stock price and volume data using chart patterns and trends
to identify trading opportunities. On the contrary, Fundamental analysis is about evaluating a company and
determine its stock intrinsic value using thorough economic and market analysis.
[5] What is capital-market efficiency? What are its implications for investment performance in general?
What are the implications for fund managers, if the market exhibits characteristics of strong, semistrong,
or weak efficiency?
Market efficiency refers to the degree to which market prices reflect all available, relevant information. If
markets are efficient, then all information is already incorporated into prices, and so there is no way to
"beat" the market because there are no undervalued or overvalued securities available. There are three
degrees of market efficiency. The weak form of market efficiency is that past price movements are not
useful for predicting future prices. The semi-strong form of market efficiency assumes that stocks adjust
quickly to absorb new public information so that an investor cannot benefit over and above the market by
trading on that new information. The strong form of market efficiency says that market prices reflect all
information both public and private, building on and incorporating the weak form and the semi-strong form.

Market efficiency refers to the degree to which market prices reflect all available, relevant information. If
markets are efficient, then all information is already incorporated into prices, and so there is no way to
"beat" the market because there are no undervalued or overvalued securities available. Strong form
efficiency: The strong form efficiency implies that all public and non-public information is factored in the
market price of the security. Therefore, the above-average return is not possible in this form of market.
Semi Strong form efficiency: This implies that market price reflects all publicly available information.
Therefore, fund managers can attain above-average returns using private non-public information. Weak
form efficiency: This implies that past returns have no effect on the future and rates of return in the market
are independent. This negates the use of technical analysis to generate above-average return, but
fundamental analysis can still be used.

Effectiveness of the capital market is an overview of how efficiently different data is taken into account in
the protection price, i.e. how fair currency market rates are for an asset given market conditions. It is the
degree to which the current asset price accurately represents current market-place knowledge. Implications
for investment is to identify which company will give a good return or increase by using private resources to
get information. In addition, this will give advantage in the market since you have information before others
in the market.

Capital market performance says that markets are efficient, meaning stock prices reflect all the available
public knowledge. If a news breaks out about a recent company fraud, so what is explained by the
productivity of the financial market is how the stock prices incorporate the news. The stock price will begin
to fall as soon as this news breaks out. If the knowledge used allows you to make better predictions of
projected returns than those made by the market, it will be refused. The weak, semistrong, powerful
classification demonstrates the type of details that will be taken into account.

Assuming that all the information reaches all investors at the same and is thus reflected in the price of the
security, which makes it impossible to outperform the market because there is no securities that are priced
below its real value. The work of the funds will be affected if all the information becomes available at the
same time because in this case the fund will not be able to outperform the market and will reduce its value
in the long run due to the high costs in the event that the market value of the fund does not rise.
Capital market efficiency (EMH) is a hypothesis that states that share prices reflect all information and
consistent alpha generation is impossible. stocks always trade at their fair value on the market, making it
impossible for investors to purchase undervalued stocks or sell overpriced stocks. Therefore, it should be
impossible to outperform the overall market through expert stock selection or market timing, and the only
way an investor can obtain higher ret urns is by purchasing riskier investments. The strong form of the
(EMH) states that all informations both the information available to the public and any information not
publicly known is completely accounted for in current stock prices, and there is no type of information that
can give an investor an advantage on the market. Thus, you cannot outperform the market. The semi-strong
form of the (EMH) states that because all information that is public is factored in the stock's current price,
investors cannot utilize either technical or fundamental analysis to gain higher returns in the market. Unless
they have not publicly known information. The weak form of the (EMH) states that today’s stock prices
reflect all the data of past prices and that no form of technical analysis can be effectively utilized to aid
investors in making trading decisions. Thus, the fundamental analysis is used to determine if the stock is
over or undervalued.

Capital market efficiency says that efficient markets incorporated all relevant information about the
securities in the price. The implications of investment performance in general that there is a three levels of
market efficiency week, semi strong and strong. Supporter of this hypothesis were very skeptical and critical
of the mutual funds. As Forbes said about mutual funds that “it would seem that a combination of luck and
sloth beats brains” after a study which it had made. Beating the market as malkiel suggested was much like
participating in coin-tossing game. The most vocal academic criticism of EMH was from behavioral finance
which suggests that greed fear and panic could much more significant factors then EMH.

Capital-market efficiency entails the extent to which market prices reflect all available and relevant
information. This aspect has numerous implications for investment performance since when the
information available are undervalued or overvalued, it would cause some challenges in performance. The
efficiency of the market is entirely dependent on this information.

Market efficiency is referring to the level to which market prices reflect all available information that
relevant which incorporated into existing securities prices. If the capital market efficiency true and correct,
the current securities price is reflect is true value and it would be impossible to beat the market with skill
and intellect.the week form of capital market efficiency is that current price follow random walk without
correlation with past. While semi strong, that the current and today price reflect past prices and all publicly
available information so no technical and fundamental analysis would be reliable strategies to get superior
returns . In the strong form of capital market efficiency, the current and today price reflect all the
information private and public that can be acquire through close analysis of the company and economic.
Capital market efficiency states that markets are efficient, which means stock prices reflect all the available
public information. If a news about a recent fraud happening within a company breaks out, then how the
stock prices incorporate the news is what is explained by capital market efficiency. Since, the stock price will
begin falling, as soon as this news breaks out. In efficient markets since stock prices reflect all news that is
available publicly, no investor is able to earn profits. The implications of market efficiency on investment
performance is that, no investor is able to beat the market. As stock prices, follow a random walk. It is not
affected by the past prices but by recent events and news. The stock prices cannot be predicted as any
information which can help us make profits are already incorporated in the stock prices. Markets are semi -
strong efficient: This form of market efficiency believes that the stock prices rapidly adjust to any release of
new information about a particular stock so any kind of fundamental, or technical analysis on the stock is
useless. So, in this case nothing can help a fund manager earn above-normal returns excepting the access to
insider information about stocks. So, in such a case, a fund manager tries to get his hands-on insider
information about a stock, which is not available to the public and which can help them pick certain stocks
and earn abnormal profits.

Capital market efficiency states that markets are efficient, which means stock prices reflect all the available
public information. If a news about a recent fraud happening within a company breaks out, then how the
stock prices incorporate the news is what is explained by capital market efficiency. Since, the stock price will
begin falling, as soon as this news breaks out. In efficient markets since stock prices reflect all news that is
available publicly, no investor is able to earn profits. - The implications of market efficiency on investment
performance is that, no investor is able to beat the market. As stock prices, follow a random walk. It is not
affected by the past prices but by recent events and news. The stock prices cannot be predicted as any
information which can help us make profits are already incorporated in the stock prices. - If the market
exhibits weak efficiency, then the stock price includes all the information that can be derived from past
data. Hence, in this case, future price cannot be predicted using past information. - In the case of the semi-
strong form of efficiency, the stock price reacts to new information quickly. This indicates predictive analysis
is useless as price adjust to new information quickly. - If the market shows strong efficiency then the stock
prices reflect all information public and private information which are available to insiders only. Thus even
insider’s information cannot be used to predict the price of the stock.
Efficient market hypothesis (EMH) stated that prices of securities fully reflect available information.
According to the EMH, stocks always trade at their fair value on exchanges, making it impossible for
investors to gain abnormal return through purchase undervalued stocks or sell overvalued stocks.
Ultimately, it should be impossible to outperform the overall market through stock picking or market timing.
The sole way that an investor could obtain higher returns is by purchasing riskier investments. • Weak form
asserts that stock prices already reflect all historical information like prices and trade volume • Semistrong
form asserts that stock prices already reflect all publicly available information • Strong form asserts that
stock prices reflect all information including insider information All versions assert that prices should reflect
available information

Capital-market efficiency refers to how good current prices are that reflect all available and relevant
information about the actual value of the underlying securities. According to the efficient market hypothesis
(EMH) –a term written in 1970 by Eugene Fama–, a truly efficient market eliminates the possibility of
beating the market, because any information available to any trader is already included in the market price.
As the quality and quantity of information increases, the market becomes more efficient which reduces
arbitrage opportunities and market returns. Based on this form of hypothesis, investment strategies or any
rules based on technical analysis used in trading or investment decisions should not be consistently
expected to yield higher than normal returns in the market. Within this form of hypothesis, the possibility
remains that excess returns are possible using fundamental analysis. • Economists have identified three
levels of market efficiency, which are marked by the degree of information believed to be reflected in
current stock prices. Weak form of efficiency maintained that all previous share prices were incorporated
into today's price; Today prices have followed a random walk without correlation with prior patterns. 5
Semi-strong form of efficiency assured that today's prices not only reflect all past prices but also all publicly
available information. Strong form of efficiency has proven that today's stock price reflects all the
information that can be obtained through close analysis of the company and the economy. In such a form of
market, it is almost impossible to find any superior investment managers who can consistently beat the
market. • Investors and academics have a wide range of perspectives on the actual efficiency of the market,
as is reflected in the strong, semi-strong and weak forms of EMH. Believers in the competency of the strong
figure agree with Fama and are often passive investors. Investors of the weak form believe that active
trading can generate abnormal profits through arbitrage, while semi-strong believers fall somewhere in the
middle. On the other hand, people who do not believe in an effective market point to the fact that there are
active managed trading. If there are no opportunities to earn profits outperforming the market, there is no
incentive to become an active investor. Moreover, fees charged by active managers are seen as evidence
that EMH is not correct as it states that an effective market has low transaction costs.
Capital-Market Efficiency states all of the effort and analysis to pick the stocks are worthless because the
stock price is fully incorporated to the current relevant information in the market, where it is impossible to
beat the market, because any information available to any trader is already incorporated into the market
price. As the quality and amount of information increases, the market becomes more efficient reducing
opportunities for arbitrage and above market returns. So , there will be no superior fund managers can
consistently beat the market. In the weak form of EMH that all past prices maintained the past prices for a
stock were incorporated into today’s price; prices today simply followed a random walk with no correlation
with past patterns. Semistrong efficiency held that today’s prices reflected not only all past prices, but also
all publicly available information. The strong form of market efficiency held that today’s stock price reflected
all the information that could be acquired through a close analysis of the company and the economy.

Capital market efficiency, refer to the degree of information believed to be reflected in current securities’
prices. The implications of market efficiency on investment performance is that, no investor is able to beat
the market. And that no technique of selecting a portfolio—neither technical nor fundamental analysis—can
consistently outperform a strategy of simply buying and holding a diversified group of securities such as
those that make up the popular market averages There are three type of market efficiency: 1. The weak
form of efficiency held that all past prices for a stock were incorporated into today’s price; prices today
simply followed a random walk with no correlation with past patterns. In weak market efficiency no form of
technical analysis can be effectively utilized to aid investors in making trading decisions. Advocates for the
weak form efficiency theory believe that if the fundamental analysis is used, undervalued and overvalued
stocks can be determined 2. Semi-strong efficiency held that today’s prices reflected not only all past prices,
but also all publicly available information. In Semi-strong form fund managers can attain above average
returns using private non-public information. 3. the strong form of market efficiency held that today’s stock
price reflected all the information that could be acquired through a close analysis of the company and the
economy. In strong form no technique of selecting a portfolio—neither technical nor fundamental analysis
—can consistently outperform a strategy of simply buying and holding a diversified group of securities such
as those that make up the popular market averages

Capital market efficiency is the analysis of how efficiently various information is factored in the price of the
security i.e. how fair currency market prices are for an asset given the market conditions. Implication on
investment performance Efficient Market negates the use of both technical and fundamental analysis to
generate investment returns. Technical analysis uses past price movement and volume to predict the future
but Efficient Market implies that past results cannot be used to outperform the market. Implication for fund
manager if market exhibits Strong form efficiency: The strong form efficiency implies that all public and non-
public information is factored in the market price of the security. Therefore, above average return is not
possible in this form of market. Semi Strong form efficiency: This implies that market price reflects all
publicly available information. Weak form efficiency: This implies that past returns have no effect on future
and rates of return in market are independent.
The capital markets: the data, information, and analytical conclusions available to any one market
participant were bound to be reflected quickly in share prices. Economists defined three levels of market
efficiency, which were distinguished by the degree of information believed to be reflected in current
securities’ prices. The weak form of efficiency maintained that all past prices for a stock were incorporated
into today’s price; prices today simply followed a random walk with no correlation with past patterns.
Semistrong efficiency held that today’s prices reflected not only all past prices, but also all publicly available
information. Finally, the strong form of market efficiency held that today’s stock price reflected all the
information that could be acquired through a close analysis of the company and the economy.

Market efficiency refers to the degree to which market prices reflect all available, relevant information. If
markets are efficient, then all information is already incorporated into prices, and so there is no way to
"beat" the market because there are no undervalued or overvalued securities available. The implication of
EMH that investors shouldn't be able to beat the market because all information that could predict
performance is already built into the stock price. And I think is the same for the fund managers, if the
market become strong it will be extremely hard to beat the market, if it’s a weak market I think for a good
mangers will be easy to outperforms the market.

Capital market efficiency is the degree to which the present asset price accurately reflects current
information in the marketplace. The EMH states that an investor can't outperform the market, and that
market anomalies should not exist. Investors who agree with this theory tend to buy index funds that track
overall market performance and are proponents of passive portfolio management. In the strong form of
market efficiency, abnormal profits cannot be done because the market adjusts rapidly and efficiently. In
Semistrong efficiency, the only way to earn abnormal profits is if an investor has information that is not
available to public. Thus, fund managers believe that the way to beat the market is to have inside
knowledge to select stocks for their portfolio. In The weak form of efficiency, Fund managers should select
their stocks carefully because there is a potential to earn a higher return than the market by research.
capital-market potency is that the belief that capital markets incorporated all the relevant information into
existing securities’ prices called the efficient market hypothesis (EMH).If EMH were correct and all current
prices reflected the true value of the underlying securities, then it would be impossible to beat the market
with superior skill or intellect. Economists defined 3 levels of market efficiency, that were distinguished by
the degree of information believed to be reflected in current securities’ prices. The weak form of efficiency
maintained that all past costs for a stock were incorporated into today’s price; prices today simply followed
a random walk with no correlation with past patterns. Semistrong efficiency held that today’s prices
reflected not only all past prices, but also all publicly available information. Finally, the strong form of
market efficiency held that today’s stock reflected mirrored all the information that could be acquired
through a close analysis of the company and the economy. “In such a market,” as one economist said, “we
would observe lucky and unlucky investors, however we wouldn’t find any superior investment managers
who can consistently beat the market”.

Capital market efficiency states that markets are efficient, which means stock prices reflect all the available
public information. If a market is efficient, there is no way to systematically "beat" the market and profit
from mispricings, since they would never exist. If the market is a weak form of efficiency, the fund managers
can predict the future movement of the stock price by past information, they still can find out whether
today’s stock price is the highest or the lowest. Then the managers can find the right timing to issue stocks.
Also, Fund managers can carefully invest in stocks after researching the financial statements announced by
the company. The weak form level of efficiency is under information efficiency of Efficient Market
Hypothesis which can be defined as the degree of information about the future returns of a stock reflects on
its current prices. In other words, the outcomes of management decisions will be reflected in the stock
prices in an extent that is slower and less accurate than strong and semi-strong levels of efficiency. So, fund
managers who have the financial knowledge and worked in financial companies have connections that allow
them to receive news and can get hold of the information faster than the retail investors. This allows them
to improve their fund performance by reacting to the news earlier. Semi-strong form efficiency is the share
prices adjust to publicly available new information very rapidly and the share price has reflected all
information that can be found in public and it is impossible to make any excess return. Thus, it’s also implied
that the fund managers are unable to utilize technical analysis and fundamental analysis to predict the
future price movement, So, to earn excessive returns, the fund managers should access private information
that unable to achieve in public. Private information also refers to insider information which is the
information that was not disclosed to the public and can affect the share price. Typically, it can allow
someone to gain by buying or selling particular shares, especially the person who working within or close to
a listed company. Strong form efficiency states that the current price fully incorporates all existing
information, both public and private. This form of market efficiency is also often known as the perfect
market theory.When the market shows the characteristic of a strong form of an efficient market hypothesis,
the fund manager cannot generate a superior return on behalf of the individual investors even though fund
managers have full access to the private/inside information. In strong form of efficient market, the past
movement of the trend of the stock cannot be used to predict the future movement of the stock price
because the stock movement may be random and unpredictable all the time.
Market efficiency refers to the degree to which market prices reflect all available, relevant information. If
markets are efficient, then all information is already incorporated into prices, and so there is no way to
"beat" the market because there are no undervalued or overvalued securities available. The implications of
market efficiency on investment performance is that because the information is immediately reflected in
market prices, assets are not systematically over or under-valued. Investors should expect a normal (risk-
adjusted) rate of return. Firms should expect to receive a “fair” value for securities that they sell. Fair value
is the present value of expected cash flows, with the appropriate adjustment for risk. There is no “best
time” to purchase an asset. Apparent past price patterns are not predictive for future prices. Asset price
changes are serially random. Weak efficiency: Fund managers in this perspective should carefully select their
stocks because there is a possibility to earn a higher return than the market by research. Semi-strong
efficiency: prices reflect past prices and all publicly available information. The fundamental and technical
analysis is useless to gain abnormal returns. The only way to earn abnormal profits is if an investor
possesses information that is not publicly available. In this case, fund managers are lead to believe that the
only way to beat the market is to have the inside knowledge to select stocks for their portfolio. Strong
efficiency: today’s stock prices reflect all information that could be available through a close analysis of the
company and the economy; the market can’t be consistently beaten. Abnormal profits can’t be made as the
market adjusts rapidly and efficiently.

The degree to which the present asset price accurately reflects current information in the market place, if
markets are efficient, then all information is already incorporated into prices, and so there is no way to
"beat" the market because there are no undervalued or overvalued securities available. In its strongest
form, that prices always reflect the entirety of both public and private information. This includes all publicly
available information, both historical and new, or current, as well as insider information is assumed to be
always already factored into the company’s current stock price. In its semi-strongest form, dismisses the
usefulness of both technical and fundamental analysis. by assuming that prices adjust quickly to any new
public information that becomes available, therefore rendering fundamental analysis incapable of having
any predictive power about future price movements. In its weak form, based on some reserche, there is
positive relationship between alpha and weak-form market efficiency. Most funds are unable to outperform
the market systematically, although a few are able to exploit relatively inefficient markets.

A good performance which aiming to beat the market must not come from the theory of Capital Market
Efficiency since it states all of the effort and analysis are worthless because the stock price is fully related to
the information already. And by the fact, examples of beating the market are showing the possibility of
getting higher return than the market continuously. The Economics define three level of market efficiency
which were different level of information believed to be reflected in current securities prices. The Week
form of efficiency maintained that all past prices for stock were impounded in today’s price. Semistrong
efficiency held that today’s price reflected not only all past prices , but also publically available information
and the Strong market efficiency held that today’s reflected all the information that could be acquired
through close analysis of the company and economy. earn abnormal profits.
Market efficiency refers to the degree to which market prices reflect all available, relevant information. The
efficient market hypothesis (EMH) is theory states that share prices reflect all information. If EMH were
correct and all current prices reflected the real value of the underlying securities, it would be impossible to
beat the market. In weak-form efficiency, current prices reflect all security-market historical information,
including the historical sequence of prices, rates of return, trading volume data, and other market-
generated information. This implies that past rates of return and other market data should have no
relationship with future return rates. In semi-strong-form efficiency, current security prices reflect all past
and public information, including market and non-market information. This implies that decisions made on
new information after it is public should not lead to above-average profits. In Strong-form efficiency, stock
prices fully reflect all information from public and private sources. This implies that no group of investors
should be able to derive above-average rates of return consistently. Strong form assumes the market is
perfect as all information is cost-free and available to everyone at the same time.

Market efficiency refers to the degree to which market prices reflect all available, relevant information. If
markets are efficient, it implicates that all information is already incorporated in the security price and
there’s no way to beat the market since there’s no under/over valued securities. There are three levels of
market efficiency: firstly, the weak form of efficiency maintained that all past prices for a stock were
incorporated into today’s price, therefore prices simply followed a random walk with no correlation with
past patterns. Secondly, semi strong efficiency that today’s prices reflected not only all past prices, but all
publicly available information as well. Finally, the strong form of market efficiency states that today’s stock
price reflected all the information that could be acquired through a close analysis of the company and the
economy.
[6] Suppose that you are an advisor to wealthy individuals in the area of equity investments. In 2016,
would you recommend investing in Puglia’s Blue Chip Growth Fund? What beliefs about the equity
markets does your answer reflect?
there are increasing numbers of investors move their capital to Blue Chip Growth fund and bring along
more than 15 billion Us dollar of new capital to the fund’ asset for investment purpose. Based on the
historical view, the success of Puglia’s investment was having an outstanding performance. He funds
investment performance beating the traditional academic theories and also defeats the S&P 500 and large
cap growth category in the long run. Moreover, scholars, investors and market are wondered for the
outstanding and sustainability of his fund performance.

I need to compare with others. But generally, will recommend investing in Puglia’s Blue-Chip Growth Fund.
because the fund got several winners and present. The fund considers one of the funds which are could
beat the market and be exceptional performance. In addition, the strategy and the team are encouraged
entry into the fund. All my recommend could support by evidence like in the case study.

I would strongly recommend investing in Puglia’s Blue Chip Growth Fund. When you see their portfolio in
Exhibit 2.1 you can see how will they managed to invest in stocks with promising future.

He focuses on companies with leading market positions, experienced leadership, and solid foundations,
increasing business in a growing sector, above profit growth, strong cash flow, and return on equity,
leadership who can discover how to maximize capital. I would consider investing in the Blue Chip Growth
Fund of Puglia. Anyway, we should consider the factors mentioned above. The risk also extends if the return
goes to the extension.

Yes, I will recommend them to invest, given that the method used does not depend on the current market
situation and does not focus on one sector without the other. The fund has accumulated experience for the
past years in how to deal with securities, analyze investments and work to find the best competencies to
develop work and reach the best possible value for the fund. A weak economy in a certain period will be
compensated for by growth in the coming years, which reduces risks
Yes, I would recommend investing in TRBCX since its quit a catch due to the low return compared to the
same category, the unstable investors would redeem their holdings which will force the subscription price to
go low. Then having a look on the historical performance, you may trust that the fund will heal and continue
the impressive performance

I will not recommend investing in Blue chip Growth Fund. It is not easy to sustain the performance of Mr.
Puglia. In the past years it was the birth and growth of these companies but now These companies became a
dividends company as the growth already happened. Blue chip Growth Fund will stop making this huge
growth as he is focusing on long term investment and not on income. However, I will recommend investing
in passive income funds which is tracking the performance of the S&P 500. It will charge them low expense
ratio and with good turnover ratio. It will make those investment more tax efficient.

I believe Puglia’s Blue Chip Growth Fund offers promising opportunities for investors due to the appropriate
strategies it utilizes in its operations. The approaches that the firm utilizes spread risks and augment the
tendency of succeeding in its investment. For instance, its intensive diversification approach would enable
investors to spread their risks which enable them to gain from the investment.

Yes, I will be recommended it if he long term investor, the company rely on good strategies and valuating
very well the companies they choose, and they use fundamental analysis and other strategies which show
very successful result for long term investment. Also the fund is diversify so it is safer
Yes, I would recommend investing in Puglia’s fund since it’s outperforming the S&P 500 in the past years
with a sustained manner and an average of total return exceeds S&P500 returns by 4% annually in the past
10 years. I don’t believe in efficient market hypothesis, and there are investment strategies can gain higher
returns than the benchmark, such as Puglia, Warren, Peter Lynch, William O’Neil, and etc. Some of them has
followed the basic fundamentals and some has combined both fundamental and technical analysis.

I will suggest to invest in Puglia’s fund because it’s performed well for investors in 2016. In 2016 this fund
investment average performance is better than SP 500 due to consistent growth shown by Puglia’s fund.
More and more investors are investing in Puglia’s fund so investment in this fund is profitable investment.
Yes, I would recommend investing in Puglia’s Blue Chip Growth Fund but for long term investor. The fund
has an overall expense ratio of 0.71%, which is lower that 0.81% average for growth stock funds. However,
this is a high cost relative to index stock funds, such as a mutual fund that simply tracks the S&P 500 where
their average expense ratio is just 0.11%. Still a higher expense ratio is justified if a fund has proven its
ability to beat the market which is what happened with T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund.
Demonstrating 5 years beyond 2016, the fund was beaten S&P500 4 out 5 years as shown below: Further,
fund has proved its extraordinary performance over long history with high consistency. It's important to
mention that a mutual fund's past performance doesn't guarantee its future results "Past success does not
guarantee future performance". However, a record like this is a good indicator that it's likely to produce
good results going forward. Those longer returns are more indicative of the stability and strength of what
you are investing in.

For most fund managers, beating the S&P 500 in a single year is an achievement, let alone what Larry Puglia
has achieved in sustainability outperforming this index; frankly, what he has done is exceptional. However, a
mutual fund's past performance may not be a guarantee of future results, but if you know what to look for
and what to avoid when you analyze the performance, you can make better investment decisions, which can
increase the odds that future performance will meet or it exceeds your expectations. After talking in
previous answers about Blue Chip Growth Fund outperforming the benchmark and rivals, and mentioning
Puglia's long-term strategies in achieving this, let's now take a closer look at the fund's investments. Puglia
invests 94% of its fund in the US stock markets and the remainder in global stocks, with no regard for cash,
bonds or bills, meaning it is only an equity market portfolio. For me, this explains the high returns, but also
gives a red-flag on the riskiness of such a fund. If we explain the big rewards, how about the
outperformance! The companies selecting strategy is the reason for this as mentioned earlier, and to
illustrate this, to assess whether or not I will advise to invest in it, let's take a look at the top five weight
assets in the mutual-fund; Onethird of Blue Chip's assets are in technology companies such as Amazon
6.89%, Alphabet 4.42%, Facebook 4.37% and Microsoft 3.13%. The fund is also investing nearly a third of its
weight in each consumer cyclical and healthcare sectors. It invests more than 10% in each industries and
financial services sectors. The conclusion of these five sectors is that Puglia is investing in the most
sustainable sectors, at least for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, it is likely that Blue Chip will continue to
achieve its exceptional results in the future, and as an advisor, I will advise individuals to invest in the T.
Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund as an equity investment, as these individuals often have a desire to make
higher profits in light of higher risks. A mutual fund in this case would offer many benefits to individual
investors: It will give investors the ability to diversify their portfolios, thus reducing the risks associated with
owning any single share. It also provides a buffer between the individual investor and the painful
fluctuations of the equity market. Finally, mutual funds will provide investors with professional management
and expertise dedicated to analyzing securities, which can theoretically lead to above-average returns. Since
we are in 2021, I have reviewed recent data to confirm if I am right about my advice to investors,
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=TRBCX&region=usa&culture=en-
US , and it is just as well as Blue Chip still outperforming the index and its opponents in a way worthy of
admiration.
I will recommend to invest in the Puglia’s Blue Chip Growth Fund, because this fund has a good
management with solid strategy and relatively safe in picking the company that are suitable for equity
market. To succussed and maintained a good performance in the equity market, the fund has to monitor
good strategy and be flexible reacting with market changes and updates, and this comes with the
continuous effort in analysis and research to be educated about the market and industries.

I would recommend investing in Puglia’s Blue Chip Growth Fund if the investor look for long term
investment. his overall long-term performance relative to the index was impressive, but he rarely had the
best performance in short term. With well-established portfolio strategy, investing in leading company in
US, and with the sport of his experts global research team, he will be able to maintain the performance of
the fund in the future. however, we notice that the fund can be considered as a high risk fund, so for the
risk averse person or someone is retired or near retirement, I would recommend to look for another fund
that is more diversified.(bond marker, RF assets) Contrary to efficient-market hypothesizers, we will find
mutual funds, like TRBCX, that consistently for long time beat the benchmark by the S&P 500. the Blue Chip
Growth Fund present an anomaly to the theory of capital-market efficiency. because I believe that it is
possible for TRBCX to beat the market in future and that stocks can deviate from their fair market values, I
agree with those whom said the EMH doesn't hold. Furthermore, for example, the 2008 Financial Crisis
called into question the theory of capitalmarket efficiency for its lack of practical perspective. If all EMH
assumptions had held, then the housing bubble and subsequent crash would not have occurred.

While there are thousands of mutual funds to choose from, large-cap growth mutual funds have been
among the most steady performers. Specifically, the focus here is on blue chip large-cap stocks, which are
stocks of large, established companies that are often leaders in their respective Saturday, January 30, 2021
industries (The top 10 stocks make up 50% of the portfolio, with Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, Microsoft,
Alibaba, Apple, Visa, Tencent, Pay-pal, and MasterCard as the largest positions.). Blue chips tend to be solid
long-term performers and are well-suited to navigate more volatile markets. some of the benefits of owning
a blue chip fund are ,in 2016 this fund investment average performance is better than S&P500 due to
consistent growth shown by Pagulias BlueChip fund.The risk will be lower due to a less beta because the
companies are well established, and they provide a diversification because the characteristic of the stocks
are different from others,They have a good history of payout for the investors. So, As an advisor one of the
best large-cap growth funds that are open to new investors T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund
(NASDAQMUTFUND:TRBCX) to maximize their return on investment specially if they looking for long term
profit .
I would recommend investing in Puglia’s Blue Chip Growth Fund because at the time when many investors
were eschewing actively managed funds such as Puglia’s in favor of passive investments designed to track
stock-market indices, Puglia’s investment performance stood out. Morningstar, the well-known statistical
service for the investment community, gave the Blue Chip Growth Fund its second-highest rating, four stars
for overall performance, placing it in the top 32.5% of 1,482 funds in its category. According to Morningstar,
a high rating could reflect above-average returns, belowaverage risk, or both. They decided that it was
durable, sustainable earnings-per-share growth that confers blue-chip status on a company. That’s what
allows it to garner an above-average price-earnings ratio, and that’s what allows you to really hold such an
investment for the long term and allows your wealth to compound. Puglia explained, “We’ll look under
every stone,” searching news reports, economic data, and even rivals’ portfolios for investment ideas. For
each company of interest, Puglia calculated the company’s “selfsustaining growth rate,” multiplying return
on equity by 1 minus the payout ratio (percentage of earnings paid out in dividends). A company with a 25%
return on equity paying out 10% of earnings in dividends, would, for example, have a self-sustaining growth
rate of 22.5%.

I will recommend investing in the blue chip growth fund, Puglia had a great long term return, and it is
possible he won’t keep the same retheme he had in the past, but in my opinion he will better than the most
fund in the same category. And according to yahoo finance he did outperformance the other funds in the
same category

No, I will not recommend investing in the fund, because a mutual fund's past performance doesn't
guarantee its future results. Just because the fund delivered strong performance over the past couple of
decades, it doesn't mean it will continue to do so. The Efficient Market Hypothesis stated that no active
manager can beat the market for long, as their success is only a matter of chance; longer-term, passive
management provides better return. When passively managed funds follow the index closely while more
than 80% of actively managed funds underperform the index, it's clearly a better call to invest in a passive
fund. There are still advocates of active fund managers, but history doesn't prove their point. So, the best
place for most people to look is passively managed index funds. The performance and low cost make them a
clear winner for long-term investment goals.
Yes, I’ll completely recommend and encourage them to invest in Puglia’s Blue Chip Growth Fund for serval
reasons: The fund invested in well-established large and medium-sized companies that had potential for
above-average earnings growth. and that they have a highly regarded world research team that enclosed
more than 250 industry analysts. most importantly they have a Morningstar second-highest rating, four
stars for overall performance, placing it in the top 32.5% of 1,482 funds in its category. they have above-
average returns and below-average risk. they're an excellent choice for long-term investment.

Yes, I would recommend investing in Puglia’s Blue Chip Growth Fund to potential investors . Because the
Blue Chip Growth Fund has consistently performed in recent years, invests in companies that have growing
market share and market size, competitive advantages, and strong fundamentals. The fund is also managed
by experienced management with a demonstrated track record. Since inception in mid1993 to 2016, had
returned an average annual total return of 10.12%, outperforming the 9.12% return of the fund’s
benchmark, the S&P 500. Moreover, the Blue Chip Growth Fund can endure the market downfall during the
2007 Financial Crisis. When faced with adverse market conditions the Fund performed considerably better,
which is also indicative of their growth and stability. So, I can say that the Fund has a significant advantage
over other funds as they can tide over market volatility. I would recommend investing in Puglia’s Blue Chip
Growth Fund for investors who have a low-risk appetite, and not for those who want quick returns in a short
time.
I will suggest investing in Pagulia's Blue Chip Growth fund because it's a profitable investment for my
wealthy client who wants to invest in equity investment. It performed well for investors in 2016 . As I know
that Pugalia's Blue Chip Growth fund performed better than SP 500 recently and more and investors are
interested to invest in the fund. So according to me, such equity is a good investment for the client. As a
wealthy client, he will probably be risk-tolerant. So equity investment is the right choice and the same
selection of Pugalia's Blue Chip Growth fund provides the best alternative for him

As TRBCX invests in well-known companies- as mentioned in Q.2- with above-average potential for earnings
growth, and since the Fund is not a low-risk fund, therfour this fund can be a good fit in the investment
strategy, specially for those who focus is on long-term capital appreciation as opposed to current income.

I would advise investing in Puglia’s Blue-Chip Growth Fund to potential investors. The BlueChip Growth Fund
has consistently performed well. The Fund invests in companies that has increasing market share and
competitive advantages. Potential investors need to be aware that this Fund grows slowly over time and
does not provide quick returns as the Fund only focused on the long-run returns. For context, $10,000
invested in the Fund in 1993 would have grown to $94,021 in assets by 2016. Investing in the Blue-Chip
Growth Fund is great for investors who have low risk appetite, and not for those who want quick returns in
a short period of time.
As per the historical data and the expectation, I would recommend investing in Blue Chip Growth Fund due
to its strategy as it seeks to provide long-term capital growth with income as a secondary objective. The
Fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in the common stocks of large and mediumsized blue-chip growth
companies, focusing on companies with leading market positions, seasoned management, strong financial
fundamentals and generate less volatile returns. The management and experience of Puglia added value to
the Fund as he has reasonable control of the risks, analysis skills with a strong analytical foundation, aware
of not only absolutely profit and loss but also return on capital. I assumed that the market is weak efficient
as the available information are the past only. Therefore, there is a chance that new information that is not
knowing publicly can give the fund an advantage on the market.

the Blue-Chip Growth Fund has an outstanding historic performance with higher returns and sustained
growth rate. I would recommend investing in it as long as my clients are fine with the higher fees.