NAFA Asset Managers’ Clean Tech Portfolio followed closely with a 16% return. Negen Capital’s Special Situations and Technology Fund gained 15.35%, while Nine Rivers Capital’s Aurum Small Cap Opportunities returned 14.4%. Samvitti Capital’s PMS Aggressive Growth strategy also featured prominently with a 14.39% return in May.
Ambit Investment Advisors’ Emerging Giants strategy posted a 14.29% gain, and Waya Financial Technologies’ Bin73 Sunrise Alpha, a new entrant in the small and midcap segment, rose 14.14%. Anand Rathi’s Decennium Opportunity strategy returned 13.91%, while Bonanza Portfolio’s Multicap fund and Accelt’s Long Term Equity Fund gained 13.87% and 13.80%, respectively.
Other funds in the top 15 include portfolios managed by Samvitti Capital, ithought Financial, Master Portfolio Services, and Tulsian PMS, each delivering monthly gains of over 13%.
Bottom performers: Elever, Aequitas, Axis strategies underperform
While many strategies posted double-digit gains, a few funds underperformed during the month. Elever Investment Adviser’s Factorshields PMS was the biggest laggard, slipping 0.91%, followed by its Factoralpha PMS, which declined 0.58%.
Live Events
Aequitas Investment Consultancy’s India Opportunities Product lost 0.33%, while Axis Securities’ AlphaSense AI strategy declined 0.30%. Invasset’s Growth Pro Max fell 0.26%, and Kotak Mahindra AMC’s Pharma and Healthcare strategy was down 0.23%.
Other funds with relatively muted performance include Profusion Investment’s Income Enhancer (up 0.11%), PRPEdge Wealth’s Alphaa Better Risk Reward (up 0.13%), and Agreya Capital’s Multi-Asset Enhancer (up 0.21%).
In May, the performance gap among PMS strategies was wide, with high-beta smallcap and thematic strategies staging a sharp rebound, while select sectoral, quant-based, and hybrid portfolios struggled to keep pace.
Also read | PMS Tracker: Top 15 funds gain up to 10% in April, while quant, smallcap strategies falter
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times)
