This data is essential for studying "survivorship bias", which is the tendency for failed companies to be excluded from performance studies because they no longer exist and this skews industry studies by measuring only successful performers.

Investors who do not want to be blind-sided, as they were by trusting the giant Unit Trust of India for a quarter of the last century, need to look out for four issues.

First, is their chosen scheme really capable of delivering on its advertising promise? For instance, at the height of the IPO scam, Sebi cleared a Stanchart scheme that planned to apply for IPOs and flip them on listing to book profits for investors. At least that is what Stanchart officials told the media. Given that individual investors are more discerning about IPO investments, it remains to be seen how this will deliver. We recently saw a slew of 'rural oriented schemes', but it is unclear if they will find adequate investment options in this much-hyped sector, or are merely luring investors with a new gimmick? Also, will contrarian funds really dare to go contrary to the market in the middle of a monster bull run that shows no signs of flagging?

A second key question is, does the fine print on investment strategies meet the broadly stated objective of a scheme, or is aimed at empowering fund managers to play the market? When a fund calls itself a balanced fund, why is it heavily loaded in favour of equity? Why should a balanced fund want to change the 'balance' or investment mix at will, put your money in derivatives, commodities, indulge in arbitrage play or invest in overseas markets?

... contd.