Home/Financial Markets and Investment Strategies

On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance

The Journal of Finance· 1997-03-01· article· 17,267 citationsbronze

Financial Markets and Investment Strategies Corporate Finance and Governance Financial Analysis and Corporate Governance

Abstract

ABSTRACT Using a sample free of survivor bias, I demonstrate that common factors in stock returns and investment expenses almost completely explain persistence in equity mutual funds' mean and risk‐adjusted returns. Hendricks, Patel and Zeckhauser's (1993) “hot hands” result is mostly driven by the one‐year momentum effect of Jegadeesh and Titman (1993) , but individual funds do not earn higher returns from following the momentum strategy in stocks. The only significant persistence not explained is concentrated in strong underperformance by the worst‐return mutual funds. The results do not support the existence of skilled or informed mutual fund portfolio managers.

Cite this

Mark M. Carhart (1997). On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance. The Journal of Finance. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03808.x

@article{m1997on,
  title  = {On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance},
  author = {Carhart, Mark M.},
  year   = {1997},
  journal = {The Journal of Finance},
  doi    = {10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03808.x}
}

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17,267 citations exist upstream.

References

1993Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds

1964CAPITAL ASSET PRICES: A THEORY OF MARKET EQUILIBRIUM UNDER CONDITIONS OF RISK*

1973Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests

1993Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency

1965The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets

1975THE VALUATION OF RISK ASSETS AND THE SELECTION OF RISKY INVESTMENTS IN STOCK PORTFOLIOS AND CAPITAL BUDGETS**This paper is another in a series of interrelated theoretical and statistical studies of corporate financial and investment policies being made under grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, and more recently the Ford Foundation, to the Harvard Business School. The generous support for this work is most gratefully acknowledged. The author is also much indebted to his colleagues Professors Bishop, Christenson, Kahr, Raiffa, and (especially) Schlaifer, for extensive discussion and commentary on an earlier draft of this paper; but responsibility for any errors or imperfections remains strictly his own.[Professor Sharpe's paper, “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions of Risk” (Journal of Finance, September 1964) appeared after this paper was in final form and on its way to the printers. My first section, which parallels the first half of his paper (with corresponding conclusions), sets the algebraic framework for sections II, III and VI, (which have no counterpart in his paper) and for section IV on the equilibrium prices of risk assets, concerning which our results differ significantly for reasons which will be explored elsewhere. Sharpe does not take up the capital budgeting problem developed in section V below.]

1996Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies

Cited by

2002Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects

2014A five-factor asset pricing model

1996Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies

2003Corporate Governance and Equity Prices

2001Boys will be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock Investment

2015ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies

2006The Cross‐Section of Volatility and Expected Returns

2007All That Glitters: The Effect of Attention and News on the Buying Behavior of Individual and Institutional Investors