American Finance Association
On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance Author(s): Mark M. Carhart Source: The Journal of Finance, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 57-82 Published by: Wiley for the American Finance Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2329556 . Accessed: 09/10/2013 23:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Wiley and American Finance Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Finance.
This content downloaded from 22.214.171.124 on Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:42:22 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE . VOL. LII, NO. 1 . MARCH 1997
in Mutual Fund Performance
MARK M. CARHART* 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 underperformanceby the worst-return mutual funds. The results do not support the existence of skilled or informed mutual fund portfolio managers.
INMUTUAL performance does not reflect superior stock-picking PERSISTENCE FUND