Journal of Asset Management

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 398–408 | Cite as

Do mutual funds with few holdings outperform the market?

  • Abhay KaushikEmail author
  • Scott W Barnhart
Original Article


This paper investigates the performance of mutual funds that hold a small number of stocks in their portfolio. Similar to results reported in the literature for the average diversified mutual fund, our results indicate that the average small holding fund does not outperform the S&P 500 index. On average, small holding funds under-perform the market on a risk and investment style adjusted basis by about −20 basis points per month, or by −2.40 per cent per year. We also find that there is a sharp contrast between the performance of Winner and Loser portfolios. On average, Winner portfolios outperform the S&P composite index by 410 basis points per month, or an astounding 49.2 per cent per annum, whereas Losers under-perform by 320, or −38.4 per cent per annum, over the same period. Cross sectional regressions indicate that Winner portfolio abnormal performance is positively and significantly related to fund turnover and the per cent of the fund's assets invested in their top 10 most heavily weighted holdings. Results for Loser portfolios show that abnormal performance deteriorates significantly with turnover, concentration and expenses, but rises with Load and Size.


mutual fund performance expense ratio turnover ratio holdings 


  1. Berk, J. B. and Green, R. C. (2004) Mutual fund flows and performance in rational markets. Journal of Political Economy 112 (6): 1269–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carhart, M. M. (1997) On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance 52: 57–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, J., Hong, H., Huang, M. and Kubik, J. D. (2004) Does fund size erode mutual fund performance? The role of liquidity and organization. American Economic Review 94: 1276–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chevalier, J. and Ellison, G. (1999) Are some mutual fund managers better than others? Cross-sectional patterns in behavior and performance. Journal of Finance LIV: 875–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chordia, T. (1996) The structure of mutual fund charges. Journal of Financial Economics 41: 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fama, E. F. and French, K. R. (1993) Common risk factors in the return on bonds and stocks. Journal of Financial Economics 33: 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hagstrom, R. G. (1999) The Warren Buffet Portfolio: Mastering the Power of the Focus Investment Strategy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  8. Hansen, B. E. (1999) Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and inference. Journal of Econometrics 93: 345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kacperczyk, M., Sialm, C. and Zheng, L. (2005) On the industry concentration of actively managed equity mutual funds. Journal of Finance 60: 1983–2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nanda, V., Wang, J. Z. and Zheng, L. (2004) Family values and the star phenomenon: Strategies of mutual fund families. Review of Financial Studies 17: 667–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shawky, H. A. and Smith, D. M. (2005) Optimal number of stock holdings in mutual fund portfolios based on market performance. The Financial Review 40: 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wermers, R. (2000) Mutual fund performance: An empirical decomposition into stock-picking talent, style, transaction costs, and expenses. Journal of Finance 55: 1655–1703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AccountingFinance and Business Law, Radford UniversityVirginiaUSA

Personalised recommendations