This paper examines the persistence in mutual fund performance, using a sample free of survivor bias. The author demonstrates that common factors in stock returns and investment expenses largely explain the persistence in equity mutual funds' mean and risk-adjusted returns. The "hot hands" effect observed by Hendricks, Patel, and Zeckhauser (1993) is primarily driven by the one-year momentum effect of Jegadeesh and Titman (1993), but individual funds do not consistently earn higher returns by following momentum strategies. The only significant persistence not explained is the strong underperformance by the worst-return mutual funds. The study concludes that mutual fund persistence does not reflect superior stock-picking skills, and the existence of skilled or informed mutual fund portfolio managers is not supported by the evidence. The analysis also shows that expenses and turnover have a negative impact on fund performance, with trading reducing performance by approximately 0.95% of the trade's market value. The results suggest that the persistence in mutual fund performance is primarily driven by common factors, expenses, and transaction costs.This paper examines the persistence in mutual fund performance, using a sample free of survivor bias. The author demonstrates that common factors in stock returns and investment expenses largely explain the persistence in equity mutual funds' mean and risk-adjusted returns. The "hot hands" effect observed by Hendricks, Patel, and Zeckhauser (1993) is primarily driven by the one-year momentum effect of Jegadeesh and Titman (1993), but individual funds do not consistently earn higher returns by following momentum strategies. The only significant persistence not explained is the strong underperformance by the worst-return mutual funds. The study concludes that mutual fund persistence does not reflect superior stock-picking skills, and the existence of skilled or informed mutual fund portfolio managers is not supported by the evidence. The analysis also shows that expenses and turnover have a negative impact on fund performance, with trading reducing performance by approximately 0.95% of the trade's market value. The results suggest that the persistence in mutual fund performance is primarily driven by common factors, expenses, and transaction costs.