Mutual funds are typically grouped by their investment objectives or the ‘style’ of their managers. We propose a new empirical to the determination of manager ‘style’. This approach is simple to apply, yet it captures nonlinear patterns of returns that result from virtually all active portfolio management styles. Our classifications are superior to common industry classifications in predicting cross-sectional future performance, as well as past performance, and they also outperform classifications based on risk measures and analogue portfolios. Interestingly, ‘growth’ funds typically break down into several categories that differ in composition and strategy.

Hendricks, Patel, and Zeckhauser (1997) (HPZ) find that the response of current to past returns for mutual funds in the presence of survivorship is nonlinear. In our rejoinder to their paper, we verify their results through simulation, provide some intuition for why the result is true, and evaluate the power of their proposed test based upon the J - shape pattern. Theirs is a useful contribution to the growing literature about the issue of survival biases in empirical finance. It may help to explain puzzling results reported in the mutual fund literature, and may provide a guide for future experimental design. Our investigation of the HPZ results led us to a more complete understanding of how differential volatility affects survival - conditioned returns. Our simulations of the test statistic proposed by HPZ suggest that the power of the test is dependent on the absolute level of the threshold, as well as on the magnitude of the cross - sectional differences in variance. While it would be useful to have a reliable test of the conjecture that survivorship is not driving an observed empirical result, we are only beginning to understand the kind of empirical regularities that survival may induce.