Do last year's top funds keep winning? We checked 496 equity funds
“Last year's winner is next year's dog” is repeated as gospel. In our data, 80% of winners stayed on top.
Everyone knows the disclaimer: "past performance does not indicate future results." It's on every fund document, and the folk version is blunter — last year's chart-topper is next year's dog. It's repeated so often that it's assumed true. So we checked it against our own data, and in this window it simply wasn't.
We took every equity fund with at least two years of history, ranked them by their return in the prior year, and asked what the top decile did the following year. If the folk wisdom held, most of them should have dropped to the middle of the pack or worse.
| Last year's top-decile equity funds — what happened next | Value |
|---|---|
| Equity funds with 2-year history | 496 |
| Top-decile funds that FELL below median the next year | 20% (10 of 49) |
| Top-decile funds that STAYED above median | 80% |
| Top-decile median return, following year | 7.5% |
| All-fund median return, same year | 3.2% |
Persistence, not reversion
Eighty percent of last year's leaders stayed above the median the next year, and as a group they returned 7.5% against the all-fund median of 3.2% — more than double. That's the opposite of "the winner becomes the loser." It's momentum, and it shouldn't be surprising: cross-sectional momentum is one of the most durable, best-documented effects in all of finance. What worked tends to keep working, for a while.
Why this is not a green light to chase
Here's the honest other half, and it matters more than the headline. This is one window, and it happens to be a momentum-friendly one. Persistence is regime-dependent: in a sharp reversal — the kind that punctuates every market cycle — yesterday's leaders can lag the hardest, precisely because they were the most crowded. Momentum is real, but it is not a guarantee, and it unwinds violently when it turns.
So the takeaway isn't "buy last year's winners." It's more useful than that: past performance is not pure noise the way the disclaimer implies — there's real, measurable persistence — but it's a conditional edge, not a promise. Treat a strong track record as evidence, weigh it against how crowded and extended the fund's category already is, and size for the possibility that the regime turns.
How this connects to the market as a whole
The same effect shows up on the stock side, where we treat momentum as a measured candidate rather than a proven signal — positive so far, but capable of being one regime's tailwind. The discipline is identical for funds: respect the persistence, distrust the certainty.
Key takeaways
- In this window, 80% of last year's top-decile equity funds stayed above median — not the folk-wisdom reversal.
- The top decile returned 7.5% the next year vs a 3.2% all-fund median — real persistence.
- That's momentum, the most-documented effect in finance — what worked tends to keep working, for a while.
- But persistence is regime-dependent; in a reversal, crowded leaders can fall hardest.
- Past performance isn't noise — but it's a conditional edge, not a promise. Don't blind-chase.
See these ideas on real stocks
StockLearn runs this read on ~2,000 NSE stocks every evening. Nifty 50 is free, no login.
Browse today's scan →This article reports figures computed from StockLearn's own fund dataset (AMFI NAV data, direct-growth plans) over a specific period. It is educational research, not investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any fund. Past performance does not predict future returns.