We calculate the alpha of a survivorship bias-free sample of Swedish-registered actively managed emerging market equity mutual funds (with at least 10 years of return data), using long-short and long-only versions of several asset pricing models: the CAPM, the Fama-French three-factor model, the Carhart four-factor model, the Fama-French five-factor model and a six-factor model that adds the momentum factor to a modified Fama-French five-factor model. We find that our sample of mutual funds has statistically significant negative alpha (on a 5% level) using the CAPM, the Fama-French three-factor model and the long-only Fama-French three-factor model and non-statistically significant negative alpha for all other asset pricing models. It is reasonable to assume that our sample overestimates the performance of the universe of Swedish-registered actively managed emerging market equity mutual funds, so it is reasonable to assume that the universe of Swedish-registered actively managed emerging market equity mutual funds likely has negative alpha. We also find that our sample of mutual funds has statistically significant factor loadings on the market factor (positive load), the SMB factor (negative load) and the CMA factor (negative load). Our asset pricing models explain 97% to 98% of the mutual fund returns. The distributions of alphas and SMB factor loadings are fairly normally distributed, but the other factor loadings are not normally distributed.

Seven out of ten Swedes save voluntarily in funds, and if premium pensions and pension savings are taken into account, almost all adults save. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in sustainable funds, with more than a third choosing a sustainable fund to invest in. There is a disagreement in the existing research as to whether sustainable funds are a better option than conventional ones.  The study examined whether sustainable funds underperformed conventional funds on the variables of return, standard deviation and Sharpe ratio. The study's measurement period covered 21 April 2019 to 21 April 2024, for Swedish-registered funds in the industrial sector. The study conducted a quantitative approach using t-tests and regression analyses to examine performance across categories. The study obtained secondary data from Morningstar and used the Morningstar Sustainability Rating to categorise the funds. Funds with a rating of 1-3 were defined as conventional and sustainable as those with a rating of 4-5.  From the data collected in the study, the authors concluded that the t-test between conventional and sustainable funds was significant based on the standard deviation variable, while the other variables were not significant. Like the t-test, the regression analysis between sustainability ratings and standard deviation was significant and the other regressions were not significant. The study does not find that sustainable funds are characterised by lower returns, higher risk or lower risk-adjusted returns compared to conventional funds. / Sju av tio svenskar sparar frivilligt i fonder och tar man hänsyn till premiepensionen och pensionssparande så sparar nästan alla vuxna. Under de senare åren har det växt fram ett intresse för hållbara fonder, där mer än en tredjedel har valt en hållbar fond att investera i. Det finns en oenighet i den befintliga forskningen huruvida hållbara fonder är ett bättre alternativ än konventionella.  Studien undersökte om hållbara fonder presterade sämre än konventionella fonder utifrån variablerna avkastning, standardavvikelse och Sharpekvot. Studiens mätperiod avsåg 2019-04-21 till 2024-04-21, för svenskregistrerade fonder inom industrisektorn. Studien genomförde en kvantitativ ansats med hjälp av t-tester och regressionsanalyser för att undersöka prestationen mellan kategorierna. Studien inhämtade sekundärdata från Morningstar och har använt Morningstar Sustainability Rating för att kategorisera fonderna. Fonder som innehar 1-3 i betyg definierades som konventionella och hållbara som innehar 4-5 i betyg.  Av studiens inhämtade data, konstaterade författarna att t-testet mellan konventionella och hållbara fonder var signifikant utifrån variabeln standardavvikelse medan de övriga variablerna inte var signifikanta. Likt t-testet var regressionsanalysen mellan hållbarhetsbetyg och standardavvikelse signifikant och de övriga regressionerna var ej signifikanta. Studien kan inte konstatera att hållbara fonder kännetecknas av en lägre avkastning, en högre risk eller en lägre riskjusterad avkastning gentemot konventionella fonder.