How many times have we heard a TV pitchman holler, "We deal in volume and pass the savings along to you!" Now imagine the same guy saying, "We deal in volume and pass the savings along to ... us!" That may be the secret snicker of your mutual fund company.
The question is, what are you going to do about it?
As the fund industry has swelled in the past dozen years $770 billion in assets to more than $4.5 trillion, creating huge economies of scale, average expenses charged to stock-fund investors have actually risen, from 1.28% to 1.55%. The same trend applies to bond funds, whose average expense ratio is 1.08%, versus 0.89% twelve years ago.
Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free E-Newsletters
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more - straight to your e-mail.
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice - straight to your e-mail.
Scudder Development, an aggressive-growth fund with below-average returns, generates more than $12.5 million in fees each year from its 1.52% expense ratio. The gigantic Kaufmann fund grossed $67.9 million in 1999 by paying itself 1.94% of its $3.5 billion in assets.
Higher expenses hurt fund returns
By definition, expenses nip a percentage of your mutual fund assets each year. The higher the expense ratio, the harder it is to beat market indexes or category averages.
You're probably saying, I know that, I know that.
But the extent to which returns dwindle because of higher expenses may surprise you because the expenses are deducted before the fund reports results to shareholders.
We divided the 1,100-plus long-term-growth funds into two groups: those with expense ratios above the average for the category and those with ratios below the norm. On average, those with lower expense ratios returned two percentage points a year more than funds with above-average expenses the past five years.
So if you dropped $10,000 into a higher-expense long-term-growth fund five years ago, you'd have about $1,500 less today than if you'd invested in a lower-expense fund. And if you were saving for a long-term goal--say, retirement 25 years away--you'd have 50% more at the end of that time with the lower-expense fund. (This assumes a 10% return for the high-expense fund, versus a 12% return for the low-expense fund.)
The results are the same in virtually every other fund category--the low-expense funds return more, on average, than the high-expense funds. The exception is high-quality corporate-bond funds. In that category, the high-expense funds do better.
-
The Big Questions for AR’s FutureThe Letter As Meta shows off a flashy AR prototype, Microsoft quietly stops supporting its own AR headset. The two companies highlight the promise and peril of AR.
-
China's Economy Faces Darkening OutlookThe Letter What the slowdown in China means for U.S. businesses.
-
Should We Worry About the Slowing U.S. EconomyThe Letter With the labor market cooling off and financial markets turning jittery, just how healthy is the economy right now?
-
Kiplinger Special: How Businesses Should Budget for 2025Kiplinger Forecasts From fuel to AI software subscriptions, here's what you can expect to pay next year.
-
Intel Braces for an Even Tougher Road AheadThe Kiplinger Letter Amid a long, costly turnaround, Intel resets expectations again. Its new woes raise questions about U.S. industrial policy and global chip competition.
-
Kiplinger Special: The Long-Term Future of the U.S. Economy
The Kiplinger Letter Kiplinger's report into what it will take the U.S. to maintain a healthy economic growth rate.
-
Fed Rate Cuts Still on HoldThe Kiplinger Letter With inflation stubbornly elevated, the Federal Reserve will keep interest rates high for now.
-
A Spotlight on the Pacific States: The Kiplinger LetterThe Kiplinger Letter Most Pacific states are seeing good job growth in multiple sectors including tourism, hospitality, and construction.
