Why are the administrative fees for the three biggest donor-advised funds identical?
The commenters who referred you to the prisoner's dilemma are exactly correct, but I wanted to give a more detailed explanation because I find game theory quite interesting.  The prisoner's dilemma is a classic scenario in game theory where even though it's in the best interests of two or more players to cooperate, they fail to do so. Wikipedia has a simple example using prisoners, but I'll use a simple example using Fidel and Charles, who are fund managers at Fidelity and Charles Schwab, respectively.  To make the table shorter, I abbreviated a bit: INC = increase fees, KEEP=keep fees the same, DEC=decrease fees. Here is the dilemma itself, in the table that shows the resulting market shares if each fund manager follows the course of action in question.  While this example isn't mathematically rigorous because I completely fabricated the numbers, it makes a good example. The most profitable course of action would be both fund managers agreeing to increase their fees, which would keep their market shares the same but increase their profits as they earn more fees. However, this won't happen for several reasons.  Because economies of scale exist in the market for investment funds, it's reasonable to assume in a simple example that as funds grow larger, their costs decrease, so even though a fund manager decreases his fees (betraying the other players), this decrease won't be enough to reduce their profits. In fact, the increased market share resulting from such a decrease may well dominate the decreased fees and lead to higher profits. The prisoner's dilemma is highly applicable to markets such as these because they exist as oligopolies, i.e. markets where a relatively small number of established sellers possess considerable market power. If you actually wanted to model the market for donor-advised funds using game theory, you need to take a few more things into account. Obviously there are more than two firms. It's probably a valid assumption that the market is an oligopoly with significant economies of scale, but I haven't researched this extensively.  There is more than one time period, so some form of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is needed. The market for donor-advised funds is also complicated by the fact that these are philanthropic funds. This may introduce tax implications or the problem of goodwill and institutional opinion of these funds. Although both funds increasing their fees may increase their profits in theory, institutional investors may look on this as a pure profit-seeking and take their funds elsewhere. For example, they may choose to invest in smaller funds with higher fees but better reputations. While reputation is important for any company, it might make more of a difference when the fund/investment vehicle is philanthropic in nature.  I am by no means an expert on game theory, so I'm sure there are other nuances to the situation that I'm unaware of.
"This was an article meant for mass consumption, written by a Yale law professor and an individual who has a PhD in economics (in addition to his practical, on the job experience managing the Yale endowment).  I'm having a hard time believing that it was ""poorly argued.""  As for proof, that's the sort of thing you find in financial and economic journals (for example, [The Effect of Maker-Taker Fees on Investor Order Choice and Execution Quality in U.S. Stock Markets](http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhasbrou/SternMicroMtg/SternMicroMtg2015/Papers/MakerTakerODonoghue.pdf)).    One of the direct takeaways from the above paper states:  *""I find that total trading cost to investors increases, when the taker fee and maker rebate increase, even if the net fee is held fixed. The total trading cost represents the net-of-fees bid-ask spread and the brokerage commission to an investor wanting to buy and then sell the same stock.""*  I'm not here to argue for the paper.  I'm really here to tell you that these guys have far more of a clue than you realize.  ~~A dash of humility on your part may be in order, given the fact that you've already admitted to the reality that you aren't sure of any of this yourself.~~  *Edit*:  Thought I was responding to a different thread." "Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out.  ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price.  Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS.  Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100  The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis  The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share)  I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point.  Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other ""relations"" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of ""VWAP +"" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other ""sponsorship"" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc.   Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?" First and foremost you need to be aware of what you are comparing. In this case, HSBC as traded on the NYSE exchange is not common shares, but an ADR (American Depository Receipt) with a 5:1 ratio from the actual shares. So for most intents and purposes owning one ADR is like owning five common shares. But for special events like dividends, there may be other considerations, such as the depository bank (the institution that created the ADR) may take a percentage. Further, given that some people, accounts or institutions may be required to invest in a given country or not, there may be some permanent price dislocation between the shares and the ADR, which can further lead to discrepancies which are then highlighted by the seeming difference in dividends. The creation mechanism for ETF's ensures that the value of the underlying stocks do not diverge significantly from the Fund's value.  Authorized participants have a strong incentive to arbitrage any pricing differences and create/redeem blocks of stock/etf until the prices are back inline.  Contrary to what was stated in a previous answer, this mechanism lowers the cost of management of ETF's when compared to mutual funds that must access the market on a regular basis when any investors enter/exit the fund. The ETF only needs to create/redeem in a wholesale basis, this allows them to operate with management fees that are much lower than those of a mutual fund.  Expenses Due to the passive nature of indexed strategies, the internal   expenses of most ETFs are considerably lower than those of many mutual   funds. Of the more than 900 available ETFs listed on Morningstar in   2010, those with the lowest expense ratios charged about .10%, while   those with the highest expenses ran about 1.25%. By comparison, the   lowest fund fees range from .01% to more than 10% per year for other   funds. (For more on mutual fund feeds, read Stop Paying High Fees.) "That's an example of the Act applying to an adviser to a fund, not a fund being exempt from the Act.  An adviser to a 3(c)7 fund in this case is taking advantage of a safe harbor pertaining to performance-based compensation set forth in the Act.  The reasoning is that a 3(c)7 fund will by definition most likely be comprised of ""qualified clients."" The prohibition does apply to other private funds - such as 3(c)1 funds.  To the extent that their investors are not ""qualified clients,"" they are unable to charge a performance-based fee." What you may be looking for are multi-manager ETFs; these invest in a basket of diversified funds to get the best out of all of the funds. The problem with multi-manager funds is, of course, that you pay fees twice; once to the fund itself and once to each of the funds in the fund. The low fees on ETFs mean that it is not very profitable to actively maintain one so there are not many around (Googling returns very few). Noting that historic success doesn't guarantee future success and that fees are being applied to fees these funds only really benefit from diversification of manager performance risk. partial source of information and an example of a (non-outperforming) Multi-manager ETF: http://www.etfstrategy.co.uk/advisorshares-sets-date-for-multi-manager-etf-with-charitable-twist-give-53126/ Excellent summary.  I'd add a minor point that it's cheaper to setup and run a hedge fund.  The legal fees associated with starting a 40 Act mutual fund are about $750,000.   A hedge fund cane be setup for about $80,000.   It's also cheaper to keep the hedge fund going as the reporting requirements are much less.    source:  Have setup hedge funds and mutual funds. edit:  A word and source. Edi In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered.  For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated.  The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too. "I just looked at a fund for my client, the fund is T Rowe Price Retirement 2015 (TRRGX).  As stated in the prospectus, it has an annual expense ratio of 0.63%.  In the fine print below the funds expenses, it says  ""While the fund itself charges no management fee, it will indirectly bear its pro-rata share of the expenses of the underlying T. Rowe Price funds in which it invests (acquired funds). The acquired funds are expected to bear the operating expenses of the fund.""  One of it's acquired funds is TROSX which has an expense ratio of 0.86%.  So the total cost of the fund is the weighted average of the ""acquired funds"" expense ratio's plus the listed expense ratio of the fund.  You can see this at http://doc.morningstar.com/docdetail.aspx?clientid=schwab&key=84b36f1bf3830e07&cusip=74149P796 and its all listed in ""Fees and Expenses of the Fund""" "The mutual fund is legally its own company that you're investing in, with its own expenses. Mutual fund expense ratios are a calculated value, not a promise that you'll pay a certain percentage on a particular day. That is to say, at the end of their fiscal year, a fund will total up how much it spent on administration and divide it by the total assets under management to calculate what the expense ratio is for that year, and publish it in the annual report. But you can't just ""pay the fee"" for any given year. In a ""regular"" account, you certainly could look at what expenses were paid for each fund by multiplying the expense ratio by your investment, and use it in some way to figure out how much additional you want to contribute to ""make it whole"" again. But it makes about as much sense as trying to pay the commission for buying a single stock out of one checking account while paying for the share price out of another. It may help you in some sort of mental accounting of expenses, but since it's all your money, and the expenses are all part of what you're paying to be able to invest, it's not really doing much good since money is fungible. In a retirement account with contribution limits, it still doesn't really make sense, since any contribution from outside funds to try to pay for expense ratios would be counted as contributions like any other. Again, I guess it could somehow help you account for how much money you wanted to contribute in a year, but I'm not really sure it would help you much. Some funds or brokerages do have non-expense-ratio-based fees, and in some cases you can pay for those from outside the account. And there are a couple cases where for a retirement account this lets you keep your contributions invested while paying for fees from outside funds. This may be the kind of thing that your coworker was referring to, though it's hard to tell exactly from your description. Usually it's best just to have investments with as low fees as possible regardless, since they're one of the biggest drags on returns, and I'd be very wary of any brokerage-based fees when there are very cheap and free mutual fund brokerages out there." You're right.   That's a large part of what I talked about in my post, I just didn't call it that.  The other provision of Title III (aka CROWDFUND Act) is that all the equity has to be purchased through a brokerage or funding portal. I mentioned those in another post in this thread. This is a Vanguard-specific difference in the sense that in the US, Vanguard is a leader in lowering management fees for the mutual funds  that they offer. Of course, several US mutual fund companies have also been lowering the expense ratio of their mutual funds in recent years because more and  more investors have been paying attention to this particular performance parameter, and opting for funds that have low expense ratios. But many US funds have not reduced their expense ratios very much and continue to have expense ratios of 1% or even higher.  For example, American Funds Developing World Growth and Income Fund (DWGAX) charges a 1.39% expense ratio while their 2060 Retirement Fund (AANTX) charges 1.12% (the funds also have a 5.75% sales charge); Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund charges 1.91% for their Class C shares, and so on.   Many funds with high expense ratios (and sometimes sales charges as well) show up as options in far too many 401(k) plans, especially 401(k) plans of small companies, because small companies do not enjoy economies of scale and do not have much negotiating power when dealing with 401(k) custodians and administrators. They do. The $260 already accounts for fees, I just left that out as I didn't believe it necessary info for the question of how to solve for group B.   Edit : Oh, you mean accounting for the 1.5% interchange for group A? Yeah, I didn't do that. For group A we weren't given a number for monthly spend but we were told that they carry an average monthly balance of $3000. "Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices.  From an investors point of view, this is not important.  What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage.  In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%.  Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the ""compare"" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500.  You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds.  Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing." "The IRS has been particularly vague about the ""substantially identical"" investment part of the wash rule.  Many brokers, Schwab for instance, say that only identical CUSIPs (exactly the same ETF) matter for the wash rule in their internal calculations, but warn that the IRS might consider two ETFs over the same index to be substantially identical.  In your case, the broker has chosen to call these a wash despite even having different underlying indices.  Talking to the broker is the first step as they will report it to the IRS.  Though technically you have the final say in your taxes about the cost basis,  discussing this with the IRS could be rather painful. First though it is probably worth checking with your broker about exactly what happened.  There are other wash sale triggers that frequently trip people up that may have been in play here."