How to understand expenses matter relative to investment type for mutual funds?
The net return reported to you (as a percentage) by a mutual fund is the gross return minus the expense ratio.  So, if the gross return is X% and the expense ratio is Y%, your account will show a return of (X-Y)%.  Be aware that X could be negative too. So, with Y = 1, If X = 10 (as you might get from a stock fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 9% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 10% of the gross return. If X = 8 (as you might get from a bond fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 7% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 12.5% of the gross return. and so on and so forth.  The numbers used are merely examples of the returns that have been obtained historically, though it is worth emphasizing that 10% is an average return, averaged over many decades, from investments in stocks, and to believe that one will get a 10% return year after year is to mislead oneself very badly. I think the point of the illustrations is that expense ratios are important, and should matter a lot to you, but that their impact is proportionately somewhat less if the gross return  is high, but very significant if the gross return is low, as  in money-market funds.  In fact, some money market funds which  found that X < Y have even foregone charging the expense ratio  fee so as to maintain a fixed $1 per share price.  Personally,  I would need a lot of persuading to invest in even a stock fund with 1% expense ratio.
12b1 refers to a specific marketing fee on funds in my world. are you referring to the expense ratio?  yes - that is what fund wholesalers will do. another practice that won't affect your cost though.  basically what i want to express is that you shouldn't need a flowchart to understand your fees. it is simply the layers of management that will raise your cost, in addition to any transactional fees. You do realize that the fund will have management expenses that are likely already factored into the NAV and that when you sell, the NAV will not yet be known, right? There are often fees to run a mutual fund that may be taken as part of managing the fund that are already factored into the Net Asset Value(NAV) of the shares that would be my caution as well as possible fee changes as Dilip Sarwate notes in a comment. Expense ratios are standard for mutual funds, yes. Individual stocks that represent corporations not structured as a mutual fund don't declare a ratio of how much are their costs, e.g. Apple or Google may well invest in numerous other companies but the costs of making those investments won't be well detailed though these companies do have non-investment operations of course. Don't forget to read the fund's prospectus as sometimes a fund will have other fees like account maintenance fees that may be taken out of distributions as well as being aware of how taxes will be handled as you don't specify what kind of account these purchases are being done using. "This is another semantics question.  Again what matters is how the words are commonly used, as the usage came about long before the technical definitions. In this case, when people say ""mutual fund,"" they are often including both unit investment trusts and closed end funds.  Despite the labels the SEC has given in order to differentiate them, I'd say it's common (typical) practice to think of a closed-end fund as a type of mutual fund, rather than a different category altogether.  That's the way I've seen it used, anyway." "The Fidelity funds have an expense ratio, and while some funds may have little to no profit, having you as a customer lets them try to sell you on their managed account/portfolio and other services.  It's possible they don't make much or any money from you at all, but with so many accounts it's fine as long as it averages out. Similar to having a credit card and never paying interest on it, but reaping the rewards anyway. Averaged out, they make plenty of money across all accounts. An expense ratio is usually given as a percentage, and it's the amount you pay for the fund per year. If it has a 1% ER, and you have $1,000 invested in it, then it costs you $10 for the year (a very simplified example). You won't notice this as a direct transaction since it gets taken from the funds assets directly, but this is lowering the return (or worsening the loss) on the fund. You can find the ER in your Fidelity account for any funds that are available to you. Something else I thought of is that you add liquidity to their funds, and your assets increase the amount ""under management"" which may be a selling point, may lower overall costs, etc." "I have some money invested on Merrill Edge. 2 days ago I purchased some mutual funds with most of the rest of my money in my account. I logged in today to see how it did, and noticed that there are 3 sections: Priced Investments, Cash &amp; Money Accounts, and Pending Activity. In the Cash &amp; Money section, there shows a negative balance of Cash (let's say -$1,000) and a positive ""Money Account Value"" (let's say +$1,100).  The ""Money Account"" appears to be made up of $1 shares of something called ""ML Direct Deposit Program"". However, even though the mutual fund purchase was made 2 days ago, and the shares of the mutual funds are officially in my account, I'm still showing all of my ""Money Account"" shares ($1000). The balance sheet effectively makes it look like I somehow needed to have ""sold"" back my money account shares, converted them to cash, and then bought the funds. I'm hoping that isn't the case, and for some reason, there is a multiday lag between me buying stock and money getting deducted from my ""Money Account"". Hope that all makes sense.  TLDR: what's the diff between a Cash account and Money Account that's filled with shares of "" ML Direct Deposit Program""?  Edit: Today the cash and money account offset by equal values equal to one of my mutual fund purchases." Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs?  For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI).  Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually.  For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different.   In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy.  I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds.  For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis.  Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess. 1: Low fees means: a Total Expense Ratio of less than 0,5%. One detail you may also want to pay attention to whether the fund reinvests returns (Thesaurierender Fonds) which is basically good for investing, but if it's also a foreign-based fund then taxes get complicated, see http://www.finanztip.de/indexfonds-etf/thesaurierende-fonds/ "You're correct that the trading costs would be covered by the expense ratio. Just to be clear here, the expense ratio is static and doesn't change very often. It's set in such a way that the fund manager *expects* it to cover *all* of their operational costs. It's not some sort of slider that they move around with their costs.  I'm not familiar with any ETF providers doing agreements which cover rent and equipment (hedge funds do - see ""hedge fund hotels""). ETF providers do routinely enter into agreements with larger institutions that cover stuff like marketing. PowerShares, for a while, outsourced all of the management of the Qs to BNY and was responsible solely for marketing it themselves." I question the reliability of the information you received.  Of course, it's possible the former 401(k) provider happened to charge lower expense ratios on its index funds than other available funds and lower the new provider's fees.  There are many many many financial institutions and fees are not fixed between them.  I think the information you received is simply an assumptive justification for the difference in fees. Should you care? From Vanguard: The long-term impact of investment costs on portfolio balances   Assuming a starting balance of $100,000 and a yearly return of 6%, which is reinvested Check out this chart, reflecting the impact of relatively small expense ratios on your 30 year return:  All else being equal you should very much care about expense ratios. You end up with a significantly smaller amount if your pre-expense return is the same. A 0.75% difference in ER compounds to 20% over 30 years. If so, how should I take them into consideration when comparing funds? I'm in the U.S. if that matters. If they track the same index, cheaper is better. The cases where higher expense ratios might be better are if you believe that index will outperform the market by enough to recoup the cost of the ER.  There is significant research that most funds do not do this. Over the past five years, QFVOX has returned 13.67%, compared to the index fund SPY that has returned 50.39%. SEVAX has lost 23.96%. AKREX has returned 81.82%. In two of your three examples, you would have done much better in an index fund with a very low expense ratio as suggested. While one can never, as you see, make a generalization, in almost every case, most investors will do better, and often much better, with an index fund with a low expense ratio. My source was Google Finance. Thanks very much.  12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at.  I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what.   For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account.  I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc.  I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree.  I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1% In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees. "YES.. Management fees cut directly into your profits. A fund which achieves 8% growth but costs 1% to maintain delivers only 7% to you. Compounded over years, even a relatively small difference can add up to a significant amount of money. This is one of the advantages index funds have. They may not be as ""sophisticated"" as human-managed funds, but their expense ratio is so much lower that the end result for the investor is often as good as or better than the more expensive products. In fact, at least one study found that, for each category they researched, low expense ratio was a better predictor of good return on investment than anything else they looked at. That doesn't mean cheapest is always best or most expensive is always worst .... but it does mean you should be very, very sure an expensive fund really is that much better before choosing it. And sticking with simple index funds may be a perfectly reasonable choice." The expense ratio is 0.17% so doesnt that mean that for every 10K I   keep in the money market fund I lose $17/year?  Not really. The expense ratio is taken before distributions are paid which applies to all mutual funds. Should I care about this?  In this case not really. If it was a taxable account, then other options may be more tax-efficient that is worth noting. The key with money market funds is that the expense ratio often represents how much money the administrators will take before paying out the rest. So, if your money market fund bought investments that paid .25% then you'd likely see .08% as that is what is left over after the .17% is taken in the dividends. If at the start of the year, the funds NAV is $1, and at the end of   the year, the funds NAV is still $1, I havent lost anything right? Right. Wikipedia has a good article on money market funds. Keep in mind that most money market funds are run as one of a number of funds from a fund family that may have to take a little less profit on the money market funds when rates are low.