High expense ratio funds - are they worth it?
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. In almost every circumstance high expense ratios are a bad idea. I would say every circumstance, but I don't want backlash from anyone. There are many other investment companies out there that offer mutual funds for FAR less than 1.5% ratio. I couldn't even imagine paying a 1% expense ratio for a mutual fund.  Vanguard offers mutual funds that are significantly lower, on average, than the industry. Certainly MUCH lower than 1.5%, but then again I'm not sure what mutual funds you have, stock, bonds, etc.  Here is a list of all Vanguard's mutual funds. I honestly like the company a lot, many people haven't heard of them because they don't spend nearly as much money on advertisements or a flashy website - but they have extremely low expense ratios. You can buy into many of their mutual funds with a 0.10%-0.20% expense ratio. Some are higher, but certainly not even close to 1.5%. I don't believe any of them are even half of that. Also, if you were referring to ETF's when you mentioned Index Fund (assuming that since you have ETFs in your tag), then 0.20% for ETF's is steep, check out some identical ETFs on Vanguard. I am not a Vanguard employee soliciting their service to you. I'm just trying to pass on good information to another investor. I believe you can buy vanguard funds through other investment companies, like Fidelity, for a good price, but I prefer to go through them. The 10 year comparison between your fund and the S&P 500 -   I'd say more, but not sure it's needed.
I looked a bit at the first 3, .24% expense.  There's a direction to not discuss individual investments here, so the rest of my answer will need to lean generic. I see you have 5 funds. I'm surmising it's an attempt at 'diversifying'. I'll ask you - what do these five, when combined, offer that a straight S&P 500 index (or some flavor of extended market) doesn't?  I've gone through the exercise of looking at portfolios with a dozen funds and found overlap so great that 2 or 3 funds would have been sufficient.  There are S&P funds that are as low as .05%. this difference may not seem like much, but it adds over time.  To your last point, I'd consider a Solo 401(k) as you're self employed. One that offers the Roth option if you are in the marginal 15% bracket. 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. The math works out so that the 401k is still a better deal in the long term over a taxable account because of the tax-deferred growth. Let's assume you invest in an S&P 500 index fund in either a taxable investment account or a 401k and the difference in fees is .5%. I used an online calculator and a hypothetical 1k/year investment over 30 years with 4.5% tax-deferred growth vs 5% taxable and a 25% tax bracket. After 30 years the tax-deferred 401k account will have $67k and the taxable account will have $58k. The math isn't perfect -- I'm sure I'm missing some intricacies with dividends/capital gains distributions and that you'll then pay income tax on the 401k upon retirement as you drawn down, but it still seems pretty clear that the 401k will win in the long run, especially if you invest more than the 1k/year used in my example. But yeah, .84% expenses on an index fund is robbery. Can you bring that to the attention of the HR department? Maybe they'll want to look for a lower-fee provider and it's in their best interest too, if they also participate. There's really no right or wrong answer here because you'll be fine either way. If you've investing amounts in the low 5 figures you're likely just getting started, and if your asset allocation is not optimal it's not that big a deal because you have a long time horizon to adjust it, and the expense ratio differences here won't add up to that much. A third option is Vanguard ETFs, which have the expense ratio of Admiral Shares but have lower minimums (i.e. the cost of a single share, typically on the order of $100). However, they are a bit more advanced than mutual funds in that they trade on the market and require you to place orders rather than just specifying the amount you want to buy. A downside here is you might end up with a small amount of cash that you can't invest, since you can initially only buy whole numbers of ETFs shares. So what I'd recommend is buying roughly the correct number of ETFs shares you want except for your largest allocation, then use the rest of your cash on Admiral Shares of that (if possible). For example, let's say you have $15k to invest and you want to be 2/3 U.S. stock, 1/6 international stock, and 1/6 U.S. bond. I would buy as many shares of VXUS (international stock ETF) and BND (U.S. bond ETF) as you can get for $2500 each, then whatever is left over (~$10k) put into VTSAX (U.S. stock Admiral Shares mutual fund). $10.90 for every $1000 per year. Are you kidding me!!! These are usually hidden within the expense ratio of the plan funds, but >1% seems to be quite a lot regardless. FUND X 1 year return 3% 3 year return 6% 10 year return 5% What does   that exactly mean? This is the average annual rate of return. If measured for the last 3 years, the average annual rate of return is 6%, if measured for 1 year - it's 3%. What it means is that out of the last 3 years, the last year return was not the best, the previous two were much better. Does that mean that if I hold my mutual funds for 10 years I will get   5% return on it. Definitely not. Past performance doesn't promise anything for the future. It is merely a guidance for you, a comparison measure between the funds. You can assume that if in the past the fund performed certain way, then given the same conditions in the future, it will perform the same again. But it is in no way a promise or a guarantee of anything. Since my 401K plan stinks what are my options. If I put my money in a   traditional IRA then I lose my pre tax benefits right! Wrong, IRA is pre-tax as well. But the pre-tax deduction limits for IRA are much lower than for 401k.  You can consider investing in the 401k, and then rolling over to a IRA which will allow better investment options. After your update: Just clearing up the question. My current employer has a 401K. Most of   the funds have the expense ratio of 1.20%. There is NO MATCHING   CONTRIBUTIONS. Ouch. Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and   start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K   plan with high fees. You should probably consider rolling over the old company 401k to a traditional IRA. However, it is unrelated to the current employer's 401k. If you're contributing up to the max to the Roth IRA, you can't add any additional contributions to traditional IRA on top of that - the $5000 limit is for both, and the AGI limitations for Roth are higher, so you're likely not able to contribute anything at all to the traditional IRA. You can contribute to the employer's 401k. You have to consider if the rather high expenses are worth the tax deferral for you. and seems to do better than the S&P 500 too. No, that's not true. In fact, this fund is somewhere between S&P500 and the NASDAQ Composite indexes wrt to performance. From my experience (I have it too), it seems to fall almost in the middle between SPY and QQQ in daily moves. So it does provide diversification, but you're basically diversifying between various indexes. The cost is the higher expense ratios (compare VTI to VOO). "Of course CDs are worth it compared to the stock market. In fact, most institutional investors are envious of the CDs you have access to as an individual investor that are unavailable to them. You just need to be competent enough to shop around for the best rates and understand your time horizon. There are several concepts to understand here: Banks give out CDs with competitive rates projecting future interest rates. So while the Federal funds rate is currently extremely low, banks know that in order to get any takers on their CDs they have to factor in the public expectation that rates will rise, so if you lock in a longer term CD you get a competitive rate. Institutional investors do not have access to FDIC insured CDs and the closest analog they participate in are the auctions and secondary markets of US Treasuries. These two types of assets have equivalent default (non-)risk if held to maturity: backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Here are the current rates (as of question's date) taken from Vanguard that I can get on CDs versus Treasuries (as an individual investor). Notice that CDs outperform Treasuries across any maturity timescale! For fixed-income and bond allocations, institutional investors are lining up for buying treasuries. And yet here you are saying ""CDs are not worth it."" Might want to rethink that. Now going into the stock market as an investor with expectations of those high returns you quote, means you're willing to stay there for the long-term (at least a decade) and stay the course during volatility to actually have any hope of coming up with the average rate of return. Even then, there's the potential downside of risk that you still lose principal after that duration. So given that assumption, it's only fair to compare against >= 10 year CDs which are currently rated at 2 percent APY. In addition, CDs can be laddered -- allowing you to lock-in newer (and potentially higher) rates as they become available. You essentially stagger your buyin into these investments, and either reinvest upon the stilted maturity dates or use as income. Also keep in mind that while personal emergencies requiring quick access to cash can happen at any time, the most common scenario is during the sudden change from a bull market into a recession -- the time when stocks plummet. If you need money right away, selling your stocks at these times would lock in severe losses, whereas with CDs you still won't lose principal with an early exit and the only penalty is usually a sacrifice of a few months of potential interest. It's easy to think of the high yields during a protracted bull market (such as now), but personal finance has a huge behavioral component to it that is largely ignored until it's too late. One risk that isn't taken care of by either CDs or Treasuries is inflation risk. All the rates here and in the original question are nominal rates, and the real return will depend on inflation (or deflation). There are other options here besides CDs, Treasuries, and the stock market to outpace inflation if you'd like to hedge that risk with inflation protection: Series I Savings Bonds and TIPS." 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. "In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an ""up"" day or selling on a ""down"" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)" Placing bets on targeted sectors of the market totally makes sense in my opinion.  Especially if you've done research, with a non-biased eye, that convinces you those sectors will continue to outperform.   However, the funds you've boxed in red all appear to be actively managed funds (I only double-checked on the first.)  There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term.  By buying these funds, especially since you hope to hold for decades, you are placing bets that these managers maintain their edge over an equivalent index.  This seems unlikely to be a winning bet the longer you hold the position.   Perhaps there are no sector index funds for the sectors or focuses you have?  But if there were, and it was my money that I planned to park for the long term, I'd pick the index fund over the active managed fund. Index funds also have an advantage in costs or fees.  They can charge substantially less than an actively managed fund does.  And fees can be a big drag on total return. ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more.  sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this.  One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years.  And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff.  Last, welcome to SE.    Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you.  To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less. It's a good question, I am amazed how few people ask this. To summarise: is it really worth paying substantial fees to arrange a generic investment though your high street bank? Almost certainly not. However, one caveat: You didn't mention what kind of fund(s) you want to invest in, or for how long. You also mention an “advice fee”. Are you actually getting financial advice – i.e. a personal recommendation relating to one or more specific investments, based on the investments' suitability for your circumstances – and are you content with the quality of that advice? If you are, it may be worth it. If they've advised you to choose this fund that has the potential to achieve your desired returns while matching the amount of risk you are willing to take, then the advice could be worth paying for. It entirely depends how much guidance you need. Or are you choosing your own fund anyway? It sounds to me like you have done some research on your own, you believe the building society adviser is “trying to sell” a fund and you aren't entirely convinced by their recommendation. If you are happy making your own investment decisions and are merely looking for a place to execute that trade, the deal you have described via your bank would almost certainly be poor value – and you're looking in the right places for an alternative. ~ ~ ~ On to the active-vs-passive fund debate: That AMC of 1.43% you mention would not be unreasonable for an actively managed fund that you strongly feel will outperform the market. However, you also mention ETFs (a passive type of fund) and believe that after charges they might offer at least as good net performance as many actively managed funds. Good point – although please note that many comparisons of this nature compare passives to all actively managed funds (the good and bad, including e.g. poorly managed life company funds). A better comparison would be to compare the fund managers you're considering vs. the benchmark – although obviously this is past performance and won't necessarily be repeated. At the crux of the matter is cost, of course. So if you're looking for low-cost funds, the cost of the platform is also significant. Therefore if you are comfortable going with a passive investment strategy, let's look at how much that might cost you on the platform you mentioned, Hargreaves Lansdown. Two of the most popular FTSE All-Share tracker funds among Hargreaves Lansdown clients are: (You'll notice they have slightly different performance btw. That's a funny thing with trackers. They all aim to track but have a slightly different way of trading to achieve it.) To hold either of these funds in a Hargreaves Lansdown account you'll also pay the 0.45% platform charge (this percentage tapers off for portolio values higher than £250,000 if you get that far). So in total to track the FTSE All Share with these funds through an HL account you would be paying: This gives you an indication of how much less you could pay to run a DIY portfolio based on passive funds. NB. Both the above are a 100% equities allocation with a large UK companies weighting, so won't suit a lower risk approach. You'll also end up invested indiscriminately in eg. mining, tobacco, oil companies, whoever's in the index – perhaps you'd prefer to be more selective. If you feel you need financial advice (with Nationwide) or portfolio management (with Nutmeg) you have to judge whether these services are worth the added charges. It sounds like you're not convinced! In which case, all the best with a low-cost passive funds strategy. Bingo. And remember, hedge funds are for a specific kind of investor (UHNW, institutional) as a *hedge* against when things go bad.   I won't argue against the fees being exorbitant. And I certainly think that the explosion of funds has led to a lot more people just trying to beat the market (instead of providing a differentiated strategy).   HFs will always get slammed in times like this because of what they charge. But any of the good ones (at least on the equities side) are always likely to struggle to beat the benchmark when the benchmark is a roaring bull. Some judgement really should be reserved for times of distress The first question is essentially asking for specific investment advice which is off-topic per the FAQ, but I'll take a stab at #2 and #3 (2) If my 401k doesn't change before I leave my job (not planned in the   near future), I should roll it over into my Roth IRA after I leave due   to these high expense ratios, correct? My advice is that you should roll over a 401K into an IRA the first chance you get (usually when you leave the job). 401K plans are NOTORIOUS for high expense ratios and why leave your money in a plan where you have a limited choice of investments anyway versus a self-directed IRA where you can invest in anything you want? (3) Should I still max contribute with these horrible expense ratios? If they are providing a match, yes. Even with the expense ratios it is hard to beat the immediate return of an employer match.  If they aren't matching, the answer is still probably yes for a few reasons: You already are maxing out your ability to contribute to sheltered accounts, so assuming you still want to sock away that money for retirement, the tax benefits are still valuable and probably offset the expense ratios. Although you seem to be an exception, it is hard for most people to be disciplined enough to put money in a retirement account after they have it in their hands (versus auto-deduction from paychecks). This is probably the best, most concise and yet detailed answer to this oft-posed question I've seen on this sub. Have an upvote. Only thing I'd add is that HFs' comparatively more active approach creates a moat vs. mutual funds, which are seen as more long-term, passive investments. This means they can charge fees and have higher expense ratios (though obviously anyone in finance who has been conscious in the last five years knows that this is changing)