Mutual fund invests in mostly the same stuff as ETF, but has much higher expense ratio? (biotech sector)
Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.
No, some of Vanguard's funds are index funds like their Total Stock Market Index and 500 Index. In contrast, there are funds like Vanguard PRIMECAP and Vanguard Wellington that are actively managed. There are index funds in both open-end and exchange-traded formats. VTI is the ticker for Vanguard's Total Stock Market ETF while VTSMX is an open-end mutual fund format. VOO would be the S & P 500 ETF ticker while VFINX is one of the open-end mutual fund tickers, where VIIIX has a really low expense ratio but a pretty stiff minimum to my mind. As a general note, open-end mutual funds will generally have a 5 letter ticker ending in X while an ETF will generally be shorter at 3 or 4 letters in length. 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. 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. There are a number of mutual funds which claim to be 'ethical'. Note that your definition of 'ethical' may not match theirs. This should be made clear in the prospectus of whichever mutual fund you are looking at. You will likely pay for the privilege of investing this way, in higher expenses on the mutual fund. If I may suggest another option, you may want to consider investing in low-fee mutual funds or ETFs and donating some of the profit to offset the moral issues you see. "There are some index funds out there like this - generally they are called ""equal weight"" funds.  For example, the Rydex S&P Equal-Weight ETF.  Rydex also has several other equal weight sector funds" "As Dheer pointed out, the top ten mega-cap corporations account for a huge part (20%) of your ""S&P 500"" portfolio when weighted proportionally. This is one of the reasons why I have personally avoided the index-fund/etf craze -- I don't really need another mechanism to buy ExxonMobil, IBM and Wal-Mart on my behalf. I like the equal-weight concept -- if I'm investing in a broad sector (Large Cap companies), I want diversification across the entire sector and avoid concentration. The downside to this approach is that there will be more portfolio turnover (and expense), since you're holding more shares of the lower tranches of the index where companies are more apt to churn. (ie. #500 on the index gets replaced by an up and comer). So you're likely to have a higher expense ratio, which matters to many folks." In my opinion, if you are doing long-term investing, this is a non-issue.  The difference of hours in being able to trade an ETF during the day vs. only being able to trade a traditional mutual fund at day-end is irrelevant if you are holding the investment for a long time. If you are engaging in day trading, market timing, or other advanced/controversial trading practices, then I suppose it could make a difference. For the way I invest (index funds, long-term, set-it-and-forget-it), ETFs have no advantage over traditional mutual funds. "The 0.14% is coming out of the assets of the fund itself. The expense ratio can be broken down so that on any given day, a portion of the fund's assets are set aside to cover the administrative cost of running the fund. A fund's total return already includes the expense ratio. This depends a lot on what kind of account in which you hold the fund. If you hold the fund in an IRA then you wouldn't have taxes from the fund itself as the account is sheltered. There may be notes in the prospectus and latest annual and semi-annual report of what past distributions have been as remember the fund isn't paying taxes but rather passing that along in the form of distributions to shareholders. Also, there is something to be said for what kinds of investments the fund holds as if the fund is to hold small-cap stocks then it may have to sell the stock if it gets too big and thus would pass on the capital gains to shareholders. Other funds may not have this issue as they invest in large-cap stocks that don't have this problem. Some funds may invest in municipal bonds which would have tax-exempt interest that may be another strategy for lowering taxes in bond funds. Depending on the fund quite a broad range actually. In the case of the Fidelity fund you link, it is a ""Fund of funds"" and thus has a 0% expense ratio as Fidelity has underlying funds that that fund holds. What level of active management are you expecting, what economies of scale does the fund have to bring down the expense ratio and what expense ratio is typical for that category of fund would come to mind as a few things to consider. That Fidelity link is incorrect as both Morningstar and Fidelity's site list an expense ratio for the fund of funds at .79%. I'd expect an institutional US large-cap index fund to have the lowest expense ratio outside of the fund of fund situation while if I were to pick an actively managed fund that requires a lot of research then the expense ratio may well be much higher though this is where you have to consider what strategy do you want the fund to be employing and how much of a cost are you prepared to accept for that? VTTHX is Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund which has a .14% expense ratio which is using index funds in the fund of funds system." - ETFs make money through management fees. You can look it up: they all skim off a little bit of its profit, normally &lt;1%.  - It's all about cheap diversification. People generally don't have the capital to invest individually in each equity to mimic an ETF's portfolio.   - Yes, but you need a lot of money. For example: You can't just invest $1 in GOOG if you want to buy a tech sector ETF. In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered.  For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 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. "ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (""bid"") and the lowest available sell offer (""ask""). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once  per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread." 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) I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative. That expense ratio on the bank fund is criminally high. Use the Vanguard one, they have really low expenses. A mutual fund that purchases bonds is a bond fund.     Bond funds are considered to be less risk than a traditional stock mutual fund.   The cost of this less risk is that they have earned (on average) less than mutual funds investing in stocks. Sometimes, bonds have different tax consequences than stocks.