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.
"If you want the answer from the horse's mouth, go to the website of the ETF or mutual find, and the expense ratio will be listed there, both on the ""Important Information"" part of the front page, as well as in the .pdf file that you click on to download the Prospectus.  Oh wait, you don't want to go the fund's website at all, just to a query site where you type in something like VFINX. hit SEARCH, and out pops the expense ratio for the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund? Well, have you considered MorningStar?" I quite like the Canadian Couch Potato which provides useful information targeted at investors in Canada. They specifically provide some model portfolios. Canadian Couch Potato generally suggests investing in indexed ETFs or mutual funds made up of four components. One ETF or mutual fund tracking Canadian bonds, another tracking Canadian stocks, a third tracking US stocks, and a fourth tracking international stocks. I personally add a REIT ETF (BMO Equal Weight REITs Index ETF, ZRE), but that may complicate things too much for your liking. Canadian Couch Potato specifically recommends the Tangerine Streetwise Portfolio if you are looking for something particularly easy, though the Management Expense Ratio is rather high for my liking. Anyway, the website provides specific suggestions, whether you are looking for a single mutual fund, multiple mutual funds, or prefer ETFs. From personal experience, Tangerine's offerings are very, very simple and far cheaper than the 2.5% you are quoting. I currently use TD's e-series funds and spend only a few minutes a year rebalancing. There are a number of good ETFs available if you want to lower your overhead further, though Canadians don't get quite the deals available in the U.S. Still, you shouldn't be paying anything remotely close to 2.5%. Also, beware of tax implications; the website has several articles that cover these in detail. ETFs offer the flexibility of stocks while retaining many of the benefits of mutual funds. Since an ETF is an actual fund, it has the diversification of its potentially many underlying securities. You can find ETFs with stocks at various market caps and style categories. You can have bond or mixed ETFs. You can even get ETFs with equal or fundamental weighting. In short, all the variety benefits of mutual funds. ETFs are typically much less expensive than mutual funds both in terms of management fees (expense ratio) and taxable gains. Most of them are not actively managed; instead they follow an index and therefore have a low turnover. A mutual fund may actively trade and, if not balanced with a loss, will generate capital gains that you pay taxes on. An ETF will produce gains only when shifting to keep inline with the index or you yourself sell. As a reminder: while expense ratio always matters, capital gains and dividends don't matter if the ETF or mutual fund is in a tax-advantaged account. ETFs have no load fees. Instead, because you trade it like a stock, you will pay a commission. Commissions are straight, up-front and perfectly clear. Much easier to understand than the various ways funds might charge you. There are no account minimums to entry with ETFs, but you will need to buy complete shares. Only a few places allow partial shares. It is generally harder to dollar-cost average into an ETF with regular automated investments. Also, like trading stocks, you can do those fancy things like selling short, buying on margin, options, etc. And you can pay attention to the price fluctuations throughout the day if you really want to. Things to make you pause: if you buy (no-load) mutual funds through the parent company, you'll get them at no commission. Many brokerages have No Transaction Fee (NTF) agreements with companies so that you can buy many funds for free. Still look out for that expense ratio though (which is probably paying for that NTF advantage). As sort of a middle ground: index funds can have very low expense ratios, track the same index as an ETF, can be tax-efficient or tax-managed, free to purchase, easy to dollar-cost average and easier to automate/understand. Further reading: Now the question: is advisable for a beginner to speculate in CfDs?  No. If not, is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money? In the US, and I'm sure this carries to the UK, most (if not all) big brokerages (Schwab, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, etc) have a set of funds that are zero load and zero commission though the fund will still have an expense ratio.  This is the Barclay's UK page related to zero cost investing in the Barclay's funds.  Barclay's might not be the right fit for a beginner as it seems there is a hefty account minimum, but the same zero commission concept exists in the UK.  Again, most of these brokerages will also have an extremely low expense ratio S&P index (or some other market index) fund.  As a beginner that's where you should start. This is not meant to patronize beginners, it's just math.  Assume your trade commission is £7.  If your investment is £100, you'll lose £7 right up front to the buy commission, then another £7 when you sell.  Lets say your position raises 10%, you'll be at a net loss of 4.7%. Meanwhile if you put your £100 in to a 0.1% expense fee mutual fund with no transaction commissions and no load fees, after a 10% gain you'd owe £0.11 due to the expense ratio at the of the year.  You'd have £109.89. Beginners get crushed by fees and commission.  It is not advisable, by any stretch of the imagination, to attempt to day trade or actively manage a portfolio of any sort of security; and commodities and currency are the WORST place to start. "I use TIAA-Cref for my 403(b) and Fidelity for my solo 401(k) and IRAs.  I have previously used Vanguard and have also used other discount brokers for my IRA. All of these companies will charge you nothing for an IRA, so there's really no point in comparing cost in that respect.  They are all the ""cheapest"" in this respect. Each one will allow you to purchase their mutual funds and those of their partners for free.  They will charge you some kind of fee to invest in mutual funds of their competitors (like $35 or something).  So the real question is this: which of these institutions offers the best mutual and index funds.  While they are not the worst out there, you will find that TIAA-Cref are dominated by both Vanguard and Fidelity.  The latter two offer far more and larger funds and their funds will always have lower expense ratios than their TIAA-Cref equivalent.  If I could take my money out of TIAA-Cref and put it in Fidelity, I'd do so right now. BTW, you may or may not want to buy individual stocks or ETFs in your account.  Vanguard will let you trade their ETFs for free, and they have lots.  For other ETFs and stocks you will pay $7 or so (depends on your account size).  Fidelity will give you free trades in the many iShares ETFs and charge you $5 for other trades.  TIAA-Cref will not give you any free ETFs and will charge you $8 per trade. Each of these will give you investment advice for free, but that's about what it's worth as well.  The quality of the advice will depend on who picks up the phone, not which institution you use.  I would not make a decision based on this." What decision are you trying to make?  Are you interested day trading stocks to make it rich? Or are you looking at your investment options and trying to decide between an actively managed mutual fund and an ETF? If the former, then precise statistics are hard to come by, but I believe that 99% of day traders would do better investing in an ETF. If the latter, then there are lots of studies that show that most actively managed funds do worse than index funds, so with most actively managed funds you are paying higher fees for worse performance.  Here is a quote from the Bogleheads Guide to Investing: Index funds outperform approximately 80 percent of all actively   managed funds over long periods of time. They do so for one simple   reason: rock-bottom costs. In a random market, we don't know what   future returns will be. However, we do know that an investor who keeps   his or her costs low will earn a higher return than one who does not.   That's the indexer's edge. Many people believe that your best option for investing is a diverse portfolio of ETFs, like this.  This is what I do. "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." The expense ratio reduces the return of the ETF; your scenario of paying 100.0015 is that of a load.  Most (all?) ETFs can be bought without paying a load (sales charge as a percent of amount invested), and some ETFs can be bought without paying a brokerage fee (fixed or variable charge for a buy transaction just like buying any other stock  through the brokerage) because the brokerage has waived it.  Your broker  might charge fees for both buying and selling shares in an ETF, but in any case, this is quite separate from the expense ratio.