What are these fees attached to mutual fund FSEMX?
Annual-report expense ratios reflect the actual fees charged during a particular fiscal year.  Prospectus Expense Ratio (net) shows expenses the fund company anticipates will actually be borne by the fund's shareholders in the upcoming fiscal year less any expense waivers, offsets or reimbursements. Prospectus Gross Expense Ratio is the percentage of fund assets used to pay for operating expenses and management fees, including 12b-1 fees, administrative fees, and all other asset-based costs incurred by the fund, except brokerage costs. Fund expenses are reflected in the fund's NAV. Sales charges are not included in the expense ratio. All of these ratios are gathered from a fund's prospectus. "FSEMX has an annual expense ratio of 0.1% which is very low. What that means is that each month, the FSEMX will pay itself one-twelfth of 0.1% of  the total value of all the shares owned by the shareholders in the mutual fund.  If the fund has cash on hand from its trading activities or dividends collected from companies  whose stock is owned by FSEMX or interest on bonds owned by FSEMX, the  money comes out of that, but if there is no such pot (or the pot is not large enough), then the fund manager has the authority to sell some shares of the stocks held by FSEMX so that the employees can be paid, etc. If the total of cash generated by the trading and the dividend collection in a given year is (say) 3% of the share value of all the outstanding mutual fund,  then only 2.9% will be paid out as dividend and capital gain distribution  income to the share holders, the remaining 0.1% already having been paid to FSEMX management for operating expenses.   It is important to keep in mind that expenses are always paid even if there are no profits, or even if there are losses that year so that no dividends or capital gains distributions are made.  You don't see the expenses explicitly on any statement that you receive.  If FSEMX sells shares of stocks that it holds to pay the expenses, this reduces  the share value (NAV) of the mutual fund shares that you hold.  So, if your mutual fund account ""lost"" 20% in value that year because the market was falling, and you got no dividend or capital gains distributions either, remember that only 19.9% of that loss can be blamed on the President or Congress or Wall Street or public-sector unions or your neighbor's refusal to ditch his old PC in favor of a new Mac, and the rest (0.1%) has gone to FSEMX to pay for fees you agreed to when you bought FSEMX shares. If you invest directly in FSEMX through Fidelity's web site, there is no sales charge, and you pay no expenses other than the 0.1% annual expense ratio.  There is a fee for selling FSEMX shares after owning them only for a short time since  the fund wants to discourage short-term investors. Whatever other fees finance.yahoo.com lists might be descriptive of the uses that FSEMX puts its expense ratio income to in its internal management, but are not of any importance to the prudent investor in FSEMX who will never encounter them or have to pay them."
"You definitely do want to avoid losing money on repeated currency conversions.  Remember they are making a profit every time you change your currency. A money market fund is basically like a 'savings account' mutual fund.  They are open like mutual funds, in that you can buy or sell at any time.  There don't tend to be fees of any kind (directly) as all management is paid for out of the interest/returns that the fund generates. So using a money market fund to hold the ""cash"" portion of your TFSA or any other account for that matter would be a normal (and ""free"") thing to do. Good Luck" 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. I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly.  If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses)  For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads.. There is a LOT of shuffling going on in the financial services industry. I would not immediately say your advisor is acting in bad faith. The DOL fiduciary changes are quite significant for some brokers. Investment Advisors who are fee-based have less of an impact since they are already fiduciaries. That being said, your issue is still the same. How can you get a low-cost solution to your problem? You might want to consider Vanguard, Fidelity, or another mutual fund company that can keep your costs low. However, you should understand that if you are using mutual funds, the fees are paid one way or another. 12b1 fees, commissions, and expenses are all deducted from the fund's gross returns.  You have to choose between low cost and paid advice. you cannot get high-quality low-cost advice. Fortunately, there are a lot of new solutions out there, robo-advisors, indexing, asset allocation mutual funds, ETFs, and more. Do a bit of homework and you should be able to come up with a reasonable solution. I hope you found this helpful. Kirk "[Wrong](http://www.cnbc.com/id/44516166/Are_Hedge_Fund_Fees_Justified)  ""hedge fund managers were asked to justify their standard two percent management, and twenty percent performance fees."" 9/14/2011  [Wrong #2](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-07/wealthy-investors-keep-paying-hedge-fund-fees-even-with-anemic-returns.html) 9/6/2011  ""Wealthy investors who put money in hedge funds face high fees, usually a 2 percent management fee and a 20 percent performance fee""" According to Publication 590, broker's commissions for stock transactions within an IRA cannot be paid in addition to the IRA contribution(s), but they are deductible as part of the contribution, or add to the basis if you are making a nondeductible contribution to a Traditional IRA. (Top of Page 10, and Page 12, column 1, in the 2012 edition of Pub 590). On the other hand, trustees'  administrative fees can be paid from outside the IRA if they are billed separately, and are even deductible as a Miscellaneous Deduction on Schedule A of your income tax return (subject to the 2% of AGI threshold).  A long time ago, when my IRA account balances were much smaller, I used to get a bill from my IRA custodian for a $20 annual administrative fee which I paid separately (but never got to deduct due to the 2% threshold). My custodian also allowed  the option of doing nothing in which case the $20 would be collected from (and thus reduce) the amount of money in my IRA.  Note that this does not apply to the expenses charged by the mutual funds that you might have in your IRA; these expenses are treated the same as brokerage commissions and must be paid from within the IRA. I'm of the belief that, long term, fees eat away at your performance. If you chose an ETF, say VOO, with its .05% expense, and a short term bond fund or money market fund, you are going be ahead, long term.  It's pretty much accepted fact that money managers are not beating the average long term.  For you to simply do as well as I do (S&P less .05%) your guy has to beat the market year in, year out, by 1.2%. Not going to happen. Yes, in hindsight, some funds have done this. Over the decades, losing funds are closed, or merged into performing ones. But, in the end, the average fund lags the average market return quite a bit. To pay someone 25% over two decades isn't what I'd recommend to anyone.   There was recently a PBS Frontline special, The Retirement Gamble, (and this link to my article reviewing the show).    I put up an image  which shows the effect of 50 years' impact of expenses. The Vanguard S&P ETF, linked earlier has just a .05% fee. In my chart I show .1%, and then a total 1% or 2% fee. $447K return for .1%, $294K for 1%.  I'm painfully aware that 3/4 of US taxpayers aren't saving at all. For those that are savers, the value in learning about investing is huge. This isn't a onetime $150K saved, but the savings on just that $10K deposit. Meanwhile, before you learn this, a pay-for-his-time fee-only planner is worth it, for a meeting and first year follow up. I'm trying to understand how many different ways my 401k, IRA, ETF holdings get whacked along the way by fees, commissions, whatever other means.    Does anyone have a diagram of how the various players along the way get paid for the various product I (and an institution for that matter) buy?