Why is there inconsistent returns difference between direct and regular Mutual Funds?
If this is the case, then shouldn't the difference between their annualized returns be same year on year? In general yes, however there difference has a compounding effect. i.e. if the difference if 5% first year, this money is invested and it would generate more of the said returns. However in reality as the corpus size of direct funds is very small, there difference is not very significant as other factors come into play. "(This answer refers to the US investment landscape) I'm not sure your classification of funds as direct and regular accurately reflects the nature of the mutual fund industry.  It's not the funds themselves that are ""direct"" or ""regular.""  Rather it's the way an investor chooses to invest in them.  If you make the investment yourself through your brokerage account, you may say it's a direct investment.  If you pay a financial advisor to do this for you, it's ""regular."" For a given fund, you could make the investment yourself or you could use an advisor. Note that many funds have various share classes.  Share classes may be accessed in different ways.  The institutional class may be accessible through your 401(k) or perhaps not even there, for example.  The premium class may require a certain minimum investment.  Some classes will have a front-end-load or back-end-load.  Each of these will have a different expense ratio and fees even though the money ends up in the same portfolio.  These expenses are, by law, publicly available in the prospectus and in numerous other places.  Share classes with higher fees will earn less each year after fees, just as you suggest.  Your intuition is correct on this point. Now, there is one fee to be aware of that funds either have or do not have.  That's a 12b-1 fee.  This fee is a kickback to financial advisors who funnel your money into their fund.  If you use a financial advisor, he or she will likely put your money into these funds because they have a financial incentive to do so.  That way they get paid twice: once by you and once by the mutual fund.  It has been robustly shown in the finance academic literature that funds without this fee dominate (are better in some ways and in no ways worse than) funds with this fee. I suppose you could say that funds and share classes with a 12b-1 fee were designed for ""regular"" investment and those without were designed for ""direct"" but that doesn't mean you can't invest in a 12b-1 fee fund directly nor that you can't twist your advisor's arm into getting you into a good fund without a 12b-1.  Unfortunately, if you have this level of knowledge, then you probably don't need a financial advisor."
"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple ""mutual funds"", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?" The S&P500 is an index, not an investment by itself.  The index lists a large number of stocks, and the value of the index is the price of all the stocks added together. If you want to make an investment that tracks the S&P500, you could buy some shares of each stock in the index, in the same proportions as the index.  This, however, is impractical for just about everyone. Index mutual funds provide an easy way to make this investment.  SPY is an ETF (exchange-traded mutual fund) that does the same thing. An index CFD (contract for difference) is not the same as an index mutual fund.  There are a number of differences between investing in a security fund and investing in a CFD, and CFDs are not available everywhere. "First, you don't state where you are and this is a rather global site.  There are people from Canada, US, and many other countries here so ""mutual funds"" that mean one thing to you may be a bit different for someone in a foreign country for one point.  Thanks for stating that point in a tag. Second, mutual funds are merely a type of investment vehicle, there is something to be said for what is in the fund which could be an investment company, trust or a few other possibilities.  Within North America there are money market mutual funds, bond mutual funds, stock mutual funds, mutual funds of other mutual funds and funds that are a combination of any and all of the former choices.  Thus, something like a money market mutual fund would be low risk but quite likely low return as well.  Short-term bond funds would bring up the risk a tick though this depends on how you handle the volatility of the fund's NAV changing.  There is also something to be said for open-end, ETF and closed-end funds that are a few types to consider as well. Third, taxes are something not even mentioned here which could impact which kinds of funds make sense as some funds may invest in instruments with favorable tax-treatment. Aside from funds, I'd look at CDs and Treasuries would be my suggestion.  With a rather short time frame, stocks could be quite dangerous to my mind. I'd only suggest stocks if you are investing for at least 5 years.  In 2 years there is a lot that can happen with stocks where if you look at history there was a record of stocks going down about 1 in every 4 years on average.  Something to consider is what kind of downside would you accept here?  Are you OK if what you save gets cut in half?  This is what can happen with some growth funds in the short-term which is what a 2 year time horizon looks like.  If you do with a stock mutual fund, it would be a gamble to my mind.  Don't forget that if the fund goes down 10% and then comes up 10%, you're still down 1% since the down will take more." "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." "1) When it says ""an investment or mutual fund"", is a mutual fund not   an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions  mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains.    2) When it says ""In terms of stocks"", why does it only mention   distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says ""In terms of mutual funds"", it says about ""the   reinvestment of distributions and dividends"". Does ""distributions"" not   include distributions of ""dividends""? why does it mention   ""distributions"" parallel to ""dividends""? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to   capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well." "Let me start with something you might dismiss as trite - Correlation does not mean Causation.  A money manager charging say, 1%, isn't likely to take on clients below a minimum level.  On the other hand, there's a long debate regarding how, on average, managed funds don't beat the averages.  I think that you should look at it this way. People that have money tend to be focused on other things. A brain surgeon making $500K/yr may not have the time, nor the inclination to want to manage her own money.  I was always a numbers person. I marveled at the difference between raising 1.1 to the 40th power, getting 45.3 (i.e. Getting 45.3 times your investment after 40 years at 10%) vs 31.4 at 9%. That 1% difference feels like nothing, but after a lifetime, 1/3 of your money has been skimmed off the top. the data show that one can do better by simply putting their money into a mix of S&P index and cash, and beat the average money manager over time, regardless of convoluted 12 asset class allocations.  Similarly - There are people who use a 'tax guy.' In quotes because I mean this as an individual whom they go to, year after year, not a storefront. My inlaws used to go to one, and I was curious what they got for their money. Each year he sent them a form. 3 pages they needed to fill in. Every cell made its way into the guy's tax program. The last year, I went with them to pick up the tax return. I asked him if he noticed that they might benefit from small Roth conversions each year, or by making some of their IRA RMD directly to charity. He kindly told me ""That's not what we do here"" and whisked us away. I planned both questions in advance. The Roth conversion was a strategy that one could agree made sense or dismiss as convoluted for some clients. But. The RMD issue was very different. They didn't have enough Schedule A deductions to itemize. Therefore the $3000 they donated each year wasn't impacting their return. By donating directly from their IRAs, this money would avoid tax. It would have saved them more than the cost of the tax guy, who charged a hefty fee, in my opinion. It seemed to me, this particular strategy should be obvious to one whose business is preparing returns." There is a survivorship bias in the mutual fund industry. It's not about individual stocks in which those funds invest. Rather, it's in which funds and fund companies/families are still around. The underperforming funds get closed or merged into other funds. Thus they are no longer reported, since they no longer exist. This makes a single company's mutual funds appear to have a better history, on average, than they actually did. Similarly, fund companies that underperform, will go out of business. This could make the mutual fund industry's overall history appear to be better than it actually was. Most companies don't do this to deliberately game the numbers. It's rational on the part of fund companies to close underperforming funds. When a fund has a below average history, investors will likely not invest in it, and will remove their existing money. The fund will shrink while the overhead remains the same, making the fund unprofitable for the company to run. "When you have multiple assets available and a risk-free asset (cash or borrowing) you will always end up blending them if you have a reasonable objective function.  However, you seem to have constrained yourself to 100% investment.  Combine that with the fact that you are considering only two assets and you can easily have a solution where only one asset is desired in the portfolio.  The fact that you describe the US fund as ""dominating"" the forign fund indicates that this may be the case for you.  Ordinarily diversification benefits the overall portfolio even if one asset ""dominates"" another but it may not in your special case. Notice that these funds are both already highly diversified, so all you are getting is cross-border diversification by getting more than one.  That may be why you are getting the solution you are.  I've seen a lot of suggested allocations that have weights similar to what you are using. Finding an optimal portfolio given a vector of expected returns and a covariance matrix is very easy, with some reliable results.  Fancy models get pretty much the same kinds of answers as simple ones.  However, getting a good covariance matrix is hard and getting a good expected return vector is all but impossible.  Unfortunately portfolio results are very sensitive to these inputs.  For that reason, most of us use portfolio theory to guide our intuition, but seldom do the math for our own portfolio.  In any model you use, your weak link is the expected return and covariance.  More sophisticated models don't usually help produce a more reasonable result. For that reason, your original strategy (80-20) sounds pretty good to me.  Not sure why you are not diversifying outside of equities, but I suppose you have your reasons."