Unable to understand logic behind why there is no exit load on liquid fund
I think you are having trouble understanding what 'liquid' means. Liquidity refers to how easily an asset can be converted to cash. More liquid = more easily converted to cash, less liquid, less so. Any kind of exit load is going to make an asset less liquid due to the penalties associated with making the sale. So, the whole point of liquid funds is to give people the option of selling quickly if they need to. Since an exit load is meant to discourage this behavior, liquid funds tend not to have one. The point isn't what the financial institution 'gets', it's about offering a service to clients with a particular investment need. Imagine that a fund had a large exit load that declined over several years. If you wanted to sell some or all of your investment in that fund you would face a large fee, unless you held it a long time. You would be hesitant to sell because waiting longer would save you money. That is the exact opposite of a liquid investment.  Therefore the ideal level for a liquid fund is to have zero exit load.
If you enter a futures contract, it costs nothing.  So every time prices move against you, there is a margin call and you must put up some new money. Inverse ETF's use a variety of similar strategies to get their returns.  Many of these strategies may indeed require a margin call to the ETF issuer if prices move against you.  But remember the ETF did not cost nothing.  Investors contributed money in order to purchase each share of the ETF.  Therefore the ETF issuer has a big pot of money available for use as margin.  That's why the margin call never comes through to you. In a sense, you posted a ton of margin up front, so you won't have to make any additional margin contributions.  The money that will be used for margin calls is being kept in treasuries and money market securities by the ETF issuer until it's needed. If prices move against you badly enough that it looks like the ETF is at risk to not be able to post margin, the ETF would liquidate and you'd get whatever pittance was left after they exit all those positions. "Excellent question, though any why question can be challenging to answer because it depends on the financial products in question.  At least, I haven't seen many target date retirement funds that include a high percent of foreign stocks, so below explains the ones I've seen which are primarily US stocks. The United States (before the last twenty years) has been seen as a country of stability.  This is not true anymore, and it's difficult for my generation to understand because we grew up in the U.S.A being challenged (and tend to think that China and India have always been powers), but when we read investors, like Benjamin Graham (who had significant influence with Warren Buffett), we can see this bias - the U.S.A to them is stable, and other countries are ""risky.""  Again, with the national debt and the political game in our current time, it does not feel this way.  But that bias is often reflect in financial instruments. The US Dollar is still the reserve currency, though it's influence is declining and I would expect it to decline.  Contrary to my view (because I could be wrong here) is Mish, who argues that no one wants to have the reserve currency because having a reserve currency brings disadvantages (see here: Bogus Threats to US Reserve Currency Status: No Country Really Wants It!; I present this to show that my view could be wrong). Finally, there tends to be the ""go with what you know.""  Many of these funds are managed by U.S. citizens, so they tend to have a U.S. bias and feel more comfortable investing their money ""at home"" (in fact a famous mutual fund manager, Peter Lynch, had a similar mentality - buy the company behind the stock and what company do we tend to know best?  The ones around us.). One final note, I'm not saying this mentality is correct, just what the attitude is like.  I think you may find that younger mutual fund managers tend to include more foreign stocks, as they've seen that different world." Then we do agree in a sense. Pensions are an anathema in the modern economy and likely were never a good idea, that said I do not agree with putting those owed and promised pensions behind other creditors. You would not bring down the credit system, you would simply kill what is left of the seriously broken pensions system and punish any company that was fool enough to play games with their pension system.   All that said I am not against a bankruptcy court discharging pensions and saying tough-titties to the employees. I just want that consideration by the court to happen when whatever is left of the cash pile is still big enough to matter to the pensioners.  If you are a company dumb enough to operate such a system today I see no reason why your creditors should not be aware of the promised debt load you carry that is bound up in your employees and take it into account. Does it make credit more expensive for them? It better! NB - I live in Surrey and bought my house in January 2014. If you don't have a very social life, it does pay to stay outside London. Places outside London are cheap and you will get a better deal in relation to houses or flats as compared to London. I feel very priced out of the market regarding London mortgages I will strongly question you logic behind this ? Why only London ? Why not live in the commuter belt outside London. Good places to reside, good schools, nice neighbourhood and away from the hustle and bustle of London. Many of my colleagues commute from Cambridge and Oxford daily into Central London and they laugh at people who want to buy a house in London, just for the sake of buying a house. It seems that the housing market is generally in a bubble due to being distorted by the finance market London house market is different from the rest of UK. People from overseas tend to invest in London property market, so it is always inflated. Even the property tax hasn't deterred many. I could look into buying somewhere and renting it out You are trying to join the same people, because of whom you have been put out of the housing market. I strictly question this logic unless your mortgage is less than the rent you pay and what rent you get. Buy a roof over your head first, then think of profiting from property. I'm not a professional, but my understanding is that US funds are not considered PFICs regardless of the fact that they are held in a foreign brokerage account. In addition, be aware that foreign stocks are not considered PFICs (although foreign ETFs may be). If you aren't familiar with Norbert's Gambit, it's worth looking at. This is a mechanism using a Canadian brokerage account to simultaneously execute one stock trade in CAD and one in USD. The link I provided claims that it only starts potentially making sense somewhere in the 10,000+ range. Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that. The fund should be reporting returns net of expenses, so your interpretation is right; it made something like 0.42% (which sounds plausible, based on current yields on short-term securities), and the 0.05% is what's left after expenses. I've never seen a regular mutual fund report raw returns before expenses.  If one does, the my personal opinion would be that they're trying to snooker you, as that number isn't actually representative of anybody's actual returns.   If you look carefully, you should be able to find a table that reports several kinds of adjusted returns for the fund: As to what happens if a fund can't earn enough returns to cover its expenses, in that case the value of the fund shares will decrease.  This happens from time to time with riskier funds.  It shouldn't happen with a money market fund because both the returns and the expenses are fairly predictable, so the fund managers should be able to avoid it, unless they get caught up in a major crisis like the 2008 banking crisis.  In ordinary times, a money market fund managers who couldn't keep expenses below income would find themselves looking for a new job fairly quickly. Finally, for what it's worth, 0.37% is a really high expense ratio for a money market fund.  If you were to shop around, you could easily find comparable funds with expenses less than half that.