Basic mutual fund investment questions
"You asked 3 questions here. It's best to keep them separate as these are pretty distinct, different answers, and each might already have a good detailed answer and so might be subject to ""closed as duplicate of..."" That said, I'll address the JAGLX question (1). It's not an apples to apples comparison. This is a Life Sciences fund, i.e. a very specialized fund, investing in one narrow sector of the market. If you study market returns over time, it's easy to find sectors that have had a decade or even two that have beat the S&P by a wide margin. The 5 year comparison makes this pretty clear. For sake of comparison, Apple had twice the return of JAGLX during the past 5 years. The advisor charging 2% who was heavy in Apple might look brilliant, but the returns are not positively correlated to the expense involved. A 10 or 20 year lookback will always uncover funds or individual stocks that beat the indexes, but the law of averages suggests that the next 10 or 20 years will still appear random." @JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you. In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees.  Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees.  There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market.  This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds.  Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips.
"A great deal of analysis on this question relies on misunderstandings of the market or noticing trends that happened at the same time but were not caused by each other.  Without knowing your view, I'll just give the basic idea. The amount of active management is self-correcting.  The reason people have moved out of actively managed funds is that the funds have not been performing well.  Their objective is to beat their benchmarks by profiting as they correct mispricing.  They are performing poorly because there is too much money chasing too few mispricings.  That is why the actively managed industry is shrinking.  If it gets small enough, presumably those opportunities will become more abundant and mispricing correction will become more profitable.  Then money will flow back into active funds. Relevant active management may not be what a lay person is thinking of.  At the retail level, we are observing a shift to passive funds, but there is still plenty of money in other places.  For example, pension and endowment funds normally have an objective of beating a market benchmark like the Russell 3000.  As a result they are constantly trying to find opportunities to invest in active management that really can outperform.  They represent a great deal of money and are nothing like the ""buy and forget"" stereotype we sometimes imagine.  Moreover, hedge funds and propreitary trading shops explicitly and solely try to correct mispricings.  They represent a very, very large bucket of money that is not shrinking.  Active retail mutual funds and individual investors are not as relevant for pricing as we might think.  More trading volume is not necessarily a good thing, nor is it the measure of market quality.  One argument against passive funds is that passive funds don't trade much.  Yet the volume of trading in the markets has risen dramatically over time as a result of technological improvements (algorithmic traders, mostly).  They have out-competed certain market makers who used to make money on inefficiencies of the market.  Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  Well, prices are more efficient now and it appears that these computers are more responsive to price-relevant information than people used to be.  So even if trading volume does decrease, I see no reason to worry that prices will become less efficient.  That's not the direction things have gone, even as passive investing has boomed. Overall, worries about passive investing rely on an assumption that there is not enough interest in and resources for making arbitrage profits to keep prices efficient.  This is highly counterfactual and always will be.  As long as people and institutions want money and have access to the markets, there will be plenty of resources allocated to price correction." There are several things being mixed up in the questions being asked. The expense ratio charged by the mutual fund is built into the NAV per share of the fund, and you do not see the charge explicitly  mentioned as a deduction  on your 401k statement (or in the statement received from the mutual fund in a non-401k situation). The expense ratio is listed in the fund's prospectus, and should also have been made available to you in the literature about the new 401k plan that your employer is setting up. Mutual fund fees (for things like having a small balance, or for that matter, sales charges if any of the funds in the 401k are load funds, God forbid) are different. Some load mutual funds waive  the sales charge load for 401k participants, while some may not. Actually, it all depends on how hard the employer negotiates with the 401k administration company who handles all the paperwork and the mutual fund company with which the 401k administration company negotiates.  (In the 1980s, Fidelity Magellan (3% sales load) was a hot fund, but my employer managed to get it as an option in our plan with no sales load: it helped that my employer was large and could twist arms more easily than a mom-and-pop outfit or Solo 401k plan could). A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away, my first ever IRA contribution of $2000 into a  no-load mutual fund resulted in a $25 annual maintenance fee, but the law allowed the payment of this fee separately from the $2000 if the IRA owner wished to do so. (If not, the $25 would reduce the IRA balance (and no, this did  not count as a premature distribution from the IRA). Plan expenses are what the 401k administration company charges the employer for running the plan (and these expenses are not necessarily peanuts; a 401k plan is not something that needs just a spreadsheet -- there is lots of other paperwork that the employee never gets to see). In some cases, the employer pays the entire expense as a cost of doing business; in other cases, part is paid by the employer and the rest is passed on to the employees.  As far as I know, there is no mechanism for the employee to pay these expenses outside the 401k plan (that is, these expenses are (visibly) deducted from the 401k plan balance). Finally, with regard to the question asked: how are plan fees divided among the investment options? I don't believe that anyone other than the 401k plan administrator or the employer can answer this. Even if the employer simply adopts one of the pre-packaged plans offered by a big 401k administrator (many brokerages and mutual fund companies offer these), the exact numbers depend on which pre-packaged plan has been chosen. (I do think the answers the OP has received are rubbish). The investments offered in 401K are usually limited to a selection of mutual funds offered by a 401K provider.  The 401K providers and the mutual funds charge fees.  The mutual fund industry has a lobbying group that will push for increased 401K contributions to direct money into their mutual funds to collect fees.  The top 401 K provider in 2005 was fidelity.  It managed $337 billion in 401Ks of which $334 billion was directed into mutual funds. Although I would have to use some of the same providers to open an IRA, I would not have to invest in the providers' mutual funds when I open an IRA.  I can buy a stock and hold onto it for 10, 20, 50 years inside of my IRA.  Thus, the only fee the investment company would collect from me would be from when I purchased the stock and when I sold the stock.  Not nearly as profitable as mutual fund fees. This is similar to your TFSA question. While the S in RRSP or TFSA stands for savings, it does not stipulate exactly what instruments you use to build up those savings. With few exceptions, you can hold any type of investment in either an RRSP or TFSA. Thus, do not think of them as savings accounts per se, but more like umbrella accounts, or plans. It's actually the financial industry that creates these misnomers of so-called RRSPs, which are usually GICs or balanced mutual funds held inside an RRSP plan, or TFSAs, which are literally savings accounts held inside a TFSA plan. The most versatile accounts are the self-directed RRSP or TFSA accounts, usually through a discount broker, where you can purchase many different types of investments inside your registered accounts, including stocks, bonds, mutual funds, GICs, gold, etc. Thus a share purchase plan held inside an RRSP is completely eligible and may be a sensible investment for retirement savings. "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." "Assuming this is real, the Q's (QQQ) is an ETF that tracks the Nasdaq-100. It would be the approximate equivalent of saying ""Just put your money in SPY"" or any other ETF.  I didn't see the thread in question (looks like it was in /r/personalfinance not /r/finance; so, not the ""rules"" here), but my guess is people down voted you (and you were eventually removed by the mod) for ""low effort"", which simply stating ""Put your money in an ETF"" could possibly be construed as.  That said, the top rated comment in that thread *did* suggest putting some portion of the funds in an ETF, it's just rarely an appropriate answer for *all* of someone's investment capital." "I like Muro questions! No, I don't think they do.  Because for me, as a personal finance investor type just trying to save for retirement, they mean nothing. If I cannot tell what the basic business model of a company is, and how that business model is profitable and makes money, then that is a ""no buy"" for me.  If I do understand it, they I can do some more looking into the stock and company and see if I want to purchase. I buy index funds that are indexes of industries and companies I can understand.  I let a fund manager worry about the details, but I get myself in the right ballpark and I use a simple logic test to get there, not the word of a rating agency. If belong in the system as a whole, I could not really say.  I could not possibly do the level of accounting research and other investigation that rating agencies do, so even if the business model is sound I might lose an investment because the company is not an ethical one.  Again, that is the job of my fund manager to determine.  Furthermore and I mitigate that risk by buying indexes instead of individual stock." "That share class may not have a ticker symbol though ""Black Rock MSCI ACWI ex-US Index"" does have a ticker for ""Investor A"" shares that is BDOAX.  Some funds will have multiple share classes that is a way to have fees be applied in various ways.  Mutual fund classes would be the SEC document about this if you want a government source within the US around this. Something else to consider is that if you are investing in a ""Fund of funds"" is that there can be two layers of expense ratios to consider.  Vanguard is well-known for keeping its expenses low."