Appreciation post: my old boss in Chicago said to always check the expense ratio first, not the past returns

I mean, I see so many people picking funds based on last year's big number. My boss made me look at a statement from a guy who paid over 1.5% a year for a fund that did worse than the basic index. After ten years, that fee took a huge bite. It matters because that's your money just leaving. Has anyone else had a fund they liked until they really looked at the costs?

4 comments

4 Comments

seth_singh203mo ago

Yeah, it's wild how those fees add up. I had a target date fund in my old 401k with a crazy high expense ratio I didn't even notice for years. Switched it to a basic index and the difference over time is no joke.

seth_shah3mo ago

Ugh, that's the worst. It's so easy to miss those fees when they just take them quietly every year. Good on you for catching it and making the switch.

fiona_west2121d ago

@seth_shah nailed it - those quiet fees are the real problem. They sneak away year after year and you don't feel the sting until you look back at the total. A target date fund got me too, had something like a 1.2% ratio that I just accepted as normal. Switching to a simple S&P 500 index fund was the best move I ever made for my retirement savings. Compound interest works both ways, and those fees compound against you something fierce.

rubyk263mo ago

My uncle still talks about the salesman who put him in a loaded fund back in the 90s. The fees were a real gut punch when he finally saw them.