You are reading a single comment by @andyfallsoff and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Think the reasoning is:
- trackers tend to outperform active funds on average (although more risk - trackers can never be super above average performers by definition)
- on average it therefore means fees affect returns more than which fund - although that's a bit of an oversimplification as some active funds might outperform.
Tldr: if it's a tracker then only fees matter as there's no skill, pick the cheapest that'll track the market; if it's an active then on average fees still matter because average returns aren't better, but maybe you think you can pick a winner and get outsized returns that will dwarf the fee (but odds are against you)
- trackers tend to outperform active funds on average (although more risk - trackers can never be super above average performers by definition)
andyfallsoff
What's the reasoning behind a low fee fund? I made some very back-of-napkin-research on Swedish funds and the low fee ones are pretty shit compared to the high fee ones. As in 15-25% up in 2020 for a low fee, or 40-60% with a high fee. Again, very amateur and quick research, but still.
Surely the higher fee (1.5% vs 0.2% or so) is well worth it?