High Expense Ratio Is Not Bad For Mutual Funds

Here's why high expense ratio is not a bad thing for a mutual fund.

For more such videos, subscribe to our channel

[brijeshkukreja]

Higher expense ratio = Higher fees and no guarantee of performance. If you get me more returns is never a condition one should look it. Probably best to invest in index mutual funds keeping safety in mind. I have seen a lot of people getting burnt with active mutual fund unless the company is willing to give back the expenses if they don't perforn

[sampatharuna]

Bro! expense ratio need not be the management fee unless it is stated as management expense ratio. But even then MER can be apart fm expense ratio

[Kachra_sheth]

Majority of funds also fail to beat benchmark index in long term

[thamizharasan]

Sir always being in English I am from tamilnadu

[Dave_en]

I want guarantee for higher returns if they are charging more. I will eliminate fund manager risk if i get cheaper expense ratio from index funds. With combination of several index funds i can manage the risk and generate more returns than active funds. AMCs are fooling us by charging more and not outperforming the benchmark each year.

[SANJEEVKUMAR-sjvx]

you mean, the nav price already includes the expense price? plz clarify.
If my total value is 1, 00, 000 and expense ratio is 0.5%, if i withdraw the amount, I will get full money or expense ratio amount will be deducted

[RaviRavi-ezkz]

Sorry, one willnt end up with 87.5l for mf which had exp ratio of 1.5 “PER YEAR” and not only once 🤦🏻

[umeshchandraverma]

Thanks sir this is what I search
That expense ratio is included or not in cagr return

[S.A.]

Are there passively managed index ETFs in India?

[rohitmaheshwari]

@LabourLawadvisor becomes dalal of Mutual fund who are not able to perform