NAV value will already take into account management fees. No need to subtract again.
NAV is reported net of fees including both management (published) and trading fees and impact costs which are not published.
lothar: Unfortunately Google Finance has problems calculating returns of things that pay dividends and capital gains like a mutual fund.
Net asset value = Assets @ day end - management fees for the day. The costs will generally be annualized as a percentage. Easiest way to see management fees is to buy separate accounts where you can set the expense ratio however.
Management fees do however not show what the cost is for best execution or trading costs and market impact. There are often soft dollars paid for research and other services, which generally comes out of a wider bid/ask spread, the impact on total return is the same but fee is not shown in management fees. However when you see the NAV you do not need to subtract the fee again. The actual performance of the fund would be an addition of the fee.
Hence the reason SPY doesn't track SPX 1:1 is the .10% expense ratio.
If you are looking for an example on Google Finance search for the retain of a high yield fund, which pay large dividends sometimes even returning capital. Google Finance has negative numbers over a 10 year period and often the return is significantly positive including reinvested dividends.
Thank you for your correction on management fees/NAV...Didn't know that those were already included.
I know that.
I meant to use M* like I always do when comparing funds, but I must have somehow forgotten or gotten lost in my entire post.
I appreciate your feedback and your time. What I do not appreciate is condescending, insulting, and useless advice, which really contains no advice at all.
I am aware of the management fees and I know where to find expense ratios. However, I suppose my understanding was that the fees were already factored into the return of the funds. If not, when does the investor actually see those fees affect them?
I don't think I did this to you, but if I did...where did I do this?
Might want to read Yoxxy's post before you reinvest your IRA.
He can post what his fund is and I will do the same comparison this time using M*, and we can also have Yoxxy verify that if he wants.
Knowing how overpriced T. Rowe Price funds are compared to Fidelity and Vanguard, I wouldn't be surprised if it's still beneficial for him to switch.
I'm not sure what Yoxxy posted besides what I quoted above since I've been out for ~3 days and this is my first post on the AT forums since then.
I see a second post of his that was edited out but I'm not sure what was there previously.
Anyone who's interested in the actual result can check M* for fund comparisons and performance. They give the "correct" performance adjusted for dividends and stock splits for stocks, mutual funds, and ETF's.
It's my one stop shop website for fund comparisons, not sure why I didn't continue to use them after Step 2 in my post. Guess I should follow my own recommendations
BTW...From what I heard I think if you have Vanguard funds, they will gladly change them to the equivalent ETF's free of charge with no commissions incurred for you.
The benefit is see with mutual funds like that, you're able to invest $xx/month. If you have $5k or something on hand already saved up, just buy the ETF. I realize not everybody has cash on hand saved up.
I'm not against all mutual funds...Just those who attempt to track a particular index and charge absurd fees (the 1.27% expense your fund charges for example).
If I was against all mutual funds, I wouldn't have 10% of our assets in the Fairholme fund and would be running a "Lazy Portfolio" of Vanguard ETF's all year round like a few people I know who already do and I wouldn't be picking my own stocks.
http://www.marketwatch.com/lazyportfolio