A 1.5% annual expense ratio on a retail mutual fund or ETF reduces a 30-year compounded return by close to a third, a cost most investors see as a small percentage on a factsheet and few translate into the real-money figure it becomes over time.
Expense ratios can significantly reduce long-term returns, with compounding costs heavily impacting wealth accumulation over time.
An investor in Seoul puts KRW 5 million (approximately $3,700) into a retail equity fund with an annual expense ratio of 1.5%. Over 30 years, assuming an underlying market return of 7% per year, the fund returns approximately KRW 22 million ($15,186) after expenses, compared to roughly KRW 38 million ($26,187) the same investment would have produced with a 0.1% expense ratio. The difference, roughly KRW 16 million ($11,027), is the cumulative cost of the expense ratio.
According to Morningstar, Global Fund Investor Experience Study, 2025 update, retail equity fund expense ratios across India, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines and several other emerging markets averaged between 1.0% and 2.5% in 2025, while index-tracking exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in many of the same markets charged below 0.5%. According to the Asia Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, 2025 annual report, retail platform fee compression has accelerated across Singapore, Hong Kong, India and Korea, with new low-cost index products entering the market. Two funds tracking similar exposures can deliver materially different long-term outcomes purely from the cost layer.
The expense ratio of a mutual fund or ETF is the percentage of assets the fund company deducts each year to cover management fees, distribution charges and operating costs. It is expressed as a small percentage, typically 0.05% to 2.5% on retail products, but is paid as a fixed share of every year’s assets, regardless of whether the fund delivered positive returns.
The compounding effect over long horizons converts a small annual percentage into a substantial cumulative cost. An investment of $10,000 left for 30 years at an underlying market return of 7% per year produces roughly $76,000 with no fees, roughly $48,000 with a 1.5% expense ratio, and roughly $73,000 with a 0.1% expense ratio. The mechanism is straightforward. The fund company takes a share of the entire balance every year, including the share it took last year.
Across emerging-market retail products, expense ratios vary substantially. According to Morningstar, Global Fund Investor Experience Study, 2025 update, retail equity fund expense ratios averaged between 1.0% and 2.5% across India, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brazil and several other markets in 2025, while index-tracking ETFs in many of the same markets charged below 0.5%. The same underlying exposure, say, a broad market index, can be accessed through products with materially different expense ratios in most regulated retail platforms.
The marketing of a fund typically emphasises performance, not cost. A one-year return figure is more eye-catching than an expense ratio. Over a one-year horizon, the expense ratio reduces the return by its annual percentage. Over a 30-year horizon, the expense ratio reduces the cumulative return by a substantially larger share because the cost compounds along with the gains. The challenge for new investors is recognising the cost layer at all, not finding the alternative once it is recognised.
Investors can find the expense ratio on any fund’s factsheet. It is typically displayed prominently on the first or second page, expressed as a percentage. Where the figure is labelled total expense ratio, ongoing charges, or management expense ratio, the number captures the same general cost concept across most regulated markets, with variations in detail.
Comparing expense ratios across funds with similar underlying exposures clarifies which products charge meaningfully more for similar exposure. A 1.8% expense ratio on a broad-market index fund and a 0.2% expense ratio on a similar broad-market index fund are not similar products in cost terms, even if their performance over short horizons appears comparable.
Choosing low-expense index or ETF products for the core of a retail portfolio is one pattern that has spread across global retail investors over the last decade. Practices vary by market and platform. The structural benefit is that the same market return is delivered to the investor with less of it deducted along the way.
Reviewing the expense ratios of existing holdings once a year and considering migration to lower-cost alternatives where they exist is a habit that most retail investors do not maintain. Migration may carry tax or transaction implications in some jurisdictions; the decision is therefore not automatic. The review itself, however, is a no-cost discipline that reveals what the existing portfolio is paying.
Beyond the expense ratio, transaction costs, platform fees, fund-of-funds layering and currency conversion charges can add further cost layers in retail products. Practices vary by platform and product type. Reading the full fee table on a factsheet, not only the headline expense ratio, captures what the product actually costs to hold.
Returns are uncertain, costs are not. The expense ratio of a fund is one of the few investment variables an investor can control entirely at the point of selection. Over a multi-decade horizon, that single decision moves outcomes by a substantial share. The fund factsheet shows the cost. The investor’s discipline is to look.
Don’t hesitate anymore! Now, at BankQuality, Talk it all out with a relaxed mind about the services, behaviour and products of your banks! Review and Rate your Bank TODAY! #TalktoBQ — www.bankquality.com