Saturday November 21, 2009 5:42 PM ET
SmartMoney
Published July 25, 2008  |  A A A
Ticked Off by Paulette Miniter (Author Archive)

Best and Worst S&P 500 Index Funds by Cost

S&P 500 INDEX funds are supposed to be all the same. So why do some charge more than others?

We asked Lipper to help us find the cheapest and most expensive S&P 500 funds available to retail investors. The results? The cheapest ones, by expense ratio, also tend to require bigger minimum investments. Fidelity Spartan US Equity Index Fund Advantage (FUSVX), for instance, boasts a super-low expense ratio of 0.06% — but you have to invest at least $100,000 in it.

So, Lipper ran a second screen for us, finding the five cheapest and five most expensive S&P 500 funds available to retail investors, with minimum investments of $5,000 and under. (See chart below.) The rock-bottom award goes to E*TRADE S&P 500 Index Fund (ETSPX), with a 0.09% expense ratio, no load and no 12b-1 fees. The minimum investment is $5,000. The other four cheapest funds are also no-load. (Note: We didn't take into account performance data, since the funds track the same index, but there were differences in returns.)

The most expensive are the Rydex S&P 500 A (RYSOX) and Rydex S&P 500 C (RYSYX) funds. With the class C shares, you'll pay a higher expense ratio but smaller load when you sell your shares. With class A you have a lower expense ratio (due to lower 12b-1 fees) but you cough up a large upfront load. The other funds on the priciest list charge sales loads as well.

It basically comes down to three things: economies of scale, loads and the size of the fund, says Tom Roseen, Lipper's research manager for U.S. and Latin America. Vanguard, for instance, has such big index funds, including its popular 500 Index (VFINX), that "it can afford to treat them as a commodity." But he cautions investors to take even the promising data with a grain of salt. "Keep in mind that many of the real low expense ratio funds have added account fees. For example, some of the funds charge investors $15 a year if the account falls, for example, below $10,000. So often these low rates are not as low as we think," Roseen says. As with all mutual funds, it pays to read the fine print of a prospectus before entering a buy order.

Best & Worst S&P 500 Index Funds (based on expense ratios)
Fund
Ticker
Expense Ratio %
Best*
E*TRADE S&P 500 Index Fund
0.09
Columbia Large Cap Index Fund;Z
0.14
Vanguard 500 Index Fund;Investor
0.15
DWS Equity 500 Index Fund;S
0.19
USAA S&P 500 Index Fund;Member
0.19
Worst**
Rydex S&P 500 Fund;C
2.25
Rydex S&P 500 Fund;A
1.55
State Farm S&P 500 Index Fund;B
1.48
UBS S&P 500 Index Fund;C
1.45
DWS S&P 500 Index Fund;B
1.40

Source: Lipper
*No-load funds.
**These funds also charge sales loads.

Follow SmartMoney on Facebook, Twitter & More: Facebook Twitter
Bookmark and Share RSS
Order ReprintsOrder Reprints
User Comments
Posted by: knaugle
crothe is correct. Here, all S&P 500 funds will return the exact same return before expenses [assuming they all accurately track the index]. Therefore, the high expense funds will underperform the low expense funds by the expense difference, year in and year out.

I would guess the expensive funds are only found in brokerage accounts or 401(K)s where they do not have to compete with the likes of E*Trade and Vanguard.
Posted by: crothe
lephly, we're on different boats. Nobody would disagree with your example, but we're talking about expenses for S&P 500 INDEX funds. The returns are not the focus of the article - the expense ratios are. The returns will differ, but not like your example since they track the same index. If you're shopping for a 500 INdex fund, and you don't care about expenses, you're gonna get on the wrong boat.
Posted by: SMLEPHLY2176
Crothe. Thanks for the reply. However, I think you are still missing the boat. This is due to the mere fact that fund expenses are a part of total return. Eg. if a fund #1 grosses 20% and has expenses of 5% (obviously high but for illustration purposes only) then there is a 15% return for you. But say in fund #2 you get a stellar 50% increase and have 20% of expenses. Your total return is 30% (twice as much). Unless I am missing something here it seems to me fund #2 is the way to go even yjough expenses are four times as much as fund #1.
Posted by: crothe
You should care about expenses. This article was focused on index funds - not all funds. If I were reading about actively managed funds, then yes - performance would be more important, and I'd focus less on the expense as long as the total returns were strong. I also would have liked to see performance data on this article, but I am more surprised to read that expenses aren't important to some people.
Posted by: SMLEPHLY2176
I couldn't care less about expenses, per se. I am looking for the highest total return available. I am assuming this is capital gains plus dividends minus the fund expenses. Isn't that the bottom line? I like to use the ten year interval. This usually encompasses the entire business cycle. It seems to take the government about five years to screw things up and the market about five years to rectify the situation. Any fund manager that comes out smelling like a rose through thick and thin catches my attention.
Advertisements

Related Quotes

RYSOX 21.72 Down -0.07 -0.32%
RYSYX 21.14 Down -0.07 -0.33%
FUSVX 38.71 Down -0.12 -0.31%
 

Fund Compare

See how the funds on this page stack up.