Sign Up For The Next
New Constructs Webinar


Total Annual Costs Ratings Methodology for Predictive Fund Rating

Friday, October 28th, 2011


A key component of our Predictive Rating, Total Annual Costs reflect the all-in cost of a minimum investment in each fund assuming a 3-yr holding period, the average holding period for mutual funds[1].

This rating reflects all expenses, loads, fees and transaction costs in a single value that is comparable across all funds, i.e. ETFs and mutual funds.

In each of our ETF and mutual fund reports, we also provide the ‘Accumulated Total Costs vs Benchmark’ analysis to show investors, in dollar-value terms, how much money comes out of the their pocket to pay for fund management. This analysis assumes a $10,000 initial investment and a 10% annual return for both the fund and the benchmark – so comparison between the fund and benchmark is apples-to-apples.

Our goal is to give investors as accurate a measure as possible of the cost of investing in every fund to determine whether this cost of active management is worth paying.


The Total Annual Costs Ratings are calculated using our proprietary Total Annual Costs metric, which is my apples-to-apples measure of the all-in costs of investing in any given fund.

Total Annual Costs incorporates the expense ratio, front-end load, back-end load, redemption fee, transaction costs and opportunity costs of all those costs. In other words, Total Annual Costs captures everything to give investors as accurate a measure as possible of the costs of being in any given fund.

Total Annual Costs are calculated assuming a 10% expected return and a 3-yr holding period, the average holding period for mutual funds[1].

Total Annual Costs is the incremental return a fund must earn above its expected return in order to justify its costs. For example, a fund with Total Annual Costs of 8% and an expected return of 10% must earn a gross return of 18% to cover its costs and deliver a 10% return to investors.

The following chart shows the distribution of the Total Annual Costs for the 400+ ETFs and 7000+ mutual funds we cover.

Thresholds used for determining the Total Annual Costs rating.

Total Annual Costs Components:

  1. Expense Ratio: Funds disclose multiple expense ratios within their prospectuses, quarterly report and annual reports. We use the net prospectus expense because it is forward-looking, comparable across all funds and represents the expense ratio investors expect to pay when purchasing the fund.
  2. Front-end Load: Fee paid to the selling broker when shares of the mutual fund are purchased. This load decreases the initial investment.
  3. Back-end Load: Fee paid directly to the brokers when shares of the mutual fund are sold. This fee is calculated by multiplying the back-end load ratio by the initial investment, ending investment, or the lesser of the two. For the purposes of our calculation we assume that back-end loads are always calculated using the initial investment. Since we assume a 3-year holding period, our Total Annual Cost metric uses the 3-year back-end load ratio.
  4. Redemption Fee: Similar to a back-end load except that a redemption fee is typically used to defray fund costs associated with the shareholder’s redemptions and is paid directly to the fund where as back-end loads are paid directly to the brokers. For the purposes of our calculation we treat redemption fees the same as back-end loads. Most redemption fees expire in less that one-year and since we assume a 3-yr holding period, redemption fees only impact the Total Annual Costs rating of four mutual funds.
  5. Transaction Costs: Costs incurred by a fund as it buys and sells securities throughout the year. Transactions costs are not incorporated in a fund’s expense ratio but rather are taken directly out of shareholder assets. Transaction costs are difficult to calculate and are not included in the prospectus or the annual reports. We calculate transaction costs by multiplying the portfolio turnover by a proprietary transaction cost multiplier.
  6. Opportunity Costs: The difference in return between a chosen investment and one that is necessarily passed up. Each of the five costs described above have associated opportunity costs because they reduce the amount of money an investor puts to work in a fund. Our opportunity costs are calculating assuming a 10% expected return.





Suggested Stories


  1. varadha says:

    Terrific, yet simple analysis. I’ve always been a fan of ROIC as a measure of capital efficiency and believe that no size/growth outperformance can replace the quest for efficiency.

    Sort of like a big gas guzzling v8 that needs ever increasing gallons of fuel to keep its engine running

  2. David says:

    But Angie’s $90 per user acquisition cost is going to go away. That’s what their approach probably is. How would their outlook be if that $90 cost dropped down to a total cost of $3 per user?

  3. David:

    That would be great, but cost per user acquisition is not something that’s very easy for a company to fix. ANGI can slash their marketing budget to the bone, but then they would stop acquiring new members. They would probably lose members in fact, as their membership renewal rate is at ~75% and declining. If they cut marketing expense by ~95% as you seem to be suggesting, ANGI might be able to eke out 1 year of slight profits, but they would start shedding members and losing money very quickly. ANGI’s only hope is to keep its marketing budget high and hope it can reach the scale and brand awareness to be able to sustain its business while scaling back marketing costs enough to turn a profit. The fact that ANGI’s revenue growth is slowing down even as its marketing costs keep increasing makes it very unlikely it will achieve that goal.

Leave a Message

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *