Abstract

Previous work shows large differences in fees for S&P 500 index funds and other funds and suggests that investors suffer wealth losses investing in high-fee funds when similar low-fee funds are available. In contrast, the neoclassical model of mutual funds (Berk and van Binsbergen, 2015, J. Financ. Econ., 118, 1–20) argues that percentage fees are irrelevant, as fund size will adjust in equilibrium such that net alphas are equal to zero. We show that fees matter from an investor perspective. We document (i) a strong negative association between net-of-fee fund performance and fees in a sample of all US and international equity funds, (ii) economically large, robust, persistent, and pervasive fee dispersion in the mutual fund industry, and (iii) important economic effects for investors. During the sample period, the mutual fund industry has generated a total value lost (i.e., a negative net value added) of 125 billion USD, coming predominantly from high-fee funds.

中文翻译：

---

共同基金之间费用分散的持续性*

摘要

先前的工作表明，标准普尔500指数基金和其他基金的收费存在很大差异，并表明，如果有类似的低收费基金，则投资者投资高收费基金会遭受财富损失。相比之下，共同基金的新古典模型（Berk和van Binsbergen，2015； J。Financ。Econ。，118，1-20）认为，手续费无关紧要，因为基金规模将在均衡状态下进行调整，以使净阿尔法值相等归零。我们从投资者的角度证明费用很重要。我们在所有美国和国际股票基金的样本中记录（i）费用净额基金业绩与费用之间的强烈负相关；（ii）共同基金行业中经济上庞大，稳健，持久且普遍存在的费用分散， （iii）对投资者的重要经济影响。在抽样期间，