The difference between the first charging mode
Among the nine existing Shanghai and Shenzhen 300 index funds, Dacheng and Nanfang have front-end charging and back-end charging modes. The back-end charging model strongly advocated by fund companies is not necessarily more cost-effective than the front-end charging. The reason is also very simple. The back-end charging model exists because fund companies want to encourage investors to hold funds for as long as possible.
In addition, if you are an investor with a level of more than 5 million yuan, even if you hold it for 5 years, the investment made by the back-end charging model cannot achieve lower cost than the front-end charging model. So don't choose back-end charging mode at any time.
Second, the cost difference.
Among the nine existing CSI 300 index funds in the market, Harvest CSI 300 has the most cost advantage as a whole. Investors can calculate the total cost of OTC redemption with different investment periods of 1 10,000 yuan, 2 million to 5 million yuan and 5 million yuan respectively, and then come to this conclusion.
When investors trade funds in the secondary market, there is no need to levy stamp duty on listed funds, and the related expenses only include the commission paid to brokers and about one-tenth of the securities management fee. The cost will be much lower than redemption in different places.
Third, the size of the fund.
Analysts prefer large-scale index funds, and the impact on the expected annualized expected return of funds will be diluted accordingly. The reason is that the larger the scale, the more convenient it will be for large funds to enter and exit. If there is any difference between different CSI 300 funds, it is their scale. However, for individual investors with a small amount of funds, this is not so important.
Fourth, tracking error.
ETF is the best at copying indexes, but the accuracy of tracking indexes by general index funds is relatively poor. Since a considerable number of investors need to use ETF as a tool for arbitrage, T+0 and other different types of transactions, the tracking error seems to be more meaningful to ETF funds. In this case, the accuracy of index replication is likely to affect their expected annualized expected return on investment.
In practice, the old fund has no obvious advantages over the new fund. However, the tracking error of funds during the opening period is obviously much larger. Usually these foundations stipulate the upper limit of tracking error in the fund contract. Generally, the maximum daily tracking error is less than 4%, and the annual tracking error is less than 4%.