Sometimes even prominent magazines get it wrong
Money Today magazine's current issue provides a list of mutual funds and their past performances. Here's a snapshot of a page:
In the column for price, the fund NAV is listed. What is the price of a fund ? Is it the NAV ? Most investors fail to grasp the meaning of a fund NAV. The absolute value of the NAV is of no consequence. It's just a notional figure. It certainly does not represent the cost of a fund. The cost of a fund is the annual expense ratio and the entry/exit loads. That is what should have been provided here. Sometimes I feel there's a conspiracy to keep the expense ratio under wraps. In the fund documents, it's buried deep somewhere and is hard to fund. Magazines don't talk about it as much as they should. Considering that such magazines are dependent on advertisement revenues from financial companies, it's not hard to see why.