Expense ratio, NAV and why past returns aren't a promise
Three of the most misread numbers on a mutual-fund page. This guide explains what the NAV and expense ratio actually mean, and why trailing returns describe the past rather than predict the future.
What the NAV is (and isn't)
A fund's Net Asset Value is the per-unit value of its holdings after costs, calculated at the end of each trading day. When you invest, you buy units at the applicable NAV; when you redeem, you sell them at the prevailing NAV. A common misconception is that a low NAV makes a fund 'cheap' and a high NAV makes it 'expensive'. It does not — the NAV is just the price per unit, and two funds holding identical portfolios would grow by the same percentage regardless of whether their NAVs happen to be small or large numbers.
What matters for returns is the percentage change in NAV over your holding period, not its absolute level. A fund with a NAV of ₹15 and one with a NAV of ₹150 can deliver exactly the same return; the starting number tells you nothing about future performance.
The expense ratio and why it compounds
The expense ratio is the annual percentage of assets a fund charges to cover management, administration and distribution costs. It is already reflected in the NAV, so you do not pay it as a separate bill, but it quietly reduces your return every year. Because investment returns compound, even a small difference in expense ratio can add up to a meaningful gap over many years between two otherwise similar funds.
This is why direct plans, which exclude distributor commission, carry a lower expense ratio than regular plans of the same fund, and why index funds — which track a benchmark rather than paying for active stock selection — usually charge less than actively managed funds. A lower expense ratio is not the only thing that matters, but it is one of the few fund costs that is known in advance rather than dependent on uncertain performance.
Why past returns are not a promise
Trailing returns show how a fund performed over a past window, and they are heavily shaped by the market conditions of that specific period. A fund can top the tables during a phase that favoured its style and lag when conditions change. This is exactly why regulators require the standard disclaimer that past performance is not indicative of future results — it is a statement about how investing works, not boilerplate.
When looking at returns it helps to compare a fund against its own benchmark and its category over the same periods, and to weigh consistency and risk alongside the headline number. Even then, history describes what happened, not what will happen. This guide is informational only and is not investment advice.
Frequently asked questions
Does a lower NAV mean a fund is cheaper or better value?
No. The NAV is simply the per-unit price and says nothing about future returns. What matters is the percentage change in NAV over your holding period. Two funds with very different NAVs can deliver identical returns.
How does the expense ratio affect my returns?
It is an annual charge already deducted within the NAV, so it lowers your return each year. Because returns compound, even a small difference in expense ratio can widen into a noticeable gap between similar funds over many years.
Why do direct plans have a lower expense ratio than regular plans?
Direct plans exclude the distributor commission built into regular plans of the same fund, so their expense ratio is lower. The underlying portfolio is the same; the difference is the cost layer, not the investments.
Can I rely on a fund's past returns?
Past returns describe a specific past period and are shaped by the market conditions then. They are not a promise of future results — which is why the standard disclaimer exists. Comparing against a benchmark and category, and weighing risk, gives more context, but history is not a forecast.
Ready to compare? Compare Mutual Funds on Nexa24India →