• Frontline
  • Warren Buffett
  • Volvo
  • NASDAQ Composite Index
  • 10 Year Treasury
  • Commercial Banks
  • JPMorgan Chase
  • Emerging Markets
  • Commerce Department
  • Home
  • Practice Management
  • Research & Insights
  • Alternatives
  • ETF Managed Portfolios
  • Home>Research & Insights>College Savings Educator>College Savers Pay a Premium for 529s

    Related Content

    1. Videos
    2. Articles
    1. Fund Returns Put 529 Plans to the Test

      Traditional mutual funds tend to outperform 529 plans, but tax incentives and high-quality investments can offset the college-savings vehicles' lagging returns.

    2. Investors Grow Cautious on Stocks

      May was the worst month in over a year for flows to U.S. equities, while many core bond funds are receiving inflows as rising-rate concerns abate.

    3. Key Findings From Our 529 Industry Study

      Our annual study examines how 529 college savings plans stack up on price, performance, and other factors versus non-plan mutual funds.

    4. 3 Trends Toward Lower-Fee Investments

      Investors continue to shift assets away from traditional commission-based approaches and into products with lower expenses.

    College Savers Pay a Premium for 529s

    Expenses continue to shrink, but mutual funds are still cheaper.

    Kathryn Spica, CFA, 06/10/2014

    While the gap is shrinking, the costs of 529 college savings plans continue to create a tough hurdle when compared with traditional mutual funds.

    As part of its annual study of the 529 college-savings-plan industry, Morningstar's team of analysts dug into the costs associated with 529 plans. Because of many factors, including smaller asset bases and costs associated with state-level administration and marketing, 529 investment options typically carry more-expensive price tags than comparable traditional open-end mutual funds.

    Fortunately for college savers, costs across the industry have come down in recent years. Since Morningstar began tracking the movements in 529 investments' fees in 2010 through the end of 2013, the cost gap between the average 529 category expense ratio and that of the analogous open-end mutual fund category has shrunk to 21 basis points from 40 basis points. 

    The lower-cost trend is due to a number of factors, including a growing use of low-cost passive mutual funds and exchange-traded funds for age-based and stand-alone investment options. In addition, several plan sponsors and program managers have aggressively cut administration and maintenance costs. For example, Fidelity is the program manager of four direct-sold plans and, along with its state sponsors, cut fees at each of the plans' index-based options below most peers'.

    Costs have decreased on average, although all but one of Morningstar's 529 categories still cost more than their respective open-end category. The largest gap is among aggressive-allocation investments, in which the typical 529 aggressive-allocation option costs 35 basis points more than the typical open-end mutual fund. The only category to reverse this trend is large blend, in which the average 529 option costs 5 basis points less. The large-blend category is home to index funds that track prominent U.S. stock indexes, such as the S&P 500, and passive investments cost less than most category peers. As passive investments have taken up a prominent position in many 529 plans, it makes sense that this category carries a generally lower price tag.

    The Method Matters
    To better compare 529 expenses across plans, Morningstar divided 529 age-based options into groups based on their distribution channel and underlying investment types. After dividing the age-based options by whether they are direct- or advisor-sold, Morningstar categorizes the options into one of three groups: actively managed, passively managed, or a blend of the two. (The "blend" groups are defined as having between 20% and 80% in active management.) Morningstar then determines the average total expense ratio for each age-based track.