Learn · Holdings filed for periods June 30, 2026 to August 31, 2026
What am I really paying for the active part of my fund?
Data as of June 30, 2026 to August 31, 2026 holdings (filed July 20, 2026 to October 29, 2026)
If 70% of a fund’s portfolio matches an index you could buy for almost nothing, the fee is really buying only the other 30%. Dividing the fee you pay above the index price by the fraction that actually differs gives the cost of the active slice.
Across the 34 closet index funds with the filed inputs for this calculation as of August 31, 2026, the median active slice costs 1.68% a year — $1,682 per $100,000 committed to the part of the portfolio that differs.
How the figure is built
Take the fund’s filed net expense ratio. Subtract what the cheapest index fund tracking the same benchmark charges, since that part of the portfolio is available at that price. Divide what remains by the fund’s active share. The result is the fee per unit of actual difference.
It is arithmetic on filed numbers, not a forecast. It does not say the active slice is worth less than it costs; it says what it costs.
| Fund | Ticker | Active share | Filed fee | Fee per unit of difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goldman Sachs S&P 500 Premium Income ETF | GPIX | 6.2% | 0.29% | 4.70% |
| The Hartford Capital Appreciation Fund | HCACX | 45.1% | 1.86% | 4.12% |
| Clearwater Core Equity Fund | QWVPX | 22.4% | 0.90% | 4.02% |
| JPMorgan U.S. Large Cap Core Plus Fund | JCPRX | 43.8% | 1.44% | 3.29% |
| Tax-Managed U.S. Large Cap Fund | RETSX | 30.4% | 0.90% | 2.96% |
| Columbia Contrarian Core Fund | CCCRX | 45.0% | 1.23% | 2.73% |
| Hartford Capital Appreciation Hls Fund | HCPCX | 46.8% | 1.18% | 2.52% |
| JPMorgan Hedged Equity 2 Fund | JHDAX | 34.0% | 0.84% | 2.47% |
| Federated Hermes MDT All Cap Core Fund | QAACX | 47.8% | 1.05% | 2.19% |
| U.S. Strategic Equity Fund | RESRX | 33.1% | 0.68% | 2.05% |
Where this figure does not apply
Dividing by active share means the result runs away as active share approaches zero, so the measure only says something about a fund that is trying to differ in the first place. 12 funds that are themselves index funds are left out of the table for that reason: an index fund has no active slice to price, and an expensive one is a different problem, covered in the closet-index definition.
One limit we cannot correct for: active share is computed from filed equity holdings, so it does not see an options overlay or other derivative strategy. A fund whose actual strategy sits in derivatives can show a low active share and a correspondingly large figure here while not being a closet indexer at all. Read a high number on such a fund as a prompt to check what the fund actually does, not as a conclusion.
A worked example
Take a fund charging 1.00% whose benchmark can be tracked for 0.03%, with an active share of 25%. The index-matching three quarters of the portfolio is available for almost nothing, so the fee above that price — 0.97% — is all being paid for the quarter that differs. Divided by that quarter, the differing portion is costing about 3.9% a year.
The same fund at 50% active share would cost about 1.9% on the part that differs, and at 75% about 1.3%. The fee on your statement never changes in that example. What changes is how much portfolio the fee is buying.
Why the number gets large
The divisor does the work. A fund charging a point above its index comparison with 50% active share costs two points on the part that differs. The same fee at 20% active share costs five. Low active share does not reduce the fee; it concentrates it on a smaller slice.
What it is not
This is not the fee you pay — that is the expense ratio, charged on your whole balance. It is a way of seeing what the fee buys. A fund can be expensive per unit of difference and still be a reasonable holding, if the difference is one you want and cannot get elsewhere.
It also prices nothing about quality. A cheap active slice can be a poor one and an expensive slice can be worth every basis point; holdings cannot settle that, and neither can we. The figure answers a narrower question honestly: given what this portfolio actually differs by, what is the differing part costing, and is that a price you would knowingly agree to.
Why it is worth computing at all
An expense ratio is designed to look small. Under one per cent reads as a rounding error next to the returns people expect from equities, which is exactly why the figure persuades. Re-expressing the same fee as a price for the portion of the portfolio that actually differs restores the sense of scale, because it stops crediting the manager for the index exposure anyone can buy for a few basis points.
Nothing about the arithmetic is novel, and none of it depends on a view about the manager. It simply refuses to price the index part twice.
Next: the closet-index definition, or the fee-against-difference map.