ETF Inflows Set a Record in July. The Fee Mix Moved at the Same Time.

ETF Inflows Set a Record in July. The Fee Mix Moved at the Same Time.

Reuben Gregg Brewer, The Motley Fool

Sun, September 6, 2026 at 12:35 PM GMT+3 5 min read

In July, exchange-traded funds (ETFs) took in $193 billion. That pushed the year-to-date total to $1.23 trillion, a record for that seven-month period. But there was an important underlying shift taking place that investors need to be aware of. It's good news for companies like BlackRock (NYSE: BLK), but it could be bad news for individual investors who keep buying ETFs. Here's what you need to know.

Exchange-traded funds are cheap to own, right?

The first exchange-traded fund ever created tracked the S&P 500 index. It made total sense to use the S&P 500 index (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC), since it is basically considered "the market" by most investors. The unique structure of ETFs allowed the fund, SPDR S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT: SPY), to offer a shockingly low expense ratio of just 0.09%.

Missed Nvidia in 2009? This Rare Signal Is Flashing Again. In 2009, a "Double Down" signal flashed for a little-known chipmaker called Nvidia. For the first time in years, that same "Total Conviction" signal is flashing for a company 1/100th the size of Nvidia. Continue »

Most mutual funds at the time had expense ratios that were far higher than that. Even index-based mutual funds tended to be more expensive to own.

Early on, all of the ETFs created tracked large, well-known indexes. And the goal was to have low expense ratios. In fact, there was a race to have the lowest costs, with Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT: VOO) eventually offering access to the S&P 500 index for a tiny 0.03% expense ratio. On an absolute basis, that's not much different from the 0.09% of SPDR S&P 500 ETF, but on a percentage basis, the difference is huge.

Wall Street gives the market what it wants

The problem is that there are only so many big indexes to copy. So Wall Street, seeing an opportunity to sell a new product, began creating bespoke indexes around which it could build new ETFs. All sorts of sector-specific ETFs were launched, and ETFs based on "factors" too. There was a Herculean effort among finance giants to slice and dice the market just to create new ETFs.

But those ETFs often require more "work" to operate. So, expense ratios were higher. For example, Vanguard Utilities Index ETF (NYSEMKT: VPU) has an expense ratio of 0.09%. But it's just an index of utility stocks, so how much extra work is really needed to create it compared to an S&P 500 index ETF? The answer doesn't matter; investors have to pay more for it either way. And Wall Street generates more fee income.

The next obvious step was for Wall Street to create actively managed ETFs. Basically, these are mutual funds with an ETF structure, but they charge higher fees than index-based ETFs. For example, the recently launched iShares Systematic Alternatives Active ETF (NASDAQ: IALT) has an expense ratio of 0.99%. That's basically what an actively managed mutual fund would charge, meaning BlackRock, one of the largest ETF sponsors, has found a way to materially increase its fee income through the ETF structure. To be fair, iShares Systematic Alternatives Active ETF is a pretty complex ETF, but investors shouldn't ignore the trajectory that expense ratios have taken.

And that brings the story back to how much money is going into ETFs more broadly. While the entire ETF category is seeing huge inflows, much of the growth is coming from actively managed ETFs, which are more expensive to own. And the shift is material, with active ETFs benefiting from a 75% year-over-year increase in inflows through the first seven months of 2026, to $466 billion. The fee mix is moving in Wall Street's favor.

Don't assume an ETF is cheap

At one point, an investor could just assume that ETFs were the cheapest option available to them for a given investment approach. That's no longer the case. Wall Street's business is to maximize profits, so this progression shouldn't be surprising. However, if you don't see the progression for what it is, you may end up paying more than you expect for the asset management services you are receiving. So, it is probably more important than ever for investors to check ETF expense ratios before making the final buy decision.

Should you buy stock in BlackRock right now?

Before you buy stock in BlackRock, consider this:

The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and BlackRock wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut are built for long-term growth and could produce monster returns in the coming years.

Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $421,997!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,413,876!*

That performance is why people listen. With a track record of beating the S&P 500 by nearly 5x, Stock Advisor offers a distinct advantage. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built for the long haul.

See the 10 stocks »

*Stock Advisor returns as of September 6, 2026.

Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends BlackRock and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

ETF Inflows Set a Record in July. The Fee Mix Moved at the Same Time. was originally published by The Motley Fool