The thing that makes fees deceptive is that they're charged in small, soft-sounding percentages. One-and-a-bit percent. Zero-point-eight-five. Numbers that feel easy to shrug off. What's invisible in a single year compounds into something very different over a working life.
Take two retirement funds, each starting with R1 million, each earning 9% a year before fees. The first charges 0.85% annually (a reasonable all-in fee). The second charges 2.5% (still common in South Africa, once advisor, platform and fund fees are stacked). After thirty years, the gap isn't a rounding error. The low-fee fund ends up roughly 40% larger. On the same underlying investment performance.
Where the money actually goes.
Most retirement products charge three layers of fees: one to the fund manager, one to the platform that holds the fund, and one to the advisor who sold it. Each takes its slice before you see a return. Some are visible; some are buried inside "total expense ratios" you have to dig for.
The fair question is never "is this fee high?" It's "what am I getting for it, and could I get similar outcomes for less?" Sometimes the answer is a clear yes, the fee is earning its keep. Sometimes it isn't, and the answer to the question is to move.
What to do with this.
Find out what you're actually paying (all three layers). If you can't find it in a statement, ask. If your advisor can't explain it simply, that itself is a signal. And run a quick projection: the same money, in the same market, at a lower all-in fee. The size of the difference usually surprises people.