Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Supreme Court Case On Mutual Fund Fees
Old 10-30-2009, 11:11 AM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pasadena CA
Posts: 2,695
Supreme Court Case On Mutual Fund Fees

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...me-court_N.htm

I hate to see things in black and white but this really does look, to me, like the forces of darkness against forces of light. Its not like Bogle, AARP and others are against fees, the principle is that the people that manage our money should have a fiduciary responsibility for looking out for our interests and that includes keeping fees low.
__________________

__________________
T.S. Eliot:
Old men ought to be explorers
yakers is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-30-2009, 11:14 AM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakers View Post
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...me-court_N.htm

I hate to see things in black and white but this really does look, to me, like the forces of darkness against forces of light. Its not like Bogle, AARP and others are against fees, the principle is that the people that manage our money should have a fiduciary responsibility for looking out for our interests and that includes keeping fees low.

Link did not work for me...
__________________

__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2009, 11:17 AM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pasadena CA
Posts: 2,695
Try this:

Questions about fees land mutual funds before Supreme Court - USATODAY.com
__________________
T.S. Eliot:
Old men ought to be explorers
yakers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2009, 01:25 PM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Bimmerbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,631
I think companies should be free to charge whatever they want. If consumers don't like paying the fees, they will shop elsewhere. I guess I'm a fan of "buyer beware."
__________________
Bimmerbill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 07:20 AM   #5
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 654
Here's another news blimp on mutual fund fee's, this time its from bloomberg.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...UNKFoo28&pos=7

Steve
__________________
Stevewc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 08:05 AM   #6
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerbill View Post
I think companies should be free to charge whatever they want. If consumers don't like paying the fees, they will shop elsewhere. I guess I'm a fan of "buyer beware."
I agree as long as the actual fees are made clear to the investor. To me "made clear" would include a separate line item on every statement showing the actual amount, in dollars, that was charged in fees during that period.
__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 09:50 AM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DblDoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerbill View Post
I think companies should be free to charge whatever they want. If consumers don't like paying the fees, they will shop elsewhere. I guess I'm a fan of "buyer beware."
Agree - but only if you add "And employees are free to choose from the entire universe of MF's in their 40x plans"

DD
__________________
At 54% of FIRE target
DblDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 09:57 AM   #8
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
In general, I think funds should be *allowed* to charge whatever they want as long as ALL expenses and fees are fully disclosed. Having said that, it breaks down somewhat in many 401K plans because of the extremely limited fund options.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 10:08 AM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,616
Agreed. Disclose in a very plain way, but no micromanagement of fees by the government.

One real problem is the lack of employer incentives to offer lower cost 40X options. The employer may prefer higher cost providers because they offer the employer "benefits" (who knows? More account servicing assistance, kickbacks, free golf vacations for management, etc) and the employer doesn't really pay the fees (they come out of the employees' accounts). This problem grows now that employers pick default funds for workers who don't pick an option. I'll bet some of those default funds, even if the underlying investments themselves are prudent, will have high fees. Let's at least disclose all of this to employees along with the average fees paid by all 401K plans. Better yet, as DblDoc recommends, let employees choose from the same virtually unlimited menu that they have for their IRAs. I would not be opposed to a little mandatory reading about investing and signing of agreements/hold harmless paperwork. It shouldn't be necessary, but people have not made good IRA choices (overall) and everyone is going to have to collectively pay the price for individual bad decisions. It is becoming a theme--more nannyism begets thicker and thicker diapers.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 10:13 AM   #10
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Agreed. Disclose in a very plain way, but no micromanagement of fees by the government.

One real problem is the lack of employer incentives to offer lower cost 40X options. The employer may prefer higher cost providers because they offer the employer "benefits" (who knows? More account servicing assistance, kickbacks, free golf vacations for management, etc) and the employer doesn't really pay the fees (they come out of the employees' accounts). This problem grows now that employers pick default funds for workers who don't pick an option. I'll bet some of those default funds, even if the underlying investments themselves are prudent, will have high fees. Let's at least disclose all of this to employees along with the average fees paid by all 401K plans. Better yet, as DblDoc recommends, let employees choose from the same virtually unlimited menu that they have for their IRAs. I would not be opposed to a little mandatory reading about investing and signing of agreements/hold harmless paperwork. It shouldn't be necessary, but people have not made good IRA choices (overall) and everyone is going to have to collectively pay the price for individual bad decisions. It is becoming a theme--more nannyism begets thicker and thicker diapers.

What is a 40X option?


As for some of what you say... I am sure that it does happen... but our company just change to Fidelity (very small comapny, very small plan)... but the funds they recommended for default were the target retirement funds... nothing fancy... not a lot of fees..

I was surprised that we could have 'the universe' in funds... IIRC, there were over 1,000 we could choose from.... we went hog wild and chose about 90.. (we had it lower, but they made us include the funds we had from the old plan in order to move the money over)... we can add funds as we wish... so if some company does not offer a wide variety of funds, then IMO their management is bad....
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 10:27 AM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
What is a 40X option?
Sorry, I was just picking up DbDoc's terminology. 40X = 401K, 403B, etc.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 03:57 PM   #12
gone traveling
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Agreed. Disclose in a very plain way, but no micromanagement of fees by the government..
But, Sam, we NEED more government intervention to protect us from ourselves. What you propose is positively unAmerican. Get with the program, comrade!
__________________
Westernskies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 10:16 AM   #13
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,291
From what I could read.... the argument is that the board of the MF has a fiduciary obligation to the participants...

They are not doing their fiduciary responsibility when they allow some people to come in at a low cost and then charge a high cost to you and me...

And there should not be any hidden fees or kickbacks to some...


I agree that you vote with your feet... but I also don't mind someone doing the legwork to improve the system if that is what happens... if you remember, way way back when, you had to pay an upfront fee to get in most funds... it was not an option... and brokers charged $100 or more for trading stocks... because the system was made for them to make money off you....
__________________

__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mutual fund fees.....how often taken out?? dessert FIRE and Money 5 09-26-2007 09:16 AM
Why does mutual fund fees matter? Van FIRE and Money 36 05-15-2006 08:24 AM
Roberts--supreme court nominee Martha Other topics 5 07-20-2005 05:14 PM
supreme court Martha Other topics 1 07-06-2005 09:01 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:19 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.