How to Evaluate Load vs. No Load Mutual Funds
If you have been dealing with mutual funds for any length of time, you undoubtedly have faced the question of which is better: Load Funds or No Load Funds. If you are new to investing, "load" simply refers to the commission paid to the broker selling the fund. "No load" means there is no commission on the purchase or sale.
Most discussions in the past have centered exclusively on performance comparisons. Even rating services like Morningstar have occasionally chimed in with their opinion. However, rather than focusing only on performance, there are some other issues I consider far more important:
1. Who is selling load funds and why? 2. Who markets no load funds? 3. Which one is right for you?
Who is selling load funds and why? Most load funds are being sold through brokerage houses, financial planners and Registered Representatives. With few exceptions, most of those folks operate on the basis of selling as much product as possible. They collect their commissions up front, as a back end charge, or both (usually in the range of 5 - 6%). Whether you make money or not is not their primary concern. What matters most to those operating under this approach is how often you buy--and thereby generate new commissions for them.
Who markets no load funds? No Load funds are either marketed directly by the mutual fund companies or, more commonly these days, offered through discount houses like Schwab, Fidelity, and many others. The advantage to this is that you have an unlimited choice of funds in one place and don't have to open separate accounts for each mutual fund family that you are considering.
Who is selling load funds and why? Most load funds are being sold through brokerage houses, financial planners and Registered Representatives
Most fee based investment advisors, like myself, have independent relationships with such major discount firms and are able to offer clients just about any no load mutual fund available. They receive no compensation from the firm and only get paid by the client at a pre-determined fee arrangement. Under this arrangement, there is no hidden motivation to sell you a particular fund or to try and sell more in order to get a larger commission.
Which one is right for you? Whether you prefer dealing with someone selling load funds or an advisor getting you into no loads, let me make one thing very clear: You can make money or lose money either way! Why?
Let's assume for the moment that there is no difference in performance between the types of funds--some of either kind will do well and some of either kind won't. What then determines the successful outcome of you buying either a load or a no load fund?
The key is the advice you're getting. And the fact is that many brokerage houses and Registered Representatives tend to be more interested in their profits than yours. Their investment advice is generally centered around Buy and Hold or dollar cost averaging and similar financially questionable recommendations. Hardly ever will you receive advice about when and why you should exit the market, either because of accumulated profits or to limit your losses. Getting out of the market is simply not in their best interest, though it may be in yours.
I must confess that, as a fee based advisor, I am somewhat biased and I prefer no load funds for my clients. I believe that this type of arrangement is best for all parties involved. It allows me to avoid any conflict of interest and to work exclusively for my clients' financial benefit. And the better my clients do, the better I do.
I am able to choose no load funds and make buy decisions solely on the basis of my mutual fund trend tracking methodology. Following its signals, I can get clients into the market or out of it as often as is necessary to maximize profit or protect assets. And because I work with no load funds, other than a very occasional short term redemption fee, there are no transaction charges no matter how many times we move into or out of the market.
If market conditions dictate that we stand aside in a money market for an extended time in order to avoid a bear market (as was the case from 10/13/2000 to 4/28/2003), I can advise that because it is in the best interest of my client. I am always thinking about what will benefit my client, not worrying about lost commissions. (Please see my article "How we eluded the Bear in 2000" at http://www.successful-investment.com/articles12.htm).
Bottom line: Load fund vs. No Load mutual fund shouldn't be the issue. Having a methodical plan and reliable advice as to when to buy and when to sell is far more important and will help you to secure a prosperous financial future.
© by Ulli G. Niemann
Ulli Niemann is an investment advisor and has written about methodical approaches to investing for over 10 years. He avoided the bear market of 2000 and has helped countless people make better investment decisions. Subscribe to his free newsletter: http://www.successful-investment.com
The Nasty Truth About Mutual Funds Investing
Here are some facts that might make many fund investors question why they have chosen to invest in funds at all.
According to John Bogle, former CEO of Vanguard Funds, one of the most trusted authorities on investing in mutual funds and a strong advocate for ordinary investors, such investors typically get poor returns on their investments. How poor?
Between 1984 and 2002, the average stock fund investor made just 2.7% per year on their fund investments! Hard to believe isn't it? Yet this is for a period during which the S&P Stock 500 Index returned 12.2%, a -9.5% shortfall!
Expressed somewhat differently, had the equity investor invested $1000 buy and hold in the average equity fund beginning in 1984, their investment would have risen in value by $4420 by the close of 2002, for a 9.3% return. But had he invested the $1000 in the S&P 500 Stock Index instead beginning in 1984, his profit would have been $7910.
But, folks, here's the biggest part of the problem: Since most fund investors tend to buy and sell as a function of mass psychology, which usually turns out to be wrong, the average equity fund investor does far worse over the years than the long-term results had he merely bought and held his funds. So, if we track the performance of the typical investor's $1000 made at the start of 1984, his profit would be a mere $660, or a shocking one-twelfth of that of the $7910 shown above for the S&P Index.
How does Bogle account for this tremendous shortfall by the average investor? He attributes the first 3% of the annualized loss to the management fees, costs of the higher than 100% average turnover of stock portfolios, and other expenses incurred by the average fund. As a result of such hefty costs, the typical fund earns, as shown above, nearly 3% less than the Index.
And what about the bigger 6.6% annual difference between the 9.3% return of the average fund and the 2.7% earned by the average investor in those funds? Bogle attributes it to too many fund choices, the great majority of which are too undiversified to meet the typical investor's needs. Such, along with the emotions of "greed and fear", create an atmosphere whereby people are often tempted to make the wrong choices at the wrong times; that is, they are too avid to buy when they should be being more cautious, and too prone to sell out when things have been going poorly for quite a long time rather than selling just a small portion of their holdings, as I have advocated in my writings. (Incidentally, several of the very kind of investment problems reported by Bogle have been dealt with in previous articles on my own not-for-profit website.)
So what can you do to get better results than those achieved by the average investor?
Bogle is known for his support of index funds to reduce fund costs. We agree that this is certainly part of the solution. We also feel that you should choose fund companies and products whose management fees are among the lowest.
But, unfortunately, indexing to the S&P 500 would not have helped you a great deal during the last 5 years; the total return for this itself somewhat undiversified index of U.S. large cap stocks has been a miserable -1.6%. And, unfortunately, human nature, and changing financial and personal circumstances make it all the more difficult to hold any investment year after year for a decade or two, as would have been required to emulate the results above.
Even if you are confident in your own research or rely on data provided by a trusted resource, I still recommend that you consider how the above data might be affecting how well you are really doing in your investments, year after year.
For more thoughts on how to avoid losing the above 6.6% annual return, the largest part of why the average mutual fund investor underperforms, you should invest a little time checking out some of the relevant articles at my site at http://funds-newsletter.com
Tom publishes "Mutual Fund Trends & Research Newsletter", a popular, temporarily free source of mutual fund advice at his website at http://funds-newsletter.com. The Newsletter has been in existence since May, 1999. Tom's investment articles have been chosen as featured articles on numerous other web sites.
The Latest Investment
Stocks Online Articles
Mutual
Funds
A mutual fund is perhaps one of the most
popular means of long
term investing and
is the vehicle of choice
in IRAs and 401k accounts.
A mutual fund is basically
a way of investing
in a pool of different
companies in order
to minimize risk.
More
articles coming soon!
Investing
Stock Online Resources
Yahoo
Finance
Business Investing News
Stock Market Advice
Internet
TV
