Earlier this year, two mutual fund management companies, American Guardian, Inc. and Best Management, Inc. entered into an agreement under which American Guardian would purchase all of the issued and outstanding stock of Best Management and merge Best Management into American Guardian. Although the companies are now combined, there are still two separate boards of directors for the funds. Each fund complex retained the same independent board members previously elected by the shareholders, but company-appointed directors were reevaluated and will be consistent for both boards. The combined entity, Best American Management, is now in the process of reviewing existing products and services and looking for opportunities to leverage its increased size.
American Guardian was a 30-year old Boston-based mutual fund complex. This fairly staid, conservative company was well known but had not been particularly innovative in fund distribution or shareholder servicing. It had historically chosen to distribute mainly through broker- dealers and outsourced its transfer agent process. The relatively new CEO of American Guardian firmly believed that in today’s highly competitive environment, mutual fund complexes must “grow or die.” He saw an acquisition as a necessary step to ensure that his firm’s products and services would be attractive to investors and their advisers in the future. Read the rest of this entry »
Back-end loads are a sales commission levied by some load funds when an investor sells mutual fund shares. These back-end loads typically are structured as a contingent deferred sales charge (CDSC), which often start at 5% or 6% of money withdrawn within a year of buying the fund and then decline by a percentage point or so each year until they disappear. Back-end loads usually are set to compensate the distributor for marketing and selling the fund, especially to protect anticipated annual flows of 12b-1 fees. However, back-end loads may also be used to dissuade short-term traders; funds may set a high back-end load for money withdrawn within a very short time frame and then revert to the more general schedule of yearly declining load amounts referenced above. Read the rest of this entry »
The Class B structure creates challenging financial issues for the fund sponsor This structure carries inherent risk in that the fund’s NAV could decline substantially, decreasing the amount of 126-1 fees and CDSCs received by the sponsor, possibly below the amount it advanced to the broker-dealer. This is especially a risk for an equity fund sponsor, since equity assets are more volatile than other asset types. In recent years, many fund sponsors have sought relief from the risk that the CDSC arrangement entails by taking advantage of new methods of financial engineering developed by banks and investment banks. These methods enable fund sponsors to reduce or eliminate this risk by securitizing and selling the future cash flows from 12b-1 fees and CDSCs. For example, consider a fund sponsor that has just paid a broker a 4% commission for selling Class B shares of a growth find. Rather than wait to recoup this commission via 12b-1 fees and/or CDSCs, the sponsor may sell the rights to these future cash flows to an unrelated party in exchange for a modestly lower payment today. This sale effectively protects the sponsor against the risk associated with a possible downturn in the equities market and consequential decline in cash flows from 12b-1 fees and CDSCs. Read the rest of this entry »
In reviewing the expenses of mutual fund investors, it is useful to distinguish between expenses paid directly by shareholders as individual investors and expenses paid by the fund itself (which are paid indirectly by all fund shareholders). In general, fees related to distribution and redemption are paid by shareholders at the time of a specific event, while fees related to management and service are paid by the fund on an annual basis. But this general rule has a few exceptions—most important, 12b-1 fees, which are continuing distribution charges borne by funds as a percentage of their assets.
Sales loads are the most significant fees charged to shareholders individually. Sales loads are paid to the fund distributor, usually affiliated with the fund management company, and mostly passed on to the broker who helped close the sale. The maximum sales load is 81A%, though as a practical matter, sales loads now average 4% or 5%. Historically, all sales loads were paid by shareholders when purchasing fund shares at the front end of their investment and therefore were called front-end loads. Read the rest of this entry »
In addition, the composition of equity funds changed during the 1990-2000 period. According to Strategic Insight, broader investment objectives such as growth and growth & income experienced a decrease of 7.7 percentage points in share of equity funds during the decade. The decrease was offset by an increase in more specialized funds, with higher management fees, such as sector funds and international funds. In particular, emerging market and country funds went from a half-percent share of funds 110P available in 1990 to almost 3% in 2000. At the same time, there was a substantial increase in lower management fee products such as index funds, which were almost nonexistent in 1989.
2. Number of funds During the 1990s, fund choices grew alongside assets at a rapid pace as the number of mutual funds increased from around 3,000 to over 8,000.
Implications of this tremendous increase in the number of funds for management fees depend on the resulting trends in average and median fund size, as shown in Table 2 (which defines a fund to include each class of a multi-class fund). Read the rest of this entry »
