Posts Tagged ‘Mutual Fund Company’

Reasons to Fire Your Mutual Fund Company - Tax Inefficiency

Thursday, January 29th, 2009
Mark Brandon asked:


Mutual fund investors who hold their funds in a retirement account are not affected by this aspect, since income is tax-deferred in most cases. However, if you hold mutual funds in a taxable account, which includes a substantial portion of retirees, you will be doubly surprised this year. First, you will be hit with a tax bill whether or not you sold your fund during the year. To add insult to injury, you may be responsible for a large capital gains bill despite your fund being an overall loser for the year. Second — and few people know about this one yet — the expiration of three year tax loss carryforwards, means that your bill be larger this year than it’s been in the last five. Why? The losses sustained during the bear market of 2000-2002 enabled funds to offset gains in subsequent years. That expires this year. Lipper estimates that the average capital gains distribution is going to increase 50 percent this year (see Boston Globe).

How Did We Get Here?

Whether you are an individual or an organization, the IRS wants its cut of any income from capital gains and dividends. Mutual funds are not excluded. So, when your mutual fund manager sells positions for what you hope is a gain, that gain is taxable, regardless of whether there are offsetting losses. The same is true when a stockholding pays a dividend. For organizations that pass through these gains to the shareholders, the gains are taxable at the individual’s tax rate instead of the corporate tax rate. It is prudent to pass through these gains, since a large percentage of shareholdings are in non-taxable accounts, and few individuals that are in taxable accounts are in a higher bracket than the corporate rate.

You can’t fault the funds for choosing to pass through the gains. However, you can fault them for high turnover in their portfolios. In 25 years, funds have gone from an average turnover of 8 years (meaning that fifteen percent of their holdings are bought and sold in a year) to today’s average turnover of 100 percent. This means that in every year, all stocks are bought and sold. Some of the most egregious offenders turn over their portfolio five times in a year. The mutual fund industry has transitioned from buy-and-hold stewards of corporate America to being short-term, rent-a-stock traders in that time. Although evidence is unclear about why this has happened, the pessimist in me believes that it is because of soft dollar arrangements resulting in an incentive to trade frequently.

Why Should I Care?

High management and expense fees have already made it difficult to outperform their benchmarks consistently. Now, if you take into account that you will have to pay a larger bill to the tax man, that just means your performance suffers even more. If you lose one percent per year to taxes, that amounts to serious money over time. Over a 30 year saving period, this difference amounts to more than 25 percent of your ending net worth. Considering that this could make the difference between you running out of money before you die, it is not to be ignored.

What You Can Do About It

Index funds do not have high turnover. The only turnover they have is periodic rebalancing when their benchmark indexes change. This makes them more tax efficient.

An even better option is to engage First Sustainable to create a so-called Folio. This combines the technology available to a mutual fund to enable you to create your own diversified, asset-allocated mutual fund. You can buy fractional shares of individual stocks. This way, your only tax bill comes when you also do periodic rebalancing to suit your financial situation. To me, this is way more acceptable than swallowing a bill that was based on some conflicted manager’s financial situation.



What is the cheapest way to invest in mutual funds?

Sunday, December 28th, 2008
The Misses asked:


What is the cheapest way to invest in mutual funds (broker, bank, or mutual fund company)?
Can you suggest something specific?
How expensive is it?
thank you very much. that’s nice of you!

Reasons To Fire Your Mutual Fund Company: 12b-1 Fees

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008
Mark Brandon asked:


The 12b-1 fee is the obscurely-named outrage that dings investors in mutual funds so that management can market the fund. In 1980, the mutual fund industry successfully lobbied the SEC to allow this fee with the justification that a larger fund lowers the expenses for everybody. In theory, the logic is right when you take into account the same expenses being spread over a larger pool of assets. However, there are several problems with this thinking:

1) A larger fund does not necessarily become easier to manage. Over the last 25 years, multi-billion dollar mutual funds have become the norm. When I worked for Fidelity in the early 1990’s, the largest fund in the world at the time, the famous Fidelity Magellan, was around $25 billion. Even then, concerns had set in that it had become too large to outperform the market. Since then, Magellan’s size has been a deterrent. Like a large barge, meaningful changes in its trajectory take too long to implement. Of the funds with in excess of $5 billion, most of them track the S&P 500 minus their outsize fees because that is all they can do. Yet, even these large funds continue to charge the 12b-1 fee.

2) Certainly, if a fund is closed to new investors (which makes the fund easier to manage), the existing shareholders should be relieved of the 12b-1 fee. But, as of November 2003, when the House introduced HR 2420, 139 closed funds still levied the fee. The funds are charging a marketing expense for funds that no longer accept new investors. Huh? Like ***** cocaine, fund management firms just became addicted to the stream of poorly disclosed fund fees.

3) A fund is able to call itself “no load” as long as the 12b-1 fee is 25 basis points (.25%) or lower, although many funds charge the max-allowable 100 basis points.

In practice, the 12b-1 fee is partially shared with advisers who tout the funds, and the rest is gravy to the fund firm. They do not disclose this fee as part of their management fee, and even obscure the fee in their overall expense ratio.

Two thirds of mutual funds charge this fee, and I would bet that few investors know about it. HR 2420, introduced by congressman Mike Castle of Delaware, sought to ban this fee for closed funds only, and even that was stalled in the Senate, despite broad bi-partisan support and backing from the white house.