Specifically which fund or funds? Let's see what the whole
story is here.
Generally no load funds with low expense ratios perform as
well as or better than other funds.
See for
several links to free online articles (consumer oriented) on
the merits of no load, low expense ratio funds.
<> wrote
>I have an IRA with American Growth Funds. I'm being charged
>about 5%
> everytime I put money in the fund.
Type in AGTHX at www.finance.yahoo.com for basic details of
this fund. Under "profile" note the expense ratio and front
end sales load. Its stock holdings are nothing special. The
front end sales road is ridiculous. I recommend opening an
account with Vanguard and choosing any one of its large
value stock index funds. VFINX, for one, will perform as
well (use the charting feature at Yahoo) to confirm this,
and its expenses are a bargain: No sales load; low expense
ratio. Or, if you want superior service, try Fidelity: Not
as many index funds from which to choose, but plenty that
can promise what AGTHX promises, with much lower expenses.
I tried to confirm yahoo's claims using American Funds web
site, but they don't make it easy to find the fund expenses.
That's another bad sign, AFAIC.
<> wrote
> The fund is called The Growth Fund of America - A.
Did a little checking on my own, if you invested $10k in 1996 and reinvested
the dividends in both the Growth Fund of America or the S&P 500, in ten
years the American Fund would be worth $33,555 and the S&P would be $23,566
Even with the sales load the American Funds returned 12.66%, while the S&P
500 returned 9.07%
Elle wrote .. The front end sales road is ridiculous.
John R replies .. uh oh ... Elle .. if you are a registered rep or a
broker you're dangerously close to drawing attention from the SEC.
Run an analyzer before making such bizarre and outlandish statements.
Front loads almost ALWAYS work out for the better interest of the
client in the long run.
And in order to analyze you don't use Yahoo .. you use the NASD's own
site .. and they're the body watching out for the consumer ... yahoo is
just a profit making internet based business model .. big differences
there, dontcha think?
fwiw
john radgosky
"John Radgosky" <> writes:
> Elle wrote .. The front end sales road is ridiculous.
It is - possibly.
> John R replies .. uh oh ... Elle .. if you are a registered rep or a
> broker you're dangerously close to drawing attention from the SEC.
Absolutely not.
> Run an analyzer before making such bizarre and outlandish statements.
> Front loads almost ALWAYS work out for the better interest of the
> client in the long run.
Only in comparison to other loads (ie. class B or C shares with
ongoing sales fees). Elle wasn't suggesting other classes of
shares of the same fund. She was suggesting entirely other
funds with no loads at all.
We pretty constantly have the question of whether loads or
fees are ever justified here. The fact is that sometimes
they are - when the salesperson does valuable work to earn
that fee (ie. helping person choose appropriate funds as
part of a more comprehensive financial plan). But the sad
story is that much of the time, those sales fees are *not*
earned and are simply wasted money (ie. when the salesperson
doesn't do all that). We really don't know enough about
the original poster's situation to be able to say whether
or not paying a load is a waste.
> And in order to analyze you don't use Yahoo .. you use the NASD's own
> site .. and they're the body watching out for the consumer ... yahoo is
NASD is *not* watching out for the consumer. It's an association
of securities dealers. The SEC may be a better bet, but even
that's not very likely.
> just a profit making internet based business model .. big differences
> there, dontcha think?
Of course they are. That doesn't change the value of the
information they make available to us.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
"John Radgosky" <> wrote
> Front loads almost ALWAYS work out for the better interest
> of the
> client in the long run.
Numerous, reputable studies demonstrate how the performance
of loaded funds or results from higher sales fees, as a
statistical matter and with reference to a time period of
say ten years, is not superior to the performance of
non-loaded funds or the results from lower sales fees.
Furthermore, lower fund expense ratios do tend to translate
to better performance than higher expense ratios. Not always
(there will be statistical outliers), but more often. As for
aiming for the statistical outliers, the problem is that
they will always exist but cannot be predicted reliably.
Lastly, bear in mind that funds that fail generally do not
make it into such studies, so survivor bias suggests loaded
funds (or high sale fees organizations) may be even worse
than I indicate above.
If you wish to have citations, then I will post them. You
can start with
,
linked here this past week by another poster.
Meanwhile, you can post your own citation for your claim
that "Front loads almost ALWAYS work out for the better
interest of the client in the long run."
I also reject your claim that registereds reps or brokers
would be "dangerously close to drawing attention from the
SEC" by posting what I wrote.
I am a do-it-yourselfer with over 20+ years of investing in
stocks and mutual funds. It would be helpful to those
reading this thread (now or in the future) whether you are
paid a fee anywhere or anytime for any of your financial
advice.
As for media talk show financial gurus, I'd really need to
know exactly what it is you reject to comment intelligently.
Otherwise, your remarks are worthless. What I have seen with
people like Clark Howard and Suze Orman is only sound
financial advice focused in particular on getting people (1)
out of debt, especially credit card debt, which from what I
see is an epidemic crushing acquaintances I know offline and
online; and (2) to save for retirement through
tax-advantaged vehicles such as 401(k) and IRAs.
Otherwise, I concur with the bulk of Bread's comments on
this matter.
"John Radgosky" <> wrote:
>And in order to analyze you don't use Yahoo .. you use the NASD's own
>site .. and they're the body watching out for the consumer ... yahoo is
>just a profit making internet based business model .. big differences
>there, dontcha think?
Yep. Yahoo is a profit making Internet company in business of providing
objective information. NASD is in the business of promoting the agenda of
securities dealers. I know who I am more likely to trust.
-- Doug
"Elle" <> writes:
> "John Radgosky" <> wrote
> > Front loads almost ALWAYS work out for the better interest
> > of the
> > client in the long run.
>
> Numerous, reputable studies demonstrate how the performance
> of loaded funds or results from higher sales fees, as a
> statistical matter and with reference to a time period of
> say ten years, is not superior to the performance of
> non-loaded funds or the results from lower sales fees.
He's right - if you are comparing front loads to other
forms of loads on the same funds. B and C shares have
other load structures (ie. a B share has no front-end load, but
typically charges 1% per year for several years and then
they convert into A shares. C shares are even worse
in the long run since they impose that 1% forever.
So if you're talking front-end versus other loads on
the same fund, front-end loads may be the best deal.
You, however, are quite right that for almost every load
fund out there, there's an excellent honest-to-goodness
no-load fund out there which is at least as good and
a better deal -- for the person who researches and manages
his own finances. Not everyone is such a person.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
<> wrote
> "Elle" <> writes:
>> "John Radgosky" <> wrote
>> > Front loads almost ALWAYS work out for the better
>> > interest
>> > of the
>> > client in the long run.
>>
>> Numerous, reputable studies demonstrate how the
>> performance
>> of loaded funds or results from higher sales fees, as a
>> statistical matter and with reference to a time period of
>> say ten years, is not superior to the performance of
>> non-loaded funds or the results from lower sales fees.
>
> He's right - if you are comparing front loads to other
> forms of loads on the same funds.
Shouldn't the "if" above be emphasized?
I can't tell if what you are saying is what John Radgosky
intended. From the context of his and my exchange, it sure
does not seem like it.
If it is what John intended, then he and I were not on the
same page to begin with.
"Elle" <> writes:
> <> wrote
> > He's right - if you are comparing front loads to other
> > forms of loads on the same funds.
>
> I can't tell if what you are saying is what John Radgosky
> intended. From the context of his and my exchange, it sure
> does not seem like it.
It's the only way his comments make any sense.
> If it is what John intended, then he and I were not on the
> same page to begin with.
Based on the rest of his comments, I suspect that
he is ignoring the entire no-load, broker/salesperson-free
universe. (Hence, of course, the comment about you
and the SEC).
We do know that the OP invested through a broker -
assuming he's not going outside of that commissioned
broker, front-load funds might be his best bet.
Other posts here have suggested (a) that he do some
more reading and learning, including specific
books; and (b) that he consider a discount brokerage
(or, as certain salesfolks like to call them, "no-help")
Given that the OP has posted here in the first place,
he seems to have an interest in learning more and taking
more control over his investments - if that's true,
then these suggetsions are very good ones. But we
don't know how motivated he really is. If he's not,
then a hand-holding broker - and the costs associated with
one - may be a good deal for him. The bottom line is
that we just don't know enough about him to be sure
what the best recommendation for him is.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
<> wrote
> "Elle" <> writes:
>> I can't tell if what you are saying is what John Radgosky
>> intended. From the context of his and my exchange, it
>> sure
>> does not seem like it.
>
> It's the only way his comments make any sense.
I see it differently, particularly since he was responding
to my comment on front loads which was immediately followed
by sentences recommending no load index funds.
No big deal. John R. can clarify.
> We do know that the OP invested through a broker -
> assuming he's not going outside of that commissioned
> broker, front-load funds might be his best bet.
I'm not making any assumptions. I'm stating that IMO no load
index funds are most likely to be the OP's best bet from a
financial return standpoint, period. I claim plenty of
studies back this up. If people want citations (of that
which is in fact repeated here often, and with which you
generally seem to agree), then perhaps I will construct a
web site listing them. It's nearly an FAQ.
John Radgosky wrote:
> Elle wrote .. The front end sales road is ridiculous.
>
> John R replies .. Elle .. if you are a registered rep
Now THAT is a funny thought!
John - Elle is my nominee for "least likely to be a registered rep, even
if it were the last job on earth." =)
-Tad
"Tad Borek" <> wrote
> John Radgosky wrote:
>> Elle wrote .. The front end sales road is ridiculous.
>>
>> John R replies .. Elle .. if you are a registered rep
>
> Now THAT is a funny thought!
>
> John - Elle is my nominee for "least likely to be a
> registered rep, even if it were the last job on earth."
> =)
These strike me as extraordinarily unprofessional comments,
so I think you better explain. Otherwise, I should be
allowed to share my opinion of your services and experience
(or lack thereof).
Let's stick to constructive criticism of the substance of
the thread.
On 2006-03-08 13:32:58 -0500, "Elle" <> said:
> "Tad Borek" <> wrote
>> John Radgosky wrote:
>>> Elle wrote .. The front end sales road is ridiculous.
>>>
>>> John R replies .. Elle .. if you are a registered rep
>>
>> Now THAT is a funny thought!
>>
>> John - Elle is my nominee for "least likely to be a registered rep,
>> even if it were the last job on earth." =)
>
> These strike me as extraordinarily unprofessional comments,
I don't believe Tad meant them to be insulting. You are so vocally
oppposed to fees and the services that those registered reps charge
and provide that it would be very incongruous for you too take up
that trade.
It appeared to be a good-humored joke, at least to me.
--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! --
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
Elle wrote:
> "Tad Borek" <> wrote
>>John - Elle is my nominee for "least likely to be a
>>registered rep, even if it were the last job on earth."
>
> These strike me as extraordinarily unprofessional comments,
> so I think you better explain. Otherwise, I should be
> allowed to share my opinion of your services and experience
> (or lack thereof).
Elle, lighten up! A "registered rep" is the NASD term for a stockbroker
- someone who earns commissions selling stocks, mutual funds, etc.
Someone like you who consistently discusses the merits of no-load
investments is not, in my extraordinarily unprofessional and
inexperienced opinion, likely to want a job spending their entire day
selling load investments.
How John inferred that you were a RR is beyond me. I don't think there
are many RRs posting on MIFP, it's kind of a mine field from a
regulatory perspective.
-Tad
"Elle" <> writes:
> These strike me as extraordinarily unprofessional comments,
Consider dialing your offensensitivity down from 11.
> so I think you better explain.
I read Tad as meaning "since 'Elle' has demonstrated over and over and
over again in this newsgroup that she has a rather low opinion of
securities salesmen/registered reps and the need for them, I would
never in a million years think she was one."
> allowed to share my opinion of your services and experience
> (or lack thereof).
You haven't? You've impugned Tad's integrity numerous times
in MIFP over the years under your various aliases.
--
Rich Carreiro
"Rich Carreiro" <> wrote
> I read Tad as meaning "since 'Elle' has demonstrated over
> and over and
> over again in this newsgroup that she has a rather low
> opinion of
> securities salesmen/registered reps and the need for them,
If you would check the archives of the past week or so, I
believe you'll see at least one post of mine advocating the
hiring of a financial planner in certain, fairly ordinary
situations. I have done similarly in the past. Furthermore,
the consensus of this group, including you, seems to me to
be to advocate strong caution when seeking for-pay (by
commission or fee) financial assistance.
> You haven't? You've impugned Tad's integrity numerous
> times
> in MIFP over the years under your various aliases.
I don't think I've done anything more than ask for full
disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.
"Tad Borek" <> wrote
> Elle, lighten up! A "registered rep" is the NASD term for
> a stockbroker - someone who earns commissions selling
> stocks, mutual funds, etc. Someone like you who
> consistently discusses the merits of no-load investments
> is not, in my extraordinarily unprofessional and
> inexperienced opinion,
All right, Tadpole, all is at peace again.
;-)
elle
we were on different pages ...
and unless I'm mistaken, a good analyzer can compare load with no-load
funds from different families too .. so the idea of using a good
analyzer still holds true I think.