Pennsylvania Investment Observer
A Mutual
Fund Alternative
by Daniel
J. Nestlerode
May12,
2004
Created in the nineteen twenties, mutual funds have been one of
the most successful investment products in the last hundred years.
Mutual Funds are a derivative investment product or one that derives
its value from the holdings in its portfolio. According the Investment
Company Institute, the trade group that represents the mutual fund
industry, the industry has grown to nearly seven trillion (yes,
that is trillion with a “T”) dollars in value. The
fund industry manages this gigantic pool of money for purposes
ranging from capital growth to tax free income and even as a substitute
to bank savings accounts (so called money market funds). By most
measures, the mutual fund industry is one of the most successful
in the country.
Yet success breeds its own set of problems. One of the problems
that success breeds is the notion that the industry has no problems.
However, Elliott Spitzer, Attorney General for the State of New
York, and the Securities and Exchange Commission has uncovered
several problems in the operations and unequal treatment of various
customer groups at mutual funds. Apparently, wealthy clients were
receiving better deals from the funds than the usual main street
client from Canton, Pennsylvania, in violation of the mutual fund’s
legal document, its prospectus. Others were allowed to trade after
hours, in violation of policy and others were charged incorrect
sales charges based on the discounts allowed by the fund but inadequately
interpreted and enforced by the brokerage and mutual fund industry.
So, to say the least, there are a few problems in this heretofore
pristine investment business.
Now the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed
a series of point of sale requirements for the mutual fund and
brokerage industry. In an attempt to provide more information to
investors the SEC wants to sharply increase the costs, and resultant
fees that investors will pay to participate in the mutual fund
industry. Furthermore the NASD-R has pursued the brokerage industry
relentlessly looking for clients who did not get all the discounts
on sales charges that were due them. The issue is complex since
each mutual fund group has its own definitions and discount tables.
Brokers are required to effectively deal with various family relationships,
accounts with other brokerage firms and changing discount tables.
The amount of paperwork now required to move money from clients
to the right mutual fund is starting to encourage brokers to seek
alternatives to mutual funds for their clients.
Into this gap, a new product called Exchange Traded Funds (EFTs)
has started to attract money that used to flow into mutual funds.
ETFs are essentially portfolios of securities that are continuously
offered like mutual funds, but are not actively managed. Running
the gamut from industry specific funds to country specific funds,
capitalization specific, and growth versus value investing specific,
EFTs seem to cover the entire stock and bond market on a world
wide basis. Different from mutual funds, ETFs trade like stocks
and do not charge a sales charge and have lower expense ratios
than most mutual funds. So the entire breakpoint issue that is
now plaguing the brokerage industry is not applicable to the ETFs.
From the investors’ viewpoint, ETFs also do not charge your
account 12(b) 1 fees which are then paid to your broker. These
attractive characteristics of ETFs have resulted in the growth
of their assets to approximately a $150 billion as of the end of
2003, from inception in 1995.
In a free market economy, when an industry starts to have problems,
others in the marketplace create new solutions or alternatives.
From my point of view, the mutual fund industry is creating the
ETF industry, by not dealing with and solving its internal and
distribution problems. Now investors have another choice for their
investment money and brokers have another product to offer their
clients.
top of page | article archive
|