By the Numbers: The Weight of the Load

Looking for a good fund that won't nickel and dime clients? Russ Kinnel, a mutual fund analyst at Morningstar, recently ranked the five-year, asset-weighted relative performance of prominent fund families, adjusted for loads. He admits that it's a tricky and imperfect endeavor particularly in the absence of breakpoint considerations and other factors, like how much of a fund's business sits in the

May 01, 2005

Looking for a good fund that won't nickel and dime clients? Russ Kinnel, a mutual fund analyst at Morningstar, recently ranked the “five-year, asset-weighted relative” performance of prominent fund families, adjusted for loads. He admits that it's a tricky and imperfect endeavor — particularly in the absence of breakpoint considerations and other factors, like how much of a fund's business sits in the cheaper institutional channel. Still, he asserts, the load-adjusted figures provide a useful guideline for advisors and their investors.

Fund company	Percentile rank before loads	Percentile rank after loads
PIMCO Funds	21	17
T. Rowe Price	25	22
Vanguard	32	25
American Funds	26	29
American Century	42	36
Fidelity	41	39
Hartford	24	39
Franklin Templeton	27	40
Oppenheimer Funds	30	40
Janus	70	65
Putnam	63	71
Source: Morningstar.com
Note: All rankings are based on five-year, asset-weighted performance.

Comments

Plain text