By the Numbers: The Weight of the LoadBy 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 1, 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. | ||
