Track the companies that matter to you. It's FREE! Click one of these fan favorites to get started: Apple; Google; Ford.



It's Time to Take Back Your $10 Billion

Don't let it get away!

Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.

Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.

As a loyal customer, you want the companies you do business with to treat you right. But many mutual fund companies have been taking advantage of their loyal customers for years by charging them costs that are designed not to benefit them but rather to help fund managers seek their next profitable source of additional assets.

For years, investors have tried to get rid of 12b-1 fees. Now, the Securities and Exchange Commission once again has the 12b-1 fee in its sights, and this time, it's more important than ever to get these fees into the forefront and force the financial industry to make it absolutely clear where your hard-earned money goes.

Understanding 12b-1 fees
The irony in the SEC's examination of 12b-1 fees is that it's an SEC rule that authorized them in the first place. The rule lets mutual funds charge an ongoing annual fee to cover a wide range of expenses, ranging from sales commissions to advisors who sell fund shares to investors to advertising costs, the production of promotional materials, and other marketing and distribution costs. Some funds charge 1% per year in 12b-1 fees, although many limit the fee to 0.25% in order to retain the right to claim "no-load" mutual fund status.

A quarter-percent doesn't sound like a big deal. But according to The Wall Street Journal, 12b-1 fees cost investors $9.5 billion in 2009 -- and with the stock market having been in the dumps during the first part of that year, depressing the base on which that quarter-percent is calculated, you can expect that figure to be on the rise this year.

Who's winning from the fee?
Clearly, the fund companies that charge the fee are the direct beneficiaries of the 12b-1 fee. Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS  ) , Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS  ) , and Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC  ) reap 12b-1 fee revenue from at least some of their funds, and to the extent that they would have had to pay those sales and marketing-related expenses anyway, the 12b-1 fee simply falls to their bottom lines as profit.

But there are other companies that benefit from the ability of fund companies to charge 12b-1 fees. For instance, discount brokers Charles Schwab (NYSE: SCHW  ) , TD AMERITRADE (Nasdaq: AMTD  ) , and E*TRADE Financial (Nasdaq: ETFC  ) generally charge a commission to buy mutual funds. But all of them offer their customers certain mutual funds at no transaction fee. If you look closely, you'll notice that in many cases, those no-transaction fee funds come with 12b-1 fees -- and some of those 12b-1 fees help the fund companies pay brokers for listing their funds with no commission. So in other words, part of your fund fees are going to these brokers -- even if you don't use them to buy your fund shares.

Being fair
There's absolutely nothing wrong with fund companies wanting to pay salespeople to sell their funds. (Whether it's OK for the salespeople to sell funds whose fund companies pay them is another question entirely -- but that's not the issue here.) But here, it's the way fund companies want their customers to shoulder the burden that's the problem.

For one thing, the fee forces everyone to pay for services that only some fund shareholders take advantage of. If you buy shares directly from a fund company, why should you pay a fee that would otherwise go to a financial advisor? If you buy shares from an advisor who works for the same company that manages the fund, why should money to compensate that advisor come from the fund -- making it seem as if the advice you received was somehow "free"? And if you don't use a discount broker's fund supermarket to buy your shares, why should you subsidize those shareholders who do?

The more important consideration is more subtle. The 12b-1 fees are a convenient way for fund companies to collect fee revenue in a way that many investors don't understand. A reference in a prospectus to an obscure SEC rule number is tailor-made to confuse the average shareholder. If a fund company thinks it's reasonable to charge every shareholder for marketing and sales expenses, it should at least reveal where all that money is going -- and what if anything you can do to avoid the fee.

Fight for your rights
Whether you think 12b-1 fees are bilking investors or a fair way to compensate financial professionals, the SEC needs your opinion. It's easy to do so -- just click here between now and Nov. 5 and let your voice be heard. And let us know what you think in the comments below.

True to its name, The Motley Fool is made up of a motley assortment of writers and analysts, each with a unique perspective; sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree, but we all believe in the power of learning from each other through our Foolish community.

Fool contributor Dan Caplinger wants to help people save money a billion at a time. He doesn't own shares of the companies mentioned in this article. Charles Schwab is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor pick. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days. The Fool's disclosure policytook back the night a long time ago.

Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (5)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On October 18, 2010, at 9:37 PM, xetn wrote:

    I don't understand the big deal with 12b-1 fees that you have been harping on. All you have to do to avoid paying the fee is buy funds that don't charge them. Of course if you don't read the prospectus of a fund before buying that is your problem.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1335232, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/26/2016 11:58:24 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,217.28 48.01 0.26%
S&P 500 2,143.23 0.07 0.00%
NASD 5,271.72 -11.68 -0.22%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

10/26/2016 11:41 AM
AMTD $34.15 Down -0.17 -0.50%
TD Ameritrade CAPS Rating: *****
ETFC $28.31 Up +0.22 +0.78%
E*TRADE Financial… CAPS Rating: ***
GS $176.24 Up +0.69 +0.39%
Goldman Sachs CAPS Rating: ***
MS $33.49 Up +0.14 +0.42%
Morgan Stanley CAPS Rating: ****
SCHW $31.99 Up +0.28 +0.88%
Charles Schwab CAPS Rating: ****
WFC $45.88 Up +0.16 +0.36%
Wells Fargo CAPS Rating: ****