C-Shares
I'm interested in finding C-shares with reasonable total expense ratios, such as American Funds at 1.37%. Unfortunately, I have not found a website that let's you screen mutual funds by share class.
Any help you can provide on other mutual fund companies that offer reasonable C-share expense ratios is appreciated. Thanks.Doesn’t your b/d provide you with Morningstar Principia or similar tool to screen funds?
And good luck finding a decent C share at 1.37%. You do realize that the very reason it’s so hard to find C shares with low expenses is because they have to add on 100 bps just to pay you, right? Therefore a 1.37% C share expense ratio would be 0.37% A share. Not many decent funds - outside of some no load index funds - have expense ratios anywhere near that.
How long have you been in the business?
Morph, you’re sort-of right. It’s actually an extra 75 BiPs (the A share already has 25 BiPs in it). For example, AMF Capital Income Builder at 65 BiPs is 140 for the C share (I think - I’m doing it from memory). And i think many bond funds add less than 75 BiPs (for example, at Franklin, the C share on bond funds is 65 BiPs to the broker, so only 40 BiPs higher than A - which is why they classify Income Fund as a bond fund )
Thanks, B24, I misspoke there about the trail differential between the share classes, but the main point about C shares generally (not in each and every case but generally) having 100 bps added to pay the broker remains the same. That is a big part of the reason it is so hard to find a C share with very low expenses, so complaining about the high expenses is ironic. Hard to have your cake and eat it too.
I simply asked for sources of C-shares with "reasonable" expense ratios not "low" expense ratios. That's it. Where in my initial post did you get that I was complaining?
When the DJIA showed +196 yesterday, that meant the dow was up and not down. Thought you might need that help given your poor ability to interpret data.[quote=Big Guns Magee]I simply asked for sources of C-shares with “reasonable” expense ratios not “low” expense ratios. That’s it. Where in my initial post did you get that I was complaining?
When the DJIA showed +196 yesterday, that meant the dow was up and not down. Thought you might need that help given your poor ability to interpret data.[/quote] It doesn't matter how you, personally, choose to characterize a funds expense - reasonable, low or high. That's just your subjective interpretation of a fact. What's relevant to the discussion is the fact of the actual expense ratio of the fund(s). Calling a C share with expense ratios of 1.37% "reasonable" doesn't magically make it so. If that is, in fact "reasonable," there ought to be numerous examples of other reasonable funds - why don't you share with us which funds those might be so those of us with poor interpretive powers can learn from you? Or if there are not numerous other examples of such reasonable funds, either everyone else operating C share funds are unreasonable or your definition and expectations are.Big Guns, aren't you just a tad bit defensive? Wouldn't a better response to Morphius and B24 be, "Thanks. What I'm really looking for is "C" share with an expense ratio less than X."?
You're giving them a hard time for confusing "reasonable" with "low" when you don't define reasonable. It doesn't make much sense to me.
C-shares with less than 1.40% expense ratios are reasonable. I’ll check out Morningstar as suggested. Thanks.
Good. And by all means let us know of any decent funds you find that pass that screen, as I'm sure there are lots of people here who would be interested.C-shares with less than 1.40% expense ratios are reasonable. I’ll check out Morningstar as suggested. Thanks.
Source URL:https://www.wealthmanagement.com/forums/general/c-shares-0