WASHINGTON - Several Supreme Court justices seemed unsympathetic Monday to calls for the courts to get involved in reining in what investors are calling “excessive” fees on mutual funds, a popular investment vehicle for millions of Americans.
Some of the justices suggested that a regulatory agency might be in a better position to determine if the fees are appropriate. They also said consumers always have recourse to switch to another fund if they aren’t happy with the fee amounts.
“It makes a lot more sense to have the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) regulate rates than to have courts do it, doesn’t it?” Chief Justice John Roberts said during court arguments.
Mutual funds have become a popular way for Americans to invest, with more than $10 trillion in assets placed in mutual fund investment vehicles such as 529 college education plans or 401(k) retirements plans. The more money the adviser charges in fees, the less money goes into the mutual fund for investors.
In the case before the high court, Jerry N. Jones, Mary F. Jones and Arline Winerman sued Harris Associates L.P., which advises on the Oakmark complex of mutual funds. The plaintiffs, who own shares in several Oakmark funds, say that Harris’ fees are so high they violate the federal Investment Company Act, which is supposed to combat …
Read the original article at Philly
Most Commented Posts
More similar stories:
- Putnam Investments cuts fees for fixed-income, asset allocation funds; restructures pricing
- Workers Rise to Lower 401(k) Fees
- House panel approves consumer protection agency
- BNZ drops overdraft penalty fees
- Banks’ Overdraft Fees Under Fire in Congress
- RBS halves overdraft fees ahead of OFT judgment
- Retailers and banks battle over credit card fees
- American Express Cuts Gift-Card Fees
- Consumer protection bill approved
- Personal Finance: Big losses? It’s time to rebalance
