Harry Gross: Once and for all: Load or no-load funds
Dear Harry: I remember you speaking at a seminar year ago where you said that load funds do not perform any better than no-load funds.
My stockbroker told me last week that you must have been getting paid by one of the no-load fund groups or their association. He told me that if you were right, load funds would have disappeared long ago.
What's the real story here, Harry? Were you paid for promoting no-load funds?
Do you still believe that no-loads are at least equal?
What Harry says: First of all, I have never offered to appear at a financial seminar for compensation. Where there was an honorarium, it was donated to the Red Cross or some other worthy charity.
I am still firmly convinced that my position is correct.
Load funds are sold by brokers, so commissions have to be paid. That's the major incentive for brokers to sell funds. Otherwise, they would concentrate on stocks, which do yield a commission.
To go one step further, Russell Kinnel (of Morningstar), in his bookFund Spy, even makes the case for no-load funds with the lowest cost ratios, saying that "the savvy investor should look for low-cost funds with sound fundamentals. Simply doing that will double or triple your chances of success and greatly reduce your chances of dramatic underperformance."
There you have it.
Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are sold like stocks so the commissions are paid, resulting in a situation similar to load funds.
Write Harry Gross c/o the Daily News, 400 N. Broad St., Philadelphia, PA 19130. Harry urges all his readers to give blood - contact the American Red Cross at 800-GIVE LIFE.



