“The rule is a good one, like requiring ingredients and the point of origin to be listed on food labels. What would be the motivation of not making this information known to the consumer?”
EVERY fund I’ve invested in over the last 30+ years has stated fees up front. NONE have concealed them. And no two funds “achieve the same purpose”. If they have different managers, then they are DIFFERENT - and it is up to ME to decide what I am willing to pay.
Anyone too dumb to do that shouldn’t invest, or should only do so thru index funds.
“Anyone too dumb to do that shouldn’t invest, or should only do so thru index funds.”
Perhaps I’m too dumb to invest, but I do anyway. I haven’t had a lot of extra time to brush up on “Investing for Dummies” since I’ve often worked more than 40 hours per week, been active in church affairs, and all the rest of what constitutes living. My investments have made money; they were made through a financial adviser that I like just fine. I will say that he—within the last year—has admitted the fees charged haven’t always been prominently displayed in the past on his company’s statements. He only discussed his fees in detail of his own initiative when having me sign forms to comply with the proposed rule last summer.
Why would financial advisers be against a rule prominently showing the fees charged?