No. of Recommendations: 0
I have a Scottrade account. A fund I may be interested in does not list Scottrade under Broker Availability. Surenuf, Scottrade does not list it as an available fund.

Would seem to me that all interested parties would want maximum offering exposure. Why would Scottrade not have this fund available? And who makes that call? Does the fund control who can offer it or does the broker control what they offer or can it be either way?

If I want this fund, then I have to open another account where the fund will be available? If I want to put it in an IRA, then I have to track multiple accounts to accumulate any contributions to stay within the contribution limits? Correct?

Is this the way it is or is there a work-around?

DC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sometimes the fund company and the broker cannot reach an agreement on fees. Or maybe there is something else.

I suggest you call Schwab and/or Ameritrade.

Or, you could call the fund company and ask them which brokers carry the fund.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Mutual funds have to pay to be listed.

The money comes from 12b-1 fees or other charges.

buzman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I have a Scottrade account. A fund I may be interested in does not list Scottrade under Broker Availability. Surenuf, Scottrade does not list it as an available fund.

Would seem to me that all interested parties would want maximum offering exposure. Why would Scottrade not have this fund available? And who makes that call? Does the fund control who can offer it or does the broker control what they offer or can it be either way?

If I want this fund, then I have to open another account where the fund will be available? If I want to put it in an IRA, then I have to track multiple accounts to accumulate any contributions to stay within the contribution limits? Correct?

Is this the way it is or is there a work-around?

DC





Why don't you just invest in the fund directly?
For the life of me I don't understand why anyone would use a broker to buy a mutual fund.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hi,

I have the same issue with Schwab - I can't buy Fidelity funds through them. But there are lots of fund options, so I don't worry about it too much.

Angel - I buy mutual funds at Schwab because it doesn't cost me anything and all of my investments (except for my 401(k)) are in the same place - easy recordkeeping. :)

K
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Why don't you just invest in the fund directly?
For the life of me I don't understand why anyone would use a broker to buy a mutual fund.

AM


Investing in the fund directly would be a taxable investment, would it not? I am looking to invest tax-advantaged.

I am under the impression that an IRA has to be opened with some type of financial entity such as a bank, broker or investment firm like Vanguard or Fidelity. I am ignorant of what other avenues there are to have an IRA account.

I am also under the impression that the investments made within that IRA have to be available at the entity where the account is opened. If Scottrade doesn't offer a particular fund, then I can not invest in that fund within my IRA I have at Scottrade.

If'n this ain't rite ... then learn me sumpin.

DC
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Angel - I buy mutual funds at Schwab because it doesn't cost me anything and all of my investments (except for my 401(k)) are in the same place - easy recordkeeping. :)

K




As long as it costs you nothing -- not even 12b-1 fees or high management fees within the funds, then I can't see anything to object to.

I'm not sure what Schwab gets out of it, but ... not my business as long as it wouldn't affect me. My best friend also buys funds through Schwab -- for the same reason you listed.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Investing in the fund directly would be a taxable investment, would it not? I am looking to invest tax-advantaged.

I am under the impression that an IRA has to be opened with some type of financial entity such as a bank, broker or investment firm like Vanguard or Fidelity. I am ignorant of what other avenues there are to have an IRA account.

I am also under the impression that the investments made within that IRA have to be available at the entity where the account is opened. If Scottrade doesn't offer a particular fund, then I can not invest in that fund within my IRA I have at Scottrade.

If'n this ain't rite ... then learn me sumpin.

DC




Not necessarily a taxable investment.
I have my IRA at Vanguard.
I used to have an IRA at American Century -- and a Rollover IRA at Vanguard -- and another Rollover IRA at eTrade.

Finally moved everything to Vanguard.

But yes, if you have your one and only IRA at Scottrade, then you would have to buy through them.

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But yes, if you have your one and only IRA at Scottrade, then you would have to buy through them.

Well, you could open an IRA as with the fund company. So by no means is it "have to."


The reason to buy mutual funds with a broker is for simplicity/ease of tracking. You get one statement, not 10 different ones. When you want to rebalance it can be done within an account, in a day, and you don't have to do rollovers to rebalance, etc.

If there's one fund company that provides for all your needs, alright, go ahead. But there's often plenty of reason to want to open up your options a little. And plenty of reasons to prefer to deal with 1 or 2 accounts instead of sevearl.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

As long as it costs you nothing -- not even 12b-1 fees or high management fees within the funds, then I can't see anything to object to.


________________________________________________________________________

All mutual funds have expenses. Your return is net the expenses.

buzman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

As long as it costs you nothing -- not even 12b-1 fees or high management fees within the funds, then I can't see anything to object to.


________________________________________________________________________

All mutual funds have expenses. Your return is net the expenses.

buzman





I said high management fees.
Please pay attention. It will all be on the test. :o)

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Investing in the fund directly would be a taxable investment, would it not?

No, not necessarily. If you can buy the fund directly, you can probably also open an IRA account with them. You can have as many IRA accounts as you care to have. You do not have to limit yourself to just one account.

But as others have pointed out, more accounts make for more recordkeeping. But if this is a good investment for you, it might make sense to have another IRA account.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
As long as it costs you nothing -- not even 12b-1 fees or high management fees within the funds, then I can't see anything to object to.


________________________________________________________________________

All mutual funds have expenses. Your return is net the expenses.

buzman
____________________________________________________________________

I said high management fees.
Please pay attention. It will all be on the test. :o)

__________________AM____________________________________________________

But you forgot that you said >As long as it costs you nothing -- not even 12b-1 fees

Ain't nothing free and they all have 12b-1 fees.

Don't feel bad it's not the first mistake I found.

buzman

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Would seem to me that all interested parties would want maximum offering exposure.


Quite possibly the brokerage is being paid by a competitor of the fund that you desire, so you are "forced" to buy the competitor's fund.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

But you forgot that you said >As long as it costs you nothing -- not even 12b-1 fees

Ain't nothing free and they all have 12b-1 fees.

Don't feel bad it's not the first mistake I found.

buzman






I meant as long as it costs you nothing to the broker.
And the funds I buy do NOT have 12b-1 fees.

You may apologize now. ;o)

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I meant as long as it costs you nothing to the broker.
And the funds I buy do NOT have 12b-1 fees.

You may apologize now. ;o)

AM
________________________________________________________________________

Oh so you have funds that cost "nothing". Nothing means no annual expenses. I hate to tell you all funds have expenses. If they are on a platform, it's like a 12b-1 fee.

Glad I could help you figure that out. Although it took a long time.

Do you think you have figured out by now?

I apologize for trying to help you but you don't have to thank me.

buzman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You went to Alabama. That explains it.

I am sorry I didn't realize it.

buzman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4

Oh so you have funds that cost "nothing". Nothing means no annual expenses. I hate to tell you all funds have expenses. If they are on a platform, it's like a 12b-1 fee.



Are you really this thick? Or are you just pretending for me?
I said that I don't buy funds through a BROKER that charges to buy the funds -- NEITHER do I buy funds that charge a 12b-1 fee.

Try reading that once again. I'm sure you will finally understand it if you just give yourself a little time.

I know that all funds have management fees. Those are different from 12b-1 fees. And they are different from BROKER's fees. Got it? Some funds have pretty high management fees. Others have quite low management fees.

I buy funds with quite low management fees. And I buy them directly from the fund company itself. I don't need a BROKER to do this for me.

Understand now?

AM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Tag TEAM off the rope!

Whew, and the ref blows the whistle!!!!!!!!

Dull,

Not sure if ya'll got your answer:

Yes, you have to set up your IRA through some sort of custodian. That can be a discount broker, a fund company, a wirehouse or even some banks or other institutions that will let you self direct your investment into just about anything. (within legal confines of course) It is the IRA nature of the account that makes it tax advantaged and not who holds the account for you. So, you can set one up directly with the fund company and as long as you are satisfied with the offerings of that company you should be good to go.

The advantage of a mutual fund company is sometimes you get a break on fees, expenses, whatever we want to call them and if you pick theright company the fees are not to high (vanguard and fidelity) Some funds are higher as they look for active management to earn better returns, or they just want your money more (DFA, Merrill Lynch)

Wherever you put your money, the fund has to be available through that entity. The fund company will pay a fee to brokers and sometimes they can not agree to an amount. As usual I say this is because of the greed on the part of the fund company, but hey I am cynical! Fund companies aren't really greedy.

The disadvantage for a fund company is that the funds are then at that company and if you want to swtich to another fund (company) than you have to roll-transfer the money over to another company. Time consuming and actually takes some work on your part. Plus if you screw up - the tax man does not seem to forgive.... IT is not that bad and there are some folks who do that. But if you go with a fund giant (V or F) then you should always be able to find a fund for the asset class at a reasonable expense.

DrTarr

....6.....7.....8.....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Some funds are higher as they look for active management to earn better returns, or they just want your money more (DFA, Merrill Lynch)

DFA has extremely low annual expenses. Their culture is far removed from Mother Merrill.

buzman

once, doce, trece, ...

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Oh so you have funds that cost "nothing". Nothing means no annual expenses. I hate to tell you all funds have expenses. If they are on a platform, it's like a 12b-1 fee.

AM is right

12b-1 fees specifically refer to the ongoing "load" that is paid for marketing expenses of the fund (usually compensating the broker who sold the fund). They are included in the expense ratio.

All funds have an expense ratio. Some of them have 12b-1 fees. AM's don't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
DFA has extremely low annual expenses.

However you can't buy directly from them unless you have over a million per fund (typicall you go with DFA to get three or four f.

People with less than a million have to buy through an advisor, who will charge you at least 1%/year to let you into the fund, and at least 1.5% a year (more likely, 2% a year) to give you advice, which DFA says is essential to using their funds properly.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Okay, clicked the post button too soon.

"Typically you go with DFA when you want to fill in some holes in your portfolio, which usually takes three or four funds."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
People with less than a million have to buy through an advisor, who will charge you at least 1%/year to let you into the fund, and at least 1.5% a year (more likely, 2% a year) to give you advice, which DFA says is essential to using their funds properly.

Very misleading.

DFA funds are available from many planners for 1% or less.

DFA specifically avoids retail investors because retail investors trade more frequently and the funds would have to maintain higher cash levels.


If you check the OP-the question was about various platforms. If you buying a fund from a platform (Scotttrade, TD, etc) you are paying a marketing fee. Call it what you want.

buzman



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Very misleading.

DFA funds are available from many planners for 1% or less.


How am I being misleading?

I wasn't aware of any planners who had them available for less than 1%. I saw 1% was very common (if not easy to find) and the most easy-to-find planners charged over 1%.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>> I wasn't aware of any planners who had them available for less than 1%. I saw 1% was very common (if not easy to find) and the most easy-to-find planners charged over 1%. <<

Actually, it can be less than 0.5% -- if you have more than $5-10 million. For most of us who are hundredthousandaires, it tends to be 1% or a little more.

#29
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Most of the planners I know charge 1% or less. I know of no one who charges 2%.

buzman




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Most of the planners I know charge 1% or less. I know of no one who charges 2%.

I know some brokerages that charge 2% and more, depending on the amount committed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Most of the planners I know charge 1% or less. I know of no one who charges 2%.

I know some brokerages that charge 2% and more, depending on the amount committed.

_______________________________________________________________________

There are a lot of other differences between planners and brokers.

buzman

Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement