OpEdNews Op Eds

Post-Halloween Fright: Mutual-Fund Industry's High Fees Threatened by Looming Supreme Court Scrutiny

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Reprinted from The Smart Asset

The mutual fund industry will likely survive Halloween without being frightened to death, despite the fact that it's scrambling because the industry's fiscal year typically ends on October 31. But just two days later mutual-fund money-managers are liable to be scared out of their wits, especially those fund advisers who rake in huge fees in the $10 trillion industry. On Monday, the Supreme Court hears arguments in what the WSJ notes is a crucial case on those huge fees.

The Supreme Court's own news service describes Jones v. Harris Associates as a case in which the court is asked "to decide whether the federal Investment Company Act limits the ability of investment advisers to charge higher management fees for in-house mutual funds." The suit at the heart of the case also asks for more open disclosure by the funds.

Ooooo! Scary! Especially if you're one of those mutual-fund advisers who earn high-six or even seven figures (and there are plenty of you).

Those of you who are particularly pissed off about excessive Wall Street bonuses might want to follow this case about excessive fees extracted even more directly from your wallet. You've read about czar Kenneth Feinberg's supposed pay caps for the bailout recipients, but this case is bigger. The court is being asked to impose much more wide-ranging caps on money snatched by many more Wall Streeters.

"The money-management fees that drive the mutual-fund industry are at stake" in Jones, the WSJ's Jess Bravin and Jane J. Kim write this morning.

In a follow-up, also this morning, the WSJ's Thomas Coyle says the case "could put the squeeze on mutual-fund profits, force fund companies to provide more disclosure and trigger a re-evaluation of the way their boards evaluate and approve fees."

The fees are out of control, and among the people gouged by them are the 50 million American households that own products generated by the industry.

The high court is "obsessed with business" issues this session, the Business Insider noted earlier this month, listing four major cases this term. The four are capped by American Needle v. NFL, a dispute over the exclusive licensing of National Football League gear, though that case's ramifications pale beside those of the mutual-fund fees case.

 

http://www.thesmartasset.com/

Ward Harkavy is currently Senior Editor at the Village Voice, for which he writes The Smart Asset.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

CIT Bankruptcy: Taxpayers Stiffed on Company's Bailout Billions While Execs Reap Bonuses

Fort Hood's Killer Shrink: Was He One of the Army Docs Pressured to Misdiagnose PTSD in Soldiers?

Pocket Rockets: The 10 Highest-Paid CEOs of 2008

Bank Robs You: Chase's Hefty Profits Put Lie to Claim That Consumers Have to Spend More to End the Recession

Israeli-American fraudsters swindled tens of millions from IRS, say Israeli cops

Was Obama 'Conned' by Big Pharma or Is He Just Running a 'Protection Racket'?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments