SIFMA and ICI Release Comments About 12b-1 Fees

In comment letters to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), neither group suggested that the SEC abolish the fees, asking that the Commission keep them, although perhaps with refinements.

Although agreeing with the SEC’s initiative to review Rule 12b-1, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) stipulated that 12b-1 fees were not meant to be a temporary solution, and said that since its inception, “Rule 12b-1 has been a success; curtailing or withdrawing the rule would harm investors and competition in the marketplace.’

Both SIFMA and the Investment Company Institute (ICI) argued that 12b-1 fees (used by over 70% of funds, according to ICI) allow for economies of scale, since they are able to allow smaller intermediaries to offer a broader choice of funds to their clients, and the fees also allow for smaller funds to get increased distribution through larger intermediaries.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

In the letter, SIFMA said those participating in the SEC’s recent roundtable seemed to agree that the fees “support legitimate and necessary administrative and investment services for fund shareholders and that the utilization of 12b-1 fees has been impacted by the wholesale shift in shareholder servicing from funds to intermediaries, the substantial decline in front-end sales loads (or the converse) and the increased need of investors for continuous advice.’

“Rule 12b-1 is an integral part of the structure and success of the mutual fund industry,” ICI Acting General Counsel Mary Podesta wrote in the letter. “The rule and its associated fees allow investors the option of paying distribution costs over time, give investors access to funds that otherwise might not be available to them, and compensate financial intermediaries, on whom so many fund investors depend.”

Disclosures

However, although the administrative and investment services offered to shareholders have changed significantly in the 27 years since the rule was enacted, “It may be appropriate to improve disclosures for the benefit of investors and fund boards, but it would be a major mistake for the SEC to withdraw or substantially curtail Rule 12b-1, or otherwise to restrict the fee arrangements that have fostered innovation, flexibility, and investor choice.’

Therefore, transparency enhancements are needed to ensure that the existing disclosures match the current uses of 12b-1 fees, SIFMA said. ICI also asked for new disclosures provided by funds in the prospectus and other documents, and by intermediaries at the point of sale that describe the purpose of the 12b-1 fee, “to give shareholders a better understanding of the nature of the fee and clarification of the responsibilities of mutual fund boards in approving and overseeing 12b-1 plans.’

In regards to the nine factors that should be considered when fund boards are evaluating 12b-1 fees, both SIFMA and ICI suggested that the SEC update the guidance regarding those factors.

Assessing the Fees

Although some have called for making 12b-1 fees levied at the individual account level, instead of taking it from fund assets, according to Podesta, “There are significant tax and operational disadvantages to imposing 12b-1 fees at the account level that likely would outweigh the benefits of this approach” because externalization would increase investors’ tax costs, reduce the tax efficiency of funds, and require extensive overhaul of fund operating and recordkeeping systems.

To read the full text of SIFMA’s comment letter, please visit: http://www.sifma.org/regulatory/comment_letters/48614797.pdf. Prior to the roundtable, SIFMA provided a white paper on the history and purpose of Rule 12b-1 and other revenue streams as background material for the discussion. The full content of the white paper can be found at: http://www.sifma.org/regulatory/pdf/12b-1MFWhitePaper6-13-07.pdf.

ICI’s letter can be read at http://www.ici.org/new/07_sec_12b-1_com.html#TopOfPage. In 2004, according to an ICI study, the bulk of 12b-1 fees were paid to compensate brokers and financial advisers for ongoing shareholder services (52 percent) and for initial assistance in a fund purchase (40 percent). Only 2 percent of the fees were used to pay for promotion and advertising of funds. That study can be found at http://www.ici.org/pdf/fm-v14n2.pdf.

Affluent Investors Still Confident in Stock Market

Citi Smith Barney’s monthly poll of affluent investors finds continued faith in the stock market, though confidence in the long-term investment climate is slipping.

Seven in ten (69%) respondents to the Working Wealth Investor Poll said now is a good time to invest in the market, according to a news release on the results. One-third of respondents said they expect the market to deliver even higher returns over the next year (35%), with wealthy investors saying they expect their portfolio will return an average increase of 10% over the coming six months.

The top segment of investors (those who have greater than $1 million in investable assets) also remains optimistic about the long-term future of the investment climate, the release said. Three out of four said they expect things to be the same or better 12 months from now.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

However, the wealthiest of investors have become notably less positive about the investment climate. Almost half (47%) of those who have at least $1 million in investable assets now say that the investment climate today is better than it was a year ago – a decrease of 15 percentage points from last month’s results and 10 percentage points from the start of the year.

In addition, while 24% of all $1 million investors predicted in January that Democratic control of Congress would prompt the national economy to perform better, only 16% now believe that has happened.

Other Working Wealth poll highlights included:

  • Energy costs, which were the third biggest concern for investors at the start of 2007, have become even more worrisome. The share of wealthy investors who name energy costs as one of the nation’s biggest problems has increased by more than 20 percentage points to be among the top two concerns currently (along with health care).
  • Only one-third of all investors with more than $1 million in this month’s poll say that the federal budget deficit is among the biggest problems facing the country; however, millionaires appear to be much more concerned this month (47%). Additionally, millionaires voice great concern about immigration and military spending.
  • Two out of three survey respondents believe that the smart investor has at least a portion of their money in international investments, and even more agree that “in this day and age, all of the world’s economies are linked together.’

The poll was conducted with investors who have at least $100,000 in financial assets (excluding real estate and employer retirement plans), a definition that describes approximately 25% of all U.S. households, by Greenwald & Associates and Synovate. Investors with $1 million or more represent 44% of the interviews. Results are from 560 investors interviewed for the Citi Smith Barney Working Wealth Investor Poll between June 5 and June 20, 2007.

«