Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

CFA Urges ‘No’ Vote On Limiting Investor Right To Sue Funds Over High Fees

FYI: Holding mutual funds feet to the fire when it comes to excessive fees could get a good deal more difficult if legislation is approved by the House Financial Services Committee this week making it tougher for consumers to sue, the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) said in a letter sent to lawmakers this week.

The CFA is asking House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and committee members to vote “no” on “The Mutual Fund Litigation Reform Act (HR 4738),” which would increase the burden of proof required by investors suing a mutual fund company for excessive fees. The bill is scheduled for committee markup this week.


  • Not sure what I am missing on this, but it seems to me that fund fees are about the last thing investors should be unaware of these days. I am not suggesting that limiting the ability to take legal action is a good idea. But discussions of fees have been top and center for quite some time now. Isn't it time for folks to take some responsibility for themselves...and not be shocked by what a fund's fees are? Company retirement plans are already under scrutiny to defend fees of all kinds, with both trustees and advisors held responsible for the quality and cost of the investment offered to employees. Virtually everyone who participates in a corporate retirement plan is well aware of the fee issue. Perhaps the bigger question is what is the definition of excessive fees...excessive compared to what. When folks receive a fund prospectus, with all fees described very clearly at the document's front section, and purchase of shares carries the investor's assent that the prospectus was read before buying shares, why should there be any surprise down the road? Just asking, as it seems completely logical. Is there something else upon which this article is based?
Sign In or Register to comment.