DOCSLIB.ORG

Mutual Fund Profile December 31, 2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mutual Fund Profile December 31, 2002 Mutual Fund Profile December 31, 2002 UBS Tactical Allocation Fund The UBS Tactical Allocation Fund is man- aged by UBS Global Asset Management Investment Process (US) Inc., a member firm of one of the • The Fund employs a proprietary model to • Stock investments are made in about world’s largest and most respected invest- determine the relative attractiveness of 465 of the 500 stocks in the S&P 500 ment management organizations. The UBS stocks vs. the other major asset classes, to reflect the performance of the Index. bonds and cash. The Model is based on Global Asset Management organization is • Allocation decisions are made at the the premise that incremental returns can known for its dedication to providing inves- beginning of each month. Stock be achieved through the tactical alloca- tors with the choices they need to succeed allocations may be 100%, 75%, 50%, tion of assets among these asset classes. in today’s complex markets. The firm offers 25% or 0%. mutual fund choices for investors of all risk • The Model, run on the first business temperaments, whether they’re seeking day of each month, is used to calculate growth, income or preservation of capital. S&P 500 Index Stocks, an Equity Risk Premium (ERP), a quanti- 5 Yr. Treasury Notes and 30-day Treasury Bills tative measure of the attractiveness of Investment Goal and Strategy stocks vs. risk-free investments. The Fund seeks total return, consisting of long-term capital appreciation and current • Historical analysis indicates that over income, by allocating assets among stocks the long term, the equilibrium level of Apply proprietary model to calculate Equity Risk Premium and Bond Risk Premium in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and the ERP is about 5%. When the model bonds (five-year U.S. Treasury Notes) or cash determines that the ERP is greater than (30-day U.S. Treasury Bills). 5.5%, the Fund invests fully in equities. Determine asset mix among S&P 500, five- When the Premium is less than 5.5%, year Treasury Notes, 30-day Treasury Bills The Fund’s benchmark is the Standard & the Fund begins to reduce the equity Poor’s 500 Index. allocation and shifts assets to bonds or cash, depending on which is deemed Investment Professionals more attractive as determined by the Bond Risk Premium (in 25% increments Portfolio Construction/Monitoring The Fund is managed by: from 0% to 100% in bonds or cash). T. Kirkham Barneby • Managing Director, Quantitative Investments Performance vs. The Benchmarks¹ • 28 years of investing experience Average Annual Return 1 Yr. 3 Yrs. 5 Yrs. 10 Yrs. Life UBS Tactical Allocation Fund Class A Shares2 -22.88% -12.95% -0.03% N/A 8.98% after maximum sales charge -27.12% -14.58% -1.15% N/A 8.34% UBS Tactical Allocation Fund Class C Shares2 -23.46% -13.61% -0.79% 8.03% 8.35% after maximum sales charge -24.98% -13.90% -0.99% 7.92% 8.24% S&P 500 Index -22.10% -14.55% -0.59% 9.34% N/A Morningstar Large Blend Average -22.02% -13.53% -1.47% 7.85% N/A Morningstar Data Style BoxTM Category Risk Investment Valuation LOW VALUE BLEND GROWTH BELOW AVERAGE LARGE AVERAGE MEDIUM Size ABOVE AVERAGE SMALL HIGH UBS Tactical Allocation Fund Sector Weightings vs. S&P 500 Index³ Portfolio Characteristics vs. S&P 500 Index³ % of Fund % of S&P 500 Index Fund Index Beta* 0.88 1.00 Financials 20.5 Sharpe Ratio* -1.00 -1.00 Technology 15.7 Standard Deviation* 17.11% 18.81% P/E Ratio 24.2x 24.2x Health Care 14.4 *For three years Consumer Staples 13.7 Beta: Measures volatility. A benchmark generally has a beta of 1.0. An investment with a beta under 1.0 is considered less volatile. Sharpe Consumer Cyclicals 9.9 Ratio: Measures reward vs. risk. A higher number is more favorable. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Standard Deviation: The degree by which returns move relative to the average return. The higher the standard deviation, the greater the variability of an investment. Top 10 Holdings³ Asset Allocation³ % of Portfolio Asset Type % of Portfolio Special Considerations Investors in the Fund should be able to withstand Microsoft Corp. 3.4 Common Stocks 100.0 short-term fluctuations in the equity markets in General Electric Co. 3.0 return for potentially high returns over the long ExxonMobil Corp. 2.9 Fund Facts³ term. The value of the Fund’s portfolio changes Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2.7 Inception Dates: May 10, 1993 (Class A) every day and can be affected by changes in inter- Pfizer, Inc. 2.3 January 30, 1996 (Class B) est rates, general market conditions and other political, social and economic developments, as Citigroup, Inc. 2.2 July 22, 1992 (Class C) May 10, 1993 (Class Y) well as specific matters relating to the companies Johnson & Johnson Co. 2.0 in whose securities the Fund invests. It is impor- Net Assets: $1.8 billion American International Group, Inc. 1.9 tant to note that an investment in the Fund is only Number of Holdings: 465 IBM Corp. 1.6 one component of a balanced investment plan. Expense Ratio/Ticker Symbol: Merck & Co., Inc. 1.6 A Shares B Shares C Shares Y Shares For More Information 0.89% 1.65% 1.63% 0.58% Contact your financial advisor or Client Services at PWTAX PWTBX KPAAX PWTYX 800-647 1568 for a current Fund prospectus, which includes a discussion of risks, all charges, expenses and other matters of interest. Please read it carefully before investing. It’s important you have all the information you need to make a sound investment decision. Source: Morningstar, Inc.; as of 12/31/02. Used with permission. The Equity Style Box placement is based on two variables: 1) a fund’s market cap relative to the movements of the market; and 2) valuation, determined by comparing the stocks in the Fund’s portfolio with the most relevant of the three market cap groups. "Large" capitalization funds invest in stock of companies with a median market cap that ranks in the top 5% of the largest 5,000 U.S. stocks. "Blend" funds generally invest in stocks with price/earnings and price/book ratios that are fairly close to those of other stocks in the market-cap range. However, the Style Box does not necessarily represent an exact assessment of the Fund’s investment strategies; for more information, see the Fund’s cur- rent prospectus. Style Box placement may vary over different time periods. Category Risk is based on Class C shares. Category Risk for other share classes may vary. Category Risk is an assessment of the variations in a fund’s monthly returns in comparison to other funds in its Morningstar category, with an emphasis on downward variation. The risk rating expresses how risky the Fund is relative to the average fund in its Morningstar Category. If two funds have the exact same return, the one with greater variations in its return is given the larger risk score. In each Morningstar Cate- gory, the 10% of funds with the lowest measured risk are described as Low Risk, the next 22.5% Below Average, the middle 35% Average, the next 22.5% Above Average, and the top 10% High. Morningstar Risk is measured for up to three time periods (three, five, and 10 years). These separate measures are then weighted and averaged to produce an overall measure for the fund. Funds with less than three years of performance history are not rated. Risk ratings may change monthly; past ratings are no guar- antee of future volatility and performance. 1. As of 12/31/02. The Morningstar Category Average is the average of the funds that exist for the time period divided by the number of funds that exist for that time period; used with permission. Rankings for other classes may vary. Except where noted, comparative fund performance does not account for the deduction of sales charges, and would be different if sales charges were included. Performance results assume reinvestment of all dividends and capital gains. Offered on July 22, 1992, Class C shares are subject to a 1% initial sales charge. There is a 1% contingent deferred sales charge ("CDSC") for redemptions made within one year of purchase and ongoing 12b-1 service and distribution fees. Offered on May 10, 1993, Class A shares are subject to a maxi- mum initial sales charge of 5.50% and 12b-1 service fees. Purchases of $1 million or more are not subject to an initial sales charge; however, there is a 1% contingent deferred sales charge ("CDSC") for redemptions made within one year. The invest- ment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate, so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Performance is historical and does not represent future performance. The S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged, weighted index comprising 500 widely held common stocks varying in composition and is unavailable for invest- ment. 2. Other share classes are offered and their returns will vary depending on expenses and sales charges. ©2003 UBS Global Asset Management (US) Inc. 3. As of 12/31/02. The Fund’s portfolio is actively managed, and its composition will differ over time. The Fund may deviate from UBS Global Asset Management (US) Inc. is a its model to maintain cash to cover operating expenses, anticipated redemptions, dividends and distribution payments. subsidiary of UBS AG. S&P 500® is a trademark of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SBAI Annual Report (2017)
    Annual Report 2017 Table of Contents Contents 1. Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2. SBAI Mission ........................................................................................................................................ 7 3. The Alternative Investment Standards ............................................................................................... 8 Why are the Standards important? .................................................................................................... 8 4. The SBAI Toolbox .............................................................................................................................. 10 5. Overview of SBAI’s Activities in 2017/2018 ...................................................................................... 11 Key Highlights .................................................................................................................................... 11 Rebranding .................................................................................................................................... 11 North American Committee .......................................................................................................... 11 SBAI Toolbox ................................................................................................................................. 12 New SBAI Initiatives .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Form ADV Part 2A – Disclosure Brochure
    Prosperity Advisory Group LLC Form ADV Part 2A – Disclosure Brochure Effective: October 12, 2020 This Form ADV Part 2A (“Disclosure Brochure”) provides information about the qualifications and business practices of Prosperity Advisory Group LLC (“PAG” or the “Advisor”). If you have any questions about the content of this Disclosure Brochure, please contact the Advisor at (585) 381-5900. PAG is a Registered Investment Advisor with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The information in this Disclosure Brochure has not been approved or verified by the SEC or by any state securities authority. Registration of an investment advisor does not imply any specific level of skill or training. This Disclosure Brochure provides information about PAG to assist you in determining whether to retain the Advisor. Additional information about PAG and its Advisory Persons is available on the SEC’s website at www.adviserinfo.sec.gov by searching with the Advisor’s firm name or CRD# 310720. Prosperity Advisory Group LLC 50 Square Drive, Suite 220, Victor, NY 14564 Phone: (585) 381-5900 * Fax: (585) 381-0478 https://prosperityadv.com Item 2 – Material Changes Form ADV 2 is divided into two parts: Part 2A (the "Disclosure Brochure") and Part 2B (the "Brochure Supplement"). The Disclosure Brochure provides information about a variety of topics relating to an Advisor’s business practices and conflicts of interest. The Brochure Supplement provides information about the Advisory Persons of PAG. PAG believes that communication and transparency are the foundation of its relationship with Clients and will continually strive to provide you with complete and accurate information at all times.
    [Show full text]
  • Arbitrage Pricing Theory∗
    ARBITRAGE PRICING THEORY∗ Gur Huberman Zhenyu Wang† August 15, 2005 Abstract Focusing on asset returns governed by a factor structure, the APT is a one-period model, in which preclusion of arbitrage over static portfolios of these assets leads to a linear relation between the expected return and its covariance with the factors. The APT, however, does not preclude arbitrage over dynamic portfolios. Consequently, applying the model to evaluate managed portfolios contradicts the no-arbitrage spirit of the model. An empirical test of the APT entails a procedure to identify features of the underlying factor structure rather than merely a collection of mean-variance efficient factor portfolios that satisfies the linear relation. Keywords: arbitrage; asset pricing model; factor model. ∗S. N. Durlauf and L. E. Blume, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, forthcoming, Palgrave Macmillan, reproduced with permission of Palgrave Macmillan. This article is taken from the authors’ original manuscript and has not been reviewed or edited. The definitive published version of this extract may be found in the complete The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics in print and online, forthcoming. †Huberman is at Columbia University. Wang is at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the McCombs School of Business in the University of Texas at Austin. The views stated here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Introduction The Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) was developed primarily by Ross (1976a, 1976b). It is a one-period model in which every investor believes that the stochastic properties of returns of capital assets are consistent with a factor structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Hedge Fund Standards Board
    Annual Report 2018 Established in 2008, the Standards Board for Alternative Investments (Standards Board or SBAI), (previously known as the Hedge Fund Standards Board (HFSB)) is a standard-setting body for the alternative investment industry and custodian of the Alternative Investment Standards (the Standards). It provides a powerful mechanism for creating a framework of transparency, integrity and good governance to simplify the investment process for managers and investors. The SBAI’s Standards and Guidance facilitate investor due diligence, provide a benchmark for manager practice and complement public policy. The Standards Board is a platform that brings together managers, investors and their peers to share areas of common concern, develop practical, industry-wide solutions and help to improve continuously how the industry operates. 2 Table of Contents Contents 1. Message from the Chairman ............................................................................................................... 5 2. Trustees and Regional Committees .................................................................................................... 8 Board of Trustees ................................................................................................................................ 8 Committees ......................................................................................................................................... 8 3. Key Highlights ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Manulife Diversified Investment Fund1 BALANCED Series F · Performance As at August 31, 2021 · Holdings As at July 31, 2021
    Manulife Diversified Investment Fund1 BALANCED Series F · Performance as at August 31, 2021 · Holdings as at July 31, 2021 Portfolio advisor: Manulife Investment Why Invest Management Limited This global balanced fund provides diversification across all major asset classes and employs a tax-effective overlay strategy to help minimize potential capital gains distributions at year-end. The equity selection process is based on Mawer's disciplined, fundamentally based bottom-up research process, which includes a strong focus on downside protection. Sub-Advisor: Mawer Investment Within fixed income, the fund will take a core position in Canadian government debt. Management Ltd. Growth of $10,000 over 10 years5 Management 32,000 $27,462 Steven Visscher 28,000 24,000 ($) 20,000 Fund Codes (MMF) 16,000 12,000 Series FE LL2 LL3 DSC Other 8,000 Advisor 4502 — 4702 4402 — 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Advisor - DCA 24502 — 24702 24402 — F — — — — 4602 FT6 — — — — 1901 Calendar Returns (%) T6 9502 — 9702 9402 — 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1.99 11.10 20.29 12.56 10.85 3.57 10.33 -0.75 15.62 10.44 Key Facts Inception date: June 27, 2008 Compound Returns (%) AUM2: $914.91 million 1 month 3 months 6 months YTD 1 year 3 years 5 years 10 years Inception CIFSC category: Global Equity Balanced 2.25 7.00 10.16 8.62 14.06 9.65 8.60 10.36 8.80 Investment style: GARP (%) (%) 3 Geographic Allocation Fixed Income Allocation Distribution frequency : Annual Colour Weight % Name Colour Weight % Name 51.31 Canada 46.96 Canadian provincial bonds 4 Distribution yield : 1.59% 21.91 United States 29.22 Canadian investment grade Management fee: 0.73% 5.17 United Kingdom bonds 2.49 Japan 10.84 Canadian government bonds Positions: 386 1.98 Sweden 6.72 Floating rate bank loans Risk: Low to Medium 1.96 Netherlands 2.50 Canadian corporate bonds 1.95 Switzerland 2.31 Canadian Mortgage-backed Low High 1.85 France securities MER: 1.03% (as at 2020/12/31, includes HST) 1.46 Ireland 1.10 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction and Overview of 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds
    Introduction and Overview of 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds July 2013 Citi Prime Finance Introduction and Overview of 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds I. Introduction 5 II. Overview of Alternative Open-End Mutual Funds 6 Single-Manager Mutual Funds 6 Multi-Alternative Mutual Funds 8 Managed Futures Mutual Funds 9 III. Overview of Alternative Closed-End Funds 11 Alternative Exchange-Traded Funds 11 Continuously Offered Interval or Tender Offer Funds 12 Business Development Companies 13 Unit Investment Trusts 14 IV. Requirements for 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds 15 Registration and Regulatory Filings 15 Key Service Providers 16 V. Marketing and Distributing 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds 17 Mutual Fund Share Classes 17 Distribution Channels 19 Marketing Strategy 20 Conclusion 22 Introduction and Overview of 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds | 3 Section I: Introduction and Overview of 40 Act Liquid Alternative Funds This document is an introduction to ’40 Act funds for hedge fund managers exploring the possibilities available within the publically offered funds market in the United States. The document is not a comprehensive manual for the public funds market; instead, it is a primer for the purpose of introducing the different fund products and some of their high-level requirements. This document does not seek to provide any legal advice. We do not intend to provide any opinion in this document that could be considered legal advice by our team. We would advise all firms looking at these products to engage with a qualified law firm or outside general counsel to review the detailed implications of moving into the public markets and engaging with United States regulators of those markets.
    [Show full text]
  • What Do Fund Flows Reveal About Asset Pricing Models and Investor Sophistication?
    What do fund flows reveal about asset pricing models and investor sophistication? Narasimhan Jegadeesh and Chandra Sekhar Mangipudi☆ Goizueta Business School Emory University January, 2019 ☆Narasimhan Jegadeesh is the Dean’s Distinguished Professor at the Goizueta Business School, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, ph: 404-727-4821, email: [email protected]., Chandra Sekhar Mangipudi is a Doctoral student at Emory University, email: [email protected] . We would like to thank Jonathan Berk, Kent Daniel, Amit Goyal, Cliff Green, Jay Shanken, and the seminar participants at the 2018 SFS Cavalcade North America, Louisiana State University and Virginia Tech for helpful discussions, comments, and suggestions. What do fund flows reveal about asset pricing models and investor sophistication? Recent literature uses the relative strength of the relation between fund flows and alphas with respect to various multifactor models to draw inferences about the best asset pricing model and about investor sophistication. This paper analytically shows that such inferences are tenable only under certain assumptions and we test their empirical validity. Our results indicate that any inference about the true asset pricing model based on alpha-flow relations is empirically untenable. The literature uses a multifactor model that includes all factors as the benchmark to assess investor sophistication. We show that the appropriate benchmark excludes some factors when their betas are estimated from the data, but even with this benchmark the rejection of investor sophistication in the literature is empirically tenable. An extensive literature documents that net fund flows into mutual funds are driven by funds’ past performance. For example, Patel, Zeckhauser, and Hendricks (1994) document that equity mutual funds with bigger returns attract more cash inflows and they offer various behavioral explanations for this phenomenon.
    [Show full text]
  • The Beta Anomaly and Mutual Fund Performance∗
    The Beta Anomaly and Mutual Fund Performance Paul Irvine Jeong Ho (John) Kim Texas Christian University Emory University Jue Ren Texas Christian University February 7, 2019 Abstract We find evidence for the beta anomaly in mutual fund performance. This anomaly is not accounted for in the standard four-factor framework, nor by the addition of a BAB factor to the benchmark model. We show how controlling for the beta anomaly produces an alternative measure of managerial skill that we call active alpha. Active alpha is persistent and associated with superior portfolio performance. Therefore, it would be sensible for investors to reward managers with high active alpha. In addition to allocating their money based on standard alpha, we find that a subset of sophisti- cated investors allocate their assets to funds with high active alpha performance. We would like to thank Jeffrey Busse, Kevin Crotty, Jon Fulkerson, Tong Xu, James Yae, Virgilio Zurita, seminar participants at Emory University and Fudan University, and participants at the KAEA-ASSA 2018 Workshop, the MFA 2018 Annual Meeting, the 2018 EFA Annual Meeting, the GCFC2018, and the 2018 Lone Star Finance Conference for their comments. We apologize for any errors remaining in the paper. Corresponding author: John Kim, Emory University, 1602 Fishburne Drive, Atlanta, GA 30322, e-mail: [email protected]. 1 Introduction The empirical asset pricing literature supplies convincing evidence that high-beta assets often deliver lower expected returns than predicted by the CAPM, and that lower beta assets deliver returns higher than expected according to the CAPM (Black, Jensen, and Scholes (1972), Gibbons, Ross, and Shanken (1989), Baker, Bradley, and Wurgler (2011)).
    [Show full text]
  • A 93-Year Track Record: Active Management Outperformed Over the Long Term Since 1928, Pioneer Fund Has Pursued Capital Growth and Reasonable Income for Shareowners
    A 93-Year Track Record: Active Management Outperformed Over the Long Term Since 1928, Pioneer Fund has pursued capital growth and reasonable income for shareowners. Compare the Fund’s impressive record with other investment choices and inflation. Then, discuss the suitability of the Fund with your financial professional. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Average Annual Total Returns through 6/30/21 Call 1-800-225-6292 or visit amundi.com/usinvestors for the most recent month-end performance results. Current performance may be lower or higher than the Since Inception YTD 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-Year performance data quoted. The performance data quoted represents past performance, Pioneer Fund (2/13/1928) which is no guarantee of future results. Investment return and principal value will $10,000,000 (A Share) Pioneer Fund (Y Share) 17.66% 46.08% 22.89% 19.65% 14.24% 12.18% fluctuate, and shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. $38,896,590 A Share w/o sales charge 17.49% 45.59% 22.55% 19.35% 13.91% 12.09% Chart Assumptions: Mountain chart inception period begins 3/1/28. All chart performance A Share w/ sales charge 10.73% 37.21% 20.16% 17.94% 13.24% 12.02% is cumulative and reflects a 5.75% maximum sales charge on a hypothetical $1,000 investment in Class A shares of Pioneer Fund and the categories shown. S&P 500® Index 15.25% 40.79% 18.67% 17.65% 14.84% 9.69% S&P 500 Index $8,793,619 Gross Expense Ratio (A): 1.08% | (Y): 0.83%.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Rule: Fund of Funds Arrangements
    Conformed to Federal Register version SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 270 and 274 Release Nos. 33-10590; IC-33329; File No. S7-27-18 RIN 3235-AM29 Fund of Funds Arrangements AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is proposing a new rule under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act” or “Act”) to streamline and enhance the regulatory framework applicable to funds that invest in other funds (“fund of funds” arrangements). In connection with the proposed rule, the Commission proposes to rescind rule 12d1-2 under the Act and most exemptive orders granting relief from sections 12(d)(1)(A), (B), (C), and (G) of the Act. Finally, the Commission is proposing related amendments to rule 12d1-1 under the Act and Form N-CEN. DATES: Comments should be received on or before May 2, 2019. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments: • Use the Commission’s Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or • Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number S7-27-18 on the subject line. Paper Comments: • Send paper comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number S7-27-18. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission’s Internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml).
    [Show full text]
  • Mutual Fund Fees and Expenses
    INVESTOR BULLETIN Mutual Fund Fees and Expenses The SEC’s Office of Investorducation E and Advocacy is issuing marketing and distribution expenses, as well as custodial, this Investor Bulletin to explain some of the most common transfer agency, legal, accounting, and other administrative mutual fund fees and expenses. As a general introduction to expenses). Although these fees and expenses may not be mutual fund fees and expenses, this Investor Bulletin does not listed individually as specific line items on your account identify all of the fees that you may pay to buy and own shares statement, they can have a substantial impact on your in a mutual fund. This Investor Bulletin will, however, famil- investment over time. iarize you with some typical mutual fund fees and expenses and show you how those fees and expenses reduce the value of The Impact of Mutual Fund Fees and your fund’s investment return. Expenses on Your Investment Portfolio Fees and expenses vary from fund to fund and the amount As with any business, it costs money to run a mutual fund. you pay may depend on the fund’s investment strategy. There are certain costs associated with an investor’s transac- A fund with high costs must perform better than a tions (such as buying, selling, or exchanging mutual fund low-cost fund to generate the same returns for you. Even shares), which are commonly known as “shareholder small differences in fees from one fund to another can add fees,” and ongoing fund operating costs (such as invest- up to substantial differences in your investment returns ment advisory fees for managing the fund’s holdings, and over time, as the graph below shows.
    [Show full text]
  • Use Manulife Segregated Fund Contracts and Guaranteed Interest Contracts (Gics) to Bypass Probate and Save Money
    THE VALUE OF NAMING A BENEFICIARY – ONTARIO Use Manulife segregated fund contracts and Guaranteed Interest Contracts (GICs) to bypass probate and save money. In Ontario, the value of naming a beneficiary can be estate administration fees. In Ontario, probate fees significant. If you name a beneficiary, an insurance on assets over $50,000 are 1.5 per cent. Other estate company is obligated, under the Insurance Act, to pay administration, accounting and legal fees could be another any death benefit proceeds to the named beneficiary five per cent or more depending on the complexity of the on record. Because the death benefit proceeds do not estate. Bypassing probate also preserves confidentiality as pass through the estate, they not only avoid the delays probate is a matter of public record; payments made by of settling the estate but also bypass probate and other insurance companies are a private matter. The value of bypassing probate Based on $200,000 example in Ontario FEE STRUCTURE MUTUAL FUND ($) SF OR GIC1 ($) DSC 0% to 6% Waived at Manulife2 (4.5% used in this example) 9,000 0 Probate fee $250 + $15 per $1,000 > $50,000 2,365 0 Executor’s fee Varies by province – 1,910 0 up to 5% for corporate executors (1% used as majority name family members) Legal fees 0.5% to 3% of assets + Accounting fees (3% used in this example) 5,730 0 Total cost 19,005 0 For illustration purposes only. Costs will vary depending on the province, complexity of the estate and length of time the assets were held in the segregated fund contract.
    [Show full text]