FYI: (Click On Article At Top Of Google Search)
The PNC Multi-Factor Small Core is up an average of 16.6% a year over the past five years.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Top+Small-Cap+Quant+Fund+Takes+a+Scientific+Approach+Barron's
M* Snapshot PLOIX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/ploix/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot PLOIX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PLOIX
PLOIX Is Unranked In The (SCG) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/small-growth/pnc-multi-factor-small-cap-core/ploix

Suppose you have an advisor who charges 1% for managing your account and he gives you two choices for how he'll collect his fee:
1) He'll periodically skim money from your account, let's say on a daily basis, or
2) He'll delegate that to the fund company that will then skim money from the fund on a daily basis and remit it to your advisor
I think you'd agree that your return is the same either way. Same tithing, same schedule, it's just the collection mechanism that's different.
Case (1) is a wrap account with F-2 shares and a 1% fee. Case (2) is a commission-based account with C shares (1% 12b-1 fee, for the sake of argument all going to the advisor).
One would probably expect the returns of those two classes of shares to be reported differently. Therein lies the problem. Your return is the same, the payment to your advisor is the same, and yet one class' returns are different from another, simply because of the payment mechanism.
What this suggests to me is that to the extent possible, one should keep the payment mechanism out of the return data. I want the performance figures to represent how well the portfolio did, not what I paid or didn't pay to my advisor.
We can keep the advisor fees (which as OJ noted can vary) out of the equation for A shares. Unfortunately, they're baked into the equation for B and C shares. Even worse, you've got the reverse problem with B shares - the performance figures understate actual performance. That's because B shares convert to cheaper A shares after some number of years, but the performance figures assume the same higher expenses ad infinitum.
The 30th percentile estimate is likely in error, though I haven't checked. I'm guessing that when you multiplied the ending value by 94.25% (i.e. reducing account by 5.75%), you did not do the same for all the other front end load funds. Their performance figures should have been reduced as well.
FWIW, M* does incorporate the impact of loads in its star ratings. That's why AMECX is 4*, but AMECX.lw is 5*.

Oh, yeah. And remember the 1,000+ pages of the new regs were crafted by....you guessed it...attorneys! Yes, the rules are supposed to establish a "fiduciary" standard. But already, there is legislation to allow annuities back into the picture (think dollars from insurance companies and banks). And the solution for a number of companies, like ML, is to adjust their IRA business but continue to sell commission products and charge commissions for the non-retirement business. There will for sure be some fallout of the really egregious stuff, but I would not be surprised to see more and more adjustments to the rules like the annuity provision just passed. Meanwhile, independent RIA's who have been running fiduciary programs for years, must devote more and more hours to paperwork and other documentation. Between the DOL, the SEC, FINRA, and each state's regulators, the rules and requirements continue to multiply, many times contradicting each other.

@LLJB- In thinking on this a little more I recall that American has a sliding load scale for their A funds based upon the total amount invested with the company (I'm not informed as to any other classes). That "total amount" includes multiple funds held in both retirement and non-retirement accounts by a married couple. Another issue is that American reinvests dividends and gains without any load, whereas some other load funds charge the same load on re-investments (or at least they used to, from personal experience).
That makes it problematical for comparative load-adjusted returns, since the loads themselves would vary all over the map depending upon the situation. Still, a footnote for the worst-case load would be of some help, and I definitely agree that front-load funds should be "on their way out": the competitive market conditions now are nothing like they were 20 or 30 years ago.

@BobC- make that "several other posters at MFO". Many years ago I proudly defended the title of "cynic-in-chief" at FundAlarm and then here at MFO, but I regretfully conceded that title a couple of years ago to those a bit younger and possessing more energy.

Hi @Charles,
Let's look at the other side of the coin (so-to-speak).
I am an AF shareholder that paid the "one time sales load" many years back before there were a good selection of no load funds. As I understand these no load (F1) shares are for wrap accounts where an ongoing account wrap fee is charged rather than a one time upfront sales load. In talking with my broker I was told I will be good to go (as in the past) with my self directed ira account which would be grandfarthered with no wrap fee charged. Now, I am thinking that is indeed a good deal. Although, I can not put new money into this account after April 2017 (retired now so that is not important to me) I will be allowed to do nav exchanges within fund families owned in this account. And, to, of course, sell fund shares and to take distributions as I have done in the past. Since, all of my funds within this account are set for their distributions to pay to cash, at this time, sales are not necessary. It is uncertain at this time if I can buy new shares with my fund distributions unless I set the account up before April 2017 for reinvestment of fund distributions. Since, I am retired I most likely will leave the funds distributions set to pay to cash. While, my son, who is still working, will leave his account set for reinvestment of fund distributions.
Also know, some American Funds A shares can be bought back of the 5.75% sales charge you reference.
I'm thinking I've got a good deal ... no ongoing wrap fee for me. From my perspective I've got the better deal over what new investors will be getting today who invest in F1 shares and have to pay ongoing wrap fees.
Skeet

@Bitzer - I was commenting on the fee structure more than the component structure of these funds. Because I don't generally concentrate on target funds, and in particular not on funds that add such a large second layer of fees, I'm not familiar with the PIMCO funds beyond what I wrote.
However, since each family's collection of target date funds has a different glide path, narrowing down the cause of performance differences is a multi-step process. Start by comparing 2030 funds' allocations - does the PIMCO 2030 fund have a higher allocation than other 2030 funds to stocks (and did stocks do better than bonds), or vice versa? If the stock portion outperformed, was it because it had more (or less) international exposure/small cap/value than its peers?
If you reach the conclusion that the allocation (either stocks/bonds, or allocation within stocks or within bonds) was not the cause of the performance difference, then you need to look at the underlying funds. Did one of them have an unusually good year? If so, that's likely the cause, and you're down to the usual question: why did this underlying vanilla fund do well last year?
As far as good AF go, I have always liked AEGFX, and I agree with rforno about CIBFX. The latter has held up better than MALOX over the past several years and is cheaper to boot. Not that I've figured out how to purchase MALOX, though it does have a memorable ticker.

We have been working with clients for more than 30 years and have seen a boatload of changes in the fund industry. As one poster noted, advisors have been able to use F-1 shares for many years, but individual investors could not. But the fact is that fee-only advisors have been the ones using this option, not the commission folks. It is always frustrating for us to see a new client come in with their account statements that show 4-6 American Funds, with a ton of overlap, thinking they are diversified. What was their "advisor" thinking? Pretty obvious, seems to me. Also know that for years, American Funds were "top shelf" options in many commission-based brokerages, meaning the rep earned a higher percentage of the gross commission if she/he pushed those products to clients. Not sure if this still happens, but the fund companies paid the broker-dealers to get on that top-shelf list. While American Funds, by and large, have been an ok group, their numerous large cap US funds are pretty-much defacto index funds when you compare size, number of holdings, Beta, STD, and other measures. And they fared about the same as the S&P 500 in the 2007-08 meltdown. There are certainly much worse load fund families out there.

For an allocation fund whose performance has hugged the return of the S&P 500 for the past 10 years, go for the Bruce Fund (BRUFX). It's by far my biggest MF holding.

Don't you wish Bruce Fund offered a cash position? I have my H.S.A with Bruce and would like to park some of my money in a cash position instead of having to redeem shares when I need to pay for health related expenses.
I do love the Spartan website. Old School. I have automated my contributions by using the bill pay services offered through my bank's checking account and I have learned to tempered my enthusiasm for redemptions since the US mail is the only method available for receiving withdrawals.
I'm hoping all of these "old school hurdles" are too much trouble for the "above average high tech" investor to except and it remains the fund less traveled.

For an allocation fund whose performance has hugged the return of the S&P 500 for the past 10 years, go for the Bruce Fund (BRUFX). It's by far my biggest MF holding.

How is this considered a top fund? Check out their performance during the past 3 years.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Closed-end municipal bond funds have been smart investments for the past three years. They’ve returned an average of 12% annually over that time and are up a stunning 16% in the past year alone, according to Morningstar.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Good+Buys+Among+Closed-End+Muni+Funds+Barron;s

Real Estate Weekly Review: REITs See Biggest Weekly Decline In 2 Years
Oct. 7, 2016 6:51 PM ET
Hoya Capital Real Estate
Summary
The REIT Index retreated by 5% this week following 2% decline last week. All sectors were lower. REITs are now up only 3% YTD, down 13% from its recent highs.

With graphics and charts
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4010922-real-estate-weekly-review-reits-see-biggest-weekly-decline-2-years
Article featuring Cohen and Steers ,the company. Bloomberg.com Charles Stein
September 12, 2016
Cohen & Steers Inc., this year’s top-performing money manager, has prospered by satisfying the appetites of investors who crave higher yields.
Assets at the company, which specializes in real estate investment trusts and preferred securities, rose 17 percent to $61.5 billion in the first seven months of the year, driven by market appreciation and more than $4.5 billion in net customer deposits.
The company’s oldest mutual fund, the $6 billion Cohen & Steers Realty Shares, returned more than 12 percent annualized over the past 25 years, compared with 9.2 percent for the S&P 500 Index. The fund, up 12 percent this year, has a dividend yield of 2.5 percent, superior to the payouts on the 10-year Treasury note or the S&P 500. Its performance is similar to the Vanguard REIT Index Fund over the past three and five years.
“Higher-yielding REITs are attractive in a low-yield environment,” said Alec Lucas, a Morningstar analyst who follows the real estate fund.
The attraction extends beyond the U.S. With bond yields depressed throughout the developed world, Cohen & Steers’s president and chief investment officer, Joseph Harvey, told analysts on a July conference call that investors “are scrambling for yield and we believe our strategies will continue to benefit.”
The firm pulled in $840 million during the second quarter from its subadvisory business in Japan through a partnership with Daiwa Asset Management. Most of the money went into U.S. REITs, which are popular in Japan.
The $6.8 billion Cohen & Steers Preferred Securities and Income Fund, which has a dividend yield of 5.3 percent, gathered $1.4 billion in deposits in the first seven months of 2016, data from Morningstar show. Preferred shares, considered a stock-debt hybrid, tend to appeal to income-oriented investors.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-12/year-s-top-money-manager-gets-boost-from-yield-starved-investors

This basically means they are acknowledging active management is worthless. Loads which are wrong in first place add insult to injury.
I'm sure ER is jacked up on those F1 class shares.

That's all a tad cynical, don't you think?
If opening up sales channels is an acknowledgment that active management is worthless, then is closing some sales channels (e.g. converting from a no load family to a load family) is a declaration that active management is great? Perhaps it is simply a way of optimizing business, taking into consideration effects on sales force (brokers/advisors), cash flows, AUM, performance, etc.?
American Funds has for many years sold its funds in both load and no load share classes. If, say, Fidelity, did that, would they also be wrong? Oh wait, they do, e.g. FFRHX & FFRAX. As do PIMCO, American Century, and various other fund houses.
American Funds has been selling F shares since 2002 (they became F-1 in 2008 when AF launched F-2 w/o the 12b-1 fee).
I checked the 2003 EuroPacific Fund prospectus. The F shares were indeed slightly more expensive when they started out: They had a 12b-1 fee of 0.25%, while the A shares had a 12b-1 fee of just 0.14%. So the F shares were11 basis points more expensive.
But by 2008 when F-2 launched, both A and F-1 shares had a 0.25% 12b-1 fee, and virtually ERs. It looks like they jacked up the load share class fee, not the other way around.

@MFO: For many years Capital Group has had a number of excellent active funds in it's stable, but for the loads they would have had a lot more AUM giving Fidelity and Vanguard a run for their money.
Regards,
Ted

If I recall correctly, somewhere in the 1990s or early 2000s, American Funds F shares (before they split into F-1 and F-2) were available through some second tier brokerages. That is, not Fidelity or Schwab, but some of the more obscure brokerages of the time.
Regarding loads and advice. Over at M*, John Rekenthaler wrote a column a few years ago (that I cannot seem to find) detailing why loads can actually work better (read: cost less) than other forms of compensation for small investors.
What I could find was a more recent paragraph by him summarizing his position (with which I concur):

While most financial writers--and many if not most of this column's readers--believe that commission-based advice is inherently worse than advice that is purchased by ongoing fees (mostly asset-based, sometimes flat), I do not. A front-end load fund that is bought and held for the long term is a relatively cheap investment and often a relatively good one at that. What matters is not the payment structure for the advice, but if it is offered solely in the client's best interest and comes at a fair cost.

Emphasis added.
He goes on to sketch figures comparing access and costs of wrap accounts vs. loads, though in the broader context of discussing the new DOL fiduciary rule.
http://ibd.morningstar.com/article/article.asp?id=718083&CN=brf295,http://ibd.morningstar.com/archive/archive.asp?inputs=days=14;frmtId=12, brf295
Since I don't seek advice (heck, I actively run away from anyone pushing advice at me), this "back to the future" sales channel of American Funds is attractive to me, as it may be for many people here. But it won't work for everyone.

I disagree.
I owned a bunch of this several years ago. Viewed the fund as a series of discrete bets on currency movements (utilizing relatively low-credit-risk sovereign bonds as the means to make those bets).
When I first found out about his big bets in Ukrainian bonds, after the Russian aggression, I decided to exit. -- The risks Hassenstab is taking with his investors bond money doesn't suit me.

On the contrary, the fund is exactly what most advisors expect. Those who saw Mr. Hasenstab's unique style and were early to the fund have done well for their investors. Virtually every manager will have a period of 2-3 year span of underperformance. Just as the hot money flowed into TGBAX after it's returns were great, 2005-2010, the same performance-chasing money is now moving out. Nothing has changed from a strategy or philosophy standpoint, but the bets the last couple of years have not paid out. They may do so yet. Contrary to M* comments, advisors and investors who actually take the time to know this fund have never expected it to be tame and run for capital preservation. It is a different vehicle that happens to own bonds, like it or not. It has been a big diversifier for portfolios over its long history with Hasenstab at the helm. We captured some long-term gains late last year and early this year, moving dollars to VTABX, thereby splitting international bonds into two very different pots.

FYI: The $44 billion Templeton Global Bond Fund (TGBAX) is probably not what most financial advisers would expect from a strategy in such a bland and stoic category as world bond funds.
But, based on the pace of money flowing out of the fund over the past few years, advisers and investors are catching on that this is far from a plain vanilla global fixed-income portfolio.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161005/BLOG12/161009971?template=printart
M* Snapshot:TPINX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/TPINX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot:TPINX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/TPINX
TPINX Ranks #44 In The (WB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-bond/templeton-global-bond-fund/tpinx

While I know I'm a one trick pony, for my grandchildren and children's investments that I'm funding, I'm using VMVFX. ER 0.27. It trailed the S&P this year, but doubled its global stock peers, according to M*. The track record is short, but Vanguard's heritage is relatively long, and they select managers carefully.
If you are looking at 30 years before you become cautious (your daughter, I presume, although I wish you well), I think some of the money should be averaged in there. I'm waiting for a significant drop to add more, but as GRT and River Road Independent Value liquidate, I tell my children to put the proceeds there. Vanguard isn't perfect, but how much effort does your daughter plan to devote to managing her money, and how good is she at it?