"But in terms of recommending American Funds today, I do side with Charles."
Hi Maurice- yes, I also completely agree with that. There's no excuse for a load fund in today's environment. Also, if one happens to be in American Funds, you'd better keep an eye on things- among those 57 or 59 funds they have some real dogs, some pretty decent ones, and many just so-so.
OJ

American Funds offers 59 funds (not 57). One of these funds never charges a load. It's a MMF, but MMFs in load families used to charge loads (e.g. I believe Fidelity Select MMF used to charge the same 3% load that Fidelity charged for its Select Funds).
As others pointed out, the min load on these A shares is 0%, since there are breakpoints. (Your "min" in the earlier post above referred rather to the lowest maximum load charged by any of these funds.)
"Nominal" roughly means stated as opposed to actual. For example, one's nominal tax bracket may be 25%, but the actual percentage paid on an incremental dollar may be more or less than a quarter, depending on phaseouts, credits, surtaxes, etc. Likewise, the actual front end load (as a percentage of amount going into the investment) for a 5.75% load fund is 1/(1-5.75%) = 6.1%. The "nominal" is 5.75% (or lower for bond funds, etc.)
M* uses not only front load, but all loads in their star ratings (other loads are assessed on a daily basis as part of the ER - though I wonder if M* correctly adjusts 10 year ratings for share classes that convert after 8 years).
Investors pay for advertising, regardless of whether the expense is broken out as a separate line item (12b-1). Where do people think the money comes to pay for all those Vanguard ads I keep seeing? Or as Vanguard itself writes: "In the words of one client - 'Why spend some of my money to attract some other investor?'"
So I regard 12b-1 fees as just a distraction. Though in contrast, when's the last time you saw a D&C ad?
Speaking of Vanguard, investors there pay different fees and commissions depending on their association of some kind. If they have enough invested in a Vanguard fund, their ER drops (Admiral share conversion). If they use VBS, they can buy ETFs without paying the broker. And if they have a lot invested with the family (like OJ and American), they can get into closed Vanguard funds and buy non-Vanguard TF funds without a commission. I for one am not complaining about their fees, even if I don't get all the perks there.
Thank you for taking note of PIMCO's loads. Below is a bit more on this that I'd drafted prior to your latest responses. The data and observations are, I think, still relevant.
American Funds' oldest share classes do carry loads; they've since been adding share classes without loads. In contrast, PIMCO's original funds from 1987, PTLDX, PTTRX, and PTSHX all added load shares (PTLAX, PTTAX, PSHAX, respectively) in January 1997.
While PIMCO's original share classes don't have 12b-1 fees, the new ones do. (Not a concern of mine, as I explained above, but it is nevertheless a nominal fee :-))
Which family is moving in the right direction? There are indeed dinosaurs, but they may come from different "prehistoric" (last century) eras. Several fund families in the 90s tried to grow their market share by adding load classes and using salesman (um, "advisers") to gather assets. American Century, for example. Some families like AC moved on, returning to the NTF marketplace without adding 12b-1 fees as PIMCO did. Other families seem to be stuck in the tarpit of the 90s.

In the below linked article form Seeking Alpha a summary of its major points are listed below:
•This is now the 4th longest bull market in history. We're in the 2nd longest period without a 10% correction. Every day, we get closer to the next correction.
•A re-balanced growth portfolio that holds a modest 25-35% bond component offers the likelihood of delivering stock market like gains (or better) with a much lower risk profile.
•The risk return proposition is likely swinging in favor of a balanced portfolio.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2484155-theres-very-little-chance-of-beating-a-balanced-portfolio-from-here?source=feed_tag_editors_picks

From my experience ...
American Funds sales loads vary based upon the fund and the amount you have invested with them. For starters the top commission paid for an equity product is 5.75% and is discounted down from there. The top commission paid for their fixed income product is 3.75% and is discounted down from there. And, should you own, or invest, a million with A/F then you buy everything at nav. In addition, after purchase, an investor can move around within their family of funds through net asset value exchange program commission free. I believe that commission discounts start to kick in at the $25,000 threshold. And, if you wanted to be clever and buy, say, the fixed income product ABNDX and then later do a nav exchange to an equity product, say, AGTHX then their entry commission would be the 3.75%, and not the 5.75%, would stand. This is not widely known so keep it to yourself.
Old_Skeet

@mrdarcey and MFOers, I'm under the impression that if one only owns this fund in a taxable account, it won't do any good to transfer that account from a brokerage to them. Would only benefit if it is in a tax deferred account.
Do I have that correct?

Think AndyJ is correct, but its worth asking them about Roy's question. I'm not sure if you have GPROX in a brokerage and moved it whether they'd let you establish an AIP before the end of the month or not. They're letting me do an AIP, but the fund is held in a Roth.
It's probably been linked elsewhere, but here is the announcement.

@Desota. I double checked this morning and through June 2014, AF does indeed have 57 funds at least 1 year old. Oldest share class. All impose load, min 2.5%. The 5.75% load is on 32 of the 57 funds. All impose 12b-1, average 0.22%. Average ER after load: 0.74%.

Charles's latest post is filled with inaccuracies. AF offers 33 funds, not counting funds of funds. The loads charged vary depending on the fund. Bond funds have a smaller load. The max load is 5.75. The loads are reduced or eliminated with larger investments. The 12b1 goes to the advisor, it does not go for ads. This is my last post on this subject.

OSTIX is a no-brainer for folks looking for decent yield but very low volatility. Current duration is less than 2.0 years. Manager Carl Kaufman's track record is one of the best. With only150 holdings and only one-fifth the size of DLTNX, this is a core hold for most client accounts. The fund stays under most radars, and Mr. Kaufman prefers to stay out of the limelight.

Yet Another Wall Street Bear Folds
Stocks have surged to unprecedented levels amid improving earnings, a pickup in economic growth and an accommodative Federal Reserve. The S&P 500 has set 33 record highs in 2014 and is up more than 8% so far this year.
Strategists aren’t the only ones ditching their pessimistic views. Bearish sentiment among financial advisers dropped to 30.6% last week, the lowest level since 1987, according to the Investors Intelligence weekly poll.
“The history of sentiment reminds us that it’s more dangerous to have an evaporation of bears compared to a plethora of bulls,” Mr. O’Hara said. “The lack of bears is something we should not take lightly,” he added.
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/09/09/yet-another-wall-street-bear-folds/?mod=yahoo_hs

Let's look at Vanguard's most important index fund, the Total Stock Market Index fund. Admiral shares: VTSAX. Exchange traded fund shares, VTI.
Their performance is almost identical.
That tells us a lot.

Sorry folks.
I offer a counterpoint.
To American Funds and Morningstar fans.
It's no longer 1970.
Today, AF offers some 57 funds. ALL impose front load, 6% nominally.
Would you really recommend to your friends and family funds that take 6% of every deposit made to the fund? Plus annual expenses?
AF also imposes a 12b-1 fee of its funds for advertising.
You honestly want to support that?
As for M*...I believe that they need to at least acknowledge AF imposes front loads on ALL their funds (and if not they charge a higher ER). Which means you better be investing for a seriously long time to mitigate the drag imposed by the load.
Thank goodness front-load is included in star rating calcs. That is only fair. MFO also includes load in its risk/return ratings.
There are some extraordinary fund families today that are genuinely shareholder friendly. Please consider investing in those.
Yes, easy for me to focus on American Funds because of their size. And because I've had friends and family fall victim to their sales tactics. Signing up for automatic deposits for Class A shares first day on job. I can assure you they were not getting individual adviser attention.
That said, I try to wail on high ER, loads, 12b-1 fees and other share holder unfriendly practices every chance I get regardless of fund house.

Lot of funds have "cash" position in treasuries. And M* needs to be consistent.
But M* does not say "Bond" for FPIVX, it says Cash. FPACX owns several different treasury bonds with lower yields, i.e. more conservative, and M* says Bond.

@VintageFreak: I just went to the FPA website, and now we have the necessary clarification.
Take a look at the asset allocation on the website
http://www.fpafunds.com/crescent
The FPA funds say on their website that FPACX has 6.3% cash, as of 6/30/2014
They give a different mix than M* is showing, but very little cash.
I'm not very enamored with the colors and circle chart they put together......perhaps a table clearly stating the asset classes with percentages would have done a better job, but here it is:

@rjb. It is not about what I want or not want. Lot of funds have "cash" position in treasuries. And M* needs to be consistent. When it comes to FPIVX, also it owns treasuries. e.g.
SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS — 37.6% (Cost $39,856,033)
State Street Bank Repurchase Agreement — 0.01% 07/01/13
(Dated 6/28/13, repurchase price of $39,856,033, collateralized by
$46,935,000 principal amount U.S. Treasury Bond —
2.75% 2042, fair value $40,657,444) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But M* does not say "Bond" for FPIVX, it says Cash. FPACX owns several different treasury bonds with lower yields, i.e. more conservative, and M* says Bond.

Hi Guys,
The referenced Kent Thune article, “10 Ways to Time the Market with Mutual Funds”, is a total disaster. It simply does not deliver on its promises in the title.
The author uses a very loose and broad definition of “market timing”. His opening sentence says much about his philosophy: “If you think about it for a moment, all investing is a form of market timing, even if you employ a buy-and-hold investing strategy”. I don’t see market timing in that broad and all-inclusive way.
The article is mostly definitional in character. It is devoid of data and of decision-aiding criteria. The piece does not establish a how-to-do set of functional rules. It never advises the reader how to identify the market signals that a rotation is potentially needed or what phase of the market cycle currently exists. I am disappointed with the nebulous nature of the whole article.
For example, many research papers are devoted to establishing market phase and those sectors that generate superior returns in each phase. Fidelity divides the cycle into 5 segments and suggests, based on historical data, which sector produces excess rewards. Here is a Link to a Fidelity introductory work:
https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/markets-sectors/sector-rotation-introduction
S&P’s Sam Stovall has done yeoman duty in sector rotation analyses. Here is a nice summary column of his research that appeared in Seeking Alpha:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/464501-whats-ahead-sector-rotation-in-market-and-economic-cycles
This is a limited sampling of what is easily available. There is an endless list of research in this arena. Thune cited none of them. The referenced article is a lazy example of investment research and/or reporting. I'm unimpressed; we deserve better.
Best Regards.

BrianW:
Total PercentileRanking (09/08/2014)
1-Day 98%
1-Week 99%
1-Month 99%
3-Month 15%
YTD 72%
1-Year 99%
3-Year 99%

@Ted, what website did you go to for this? I checked Morningstar, and they are not listing Percentile Ranking for the time frames you listed.
thanks

FPA Crescent has high cash stake too. M* is all messed up saying it has 46% bonds when a lot of that is short term treasuries.

VintageFreak, for FPACX, below is how M* lists those Treasury holdings. You don't want them to list that as cash, do you? I can't fault them for listing the actual holdings. However, I would like it a lot if they were to go into more detail about those holdings. For example, would be nice if they detailed the bond holdings, so we knew the maturities and duration of those Treasuries. Have you checked the fund website to see if it is detailed there?

Market still stinks at closing:
VWO 45.39 -1.22%
ITOT 91.02 -0.67%
EMB 114.33 -0.31%
IBB 269.48 -1.31%
TIP 113.49 -0.29%
LQD 118.48 -0.27%
IEF 103.51 -0.23%
IWM 115.18 -1.18%
IYR 74.29 -0.54%
HYG 92.74 -0.46%

JG upped the HY corp stake in the core fund from 2% to 5%, so not exactly a ringing endorsement. Junkster, I follow the HY spread chart on FRED, and it's now bounced up off the 3.8% level that's been a top or bottom basically every time the spread's hit it this year, so the same thing you're seeing on the yield chart.
Hope those who listened caught Gundlach's comment about the sweet spot in bonds being funds that have higher yield : duration ratios, which is essentially the same thing the Pimco-ites and other sources (e.g., Sam Lee at M*) have been saying in different terms for a while. Shorter but not supershort duration, lower end of IG and upper end of non-IG fits that bill apparently. JG showed a chart that IG corporates are the most overvalued they've been in a lo-oo-ong time.

Hi msf- Well, back then I wasn't covered by a pension, so it would have been in 75. Jeez, 2k was a LOT of money back then. Now that you mention it, after we were married we bought a brand-new 1970 Plymouth Valiant: cost, 2k!
We were also very fortunate that my wife, who was a SF public school teacher, was able to contribute to SS as well as the teacher's retirement fund. Not very many school districts offered that option; not a lot of SF teachers took it; now many wish that they had. Our American Funds adviser also set up a 403b for my wife, in addition to the retirement and SS. I guess that I'd better keep her. :-)

OJ - thanks for the memories. While there's a lot more information available now than back then, I'm not convinced that investing is any easier. For example, in the past few years, the thinking on designing 401K plans has shifted from "offer everything" to "offer a well chosen, limited set of options", because people become paralyzed with too many choices and not enough understanding.
When I first started working, my employer (one of the largest in the country at the time) offered just four options - guaranteed interest, diversified equity portfolio, government obligations, and company stock. I just took a glance at my old records - it seems like I started with a 50/50 split - company stock/diversified equity. But then the stock market took a dive, and for the next several years it seems I put everything new into the guaranteed interest option.
Not the most insightful move, but understandable. In hindsight, I probably would have benefited as you did from an adviser. Some people may benefit when they're starting out. Some people have an aversion to dealing with financial details, and for them it is worth paying someone for that service for many years. (Aversion is not the same as inability.)
Just curious - the original IRAs (enacted in 1974, allowing for contributions starting in 1975) only allowed contributions if one was not covered by a pension plan at work. It wasn't until 1982 that the max went up to $2K, and you were allowed to contribute even with a pension. So when exactly were you first able to contribute to your IRA?