I pay $180 odd right now for FIOS phone, cable and internet. In Feb I'm up for renewal and my bill will go up $60. Have a decision to make.
Charging $300 is too high. If that happens, will give up my landline and TV and then pay whatever I need to for internet.
I think this barron article signaled market top.

F-2 class have lower ERs and no 12(b)-1 fees. (Edit: Presuming you don't *want* to hold ETFs. For some things I prefer an OEF.)
One has to believe AF managers deconflict purchases so that (to use your hypothetical) if 4/9 managers all want to own XYZ, the fund will not suddenly have a 30% position in that one stock.

The F2 class E/Rs strike me as ludicrously high vs. the ETF alternatives which now exist.

@MSF: You seem to know a lot about mutual fund distribution issues. Could it be that a wrap fee of 1% could work better in that it aligns the incentives of the financial advisor and the client? The typical criticism when financial advisors get compensated via loads is that it gives the financial advisor an incentive to churn their client's account. The financial advisor would not have such incentive if he gets paid via an asset fee.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
The GoodHaven fund rides the value resurgence with holdings like Barrick Gold, WPX Energy, and Leucadia National.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=A+Top+Fund+Makes+the+Value+Case+for+Verizon

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

My experience with the American Funds choices (no load, presumably) which my university 403b plan forced me into in place of the former TRP options hasn't been a success, although I'm sure the B-school professors meant well with their choices.
While I wouldn't pay a wrap fee, one presumably isn't tied to one (possibly bloated) fund family, so a lucky adviser might earn his 1% by skilled diversification. OTOH, I admit I have grudgingly (never "gladly") paid the 0.25% for a fund manager unavailable otherwise. If I've got my country school math right, the 0.25% fee might take 10 yr or longer to balance the 5% load, assuming some of my current (American fund) returns.
As I gradually drift toward Vanguard, individual stocks or ETFs, or index funds, this is an irrelevant point.

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

The F-1 (or F) share class has existed since 2002. The only thing changing is that you can now purchase the existing F-1 share class without going through an advisor. So if you were working with an advisor nothing has changed on the fund side.
The advisor may now have to be more honest, but American Funds is not changing what the advisor can sell you or the cost of those shares.
IMHO people aren't wising up. Just the opposite. They gladly pay 1%/year in wrap fees forever rather than pay a one time 5% fee of the purchase amount (with free exchanges within the family).
Wrap fees have supplanted loads as a way for advisors to make their fees palatable while extracting more money from their clients. Wrap fees function like C shares, but advisors can advertise that you won't pay a load.
Likewise, noload investors gladly pay 0.25% in perpetuity rather than a one time fee of a few bucks per purchase.

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.

Not certain on this but I am thinking, and I believe, the F1 shares are only available in brokerage wrap accounts where investors pay a certain percentage (wrap fee) to the brokerage house based on the value of invested assets held within the account.

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. However, now at least I can look at AF without throwing up. Maybe they are available at Merrill NL now.

Typically F-2 shares carry transaction fees, even when purchased through an advisor. For example, here are Scottrade's pages for EuroPacific Growth F-1 (AEGFX) and F-2 (AEPFX). At Scottrade both are sold only through advisors. The F-1 class is listed as NTF, the F-2 as TF.
If you had direct access (i.e. no advisor required) under the same terms, would you pay the transaction fees for F-2? I would, but I invest long term and look at total cost. I believe some people here have written to the effect that they would not pay a fee to purchase a fund. The point is that access to cheaper institutional shares doesn't come for free.
Sometimes it isn't even a matter of higher mins for the institutional (lower ER) share class. It may be strictly a matter of TF. For example, at Fidelity, in an IRA, you can purchase the I (institutional) and N (retail, 0.25% 12b-1 fee) share classes of AQR large cap funds with the same $2500 min. AUEIX & AUENX, AMOMX & AMONX, QCELX & QCENX.

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Correlation, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, and Fund Family Scorecard.
Dodge & Cox Balanced (DODBX) is back on the Honor Roll. The only D&C fund to do so.
Fairholme Fund (FAIRX) remains on the Three Alarm list ... still in the dog house. As is Sequoia Fund (SEQUX).
Vanguard has 31 Great Owl funds! Can you believe that?! Fidelity has 23. T Rowe Price has 20.

As I posted at M* this afternoon, "Good move by AF. I'd prefer to own the F-2 shares that don't have 12(b)-1 fees but this is a welcome move and will let me re-consider some AFs that I like but refused to buy due to loads."
I already hold several (loaded) AFs that have done very well and while I wouldn't pay loads for them now (as an older experienced investor) I'm not dumping them anytime soon.

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.

American Funds F1 shares can be purchased no-load. Whoa. This is either the beginning of the end for Capital Group or a whole new world.
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=773461

Hi @Ted, Any investor insight on a recent holding of yours, (FTR)?
3-reasons-to-sell-frontier-communications

FYI: These are alternative income investments beyond blue-chip stocks and bonds.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/3-preferred-stock-etfs-that-have-yields-of-up-to-67-2016-10-06/print

Interesting that Inflation protected bonds have returned over 6-7% YTD.

If you check out the taxable bond categories vs the municipal bond categories the munis are really lagging in 2016 (even when you factor in the tax advantage for the munis) Crowded trade?
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/