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.
FYI: A U.S. federal court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit against BlackRock Inc that had accused the world’s largest fund manager of charging too much in investment advisory fees, according to a preliminary order.
You're familiar with the facts and claims presented? You seem to be suggesting that if investors hire someone who owes a fiduciary duty to them and that duty is violated, they can always walk away and buy something else.
Even though fund boards have a fiduciary duty to the investors to, among other things, negotiate rates with the management company, it never matters what the fees are, since the investors can always walk away?
Here's a ruling on some preliminary motions in the case that may provide some insight into what was going on (including fiduciary duties). (TLDR - yet). While this prelim ruling said the plaintiffs hadn't alleged facts that proved their case, it also reiterated established law - that there are situations where courts can rule that fees are too high and fiduciary duties are breached.
Comments
Even though fund boards have a fiduciary duty to the investors to, among other things, negotiate rates with the management company, it never matters what the fees are, since the investors can always walk away?
Here's a ruling on some preliminary motions in the case that may provide some insight into what was going on (including fiduciary duties). (TLDR - yet). While this prelim ruling said the plaintiffs hadn't alleged facts that proved their case, it also reiterated established law - that there are situations where courts can rule that fees are too high and fiduciary duties are breached.
https://casetext.com/case/in-re-blackrock-mut-funds-advisory-fee-litig-1