THE COST OF MUTUAL FUND DISTRIBUTION FEES

Many individuals purchase shares in mutual funds as investments. With a lack of evidence supporting performance persistence in fund returns, investors should consider expenses as a fund-selection tool since fund expenses have a negative effect on fund returns. One of the largest expenses incurred by fund investors is distribution expenses, which include both load charges and annual fees. Close to two-thirds of all equity funds charge investors for fund distribution. The true cost of these distribution fees to investors is hard to measure because a myriad of distribution arrangements have evolved that vary both the timing and magnitude of distribution charges. We derive a simple methodology that expresses the present value of distribution costs as a percentage of the original investment in fund shares for any expected holding period. This methodology allows direct comparison of the effect on investors of distribution fees for mutual funds with different types of sales arrangements.     

Gender and ethnic differences in factors that influence food intake

Abstract The objective of this research was to ascertain the gender-and ethnic-related factors that influence what one eats. This survey was conducted using a validated, pilot-tested questionnaire in 11 states and the District of Columbia, which were participating in the W-182 Western Regional Research project. The results indicated that the factors that influence what one eats differ by gender and ethnicity. Men were very much influenced by likes and dislikes, and by their spouse or significant other. Women were influenced by likes and dislikes, and health. Food likes/dislikes and concerns about health and weight were among the leading four factors for all ethnic groups. Food likes/dislikes were the top factor influencing what is eaten by 51% or more of Asians, Pacific Islanders, Caucasians and Hispanics. Concern about health was the top factor for 62% and 58%, respectively, of African Americans and Native Americans.     

What is (or should be) the difference between competency modeling and traditional job analysis?

We argue that Competency Modeling (CM) has the potential to fill an important void in Traditional Job Analysis (TJA), specifically the infusion of strategic concerns in day-to-day employee behavior. Moreover TJA and CM pursue fundamentally different goals, which those who argue for and against either of these human resource methods at times may overlook. To buttress this point we compare TJA and CM along six dimensions: purpose (describe versus influence behavior), view of the job (an object to be described versus a role to be enacted), focus (job versus organization), time orientation (past versus future), performance level (typical versus maximum), and measurement approach (latent trait versus clinical judgment). We conclude with a series of recommendations regarding ways in which TJA can be joined with CM so that an organization may achieve, among other outcomes, the critical purpose of directing employee behavior toward the accomplishment of its strategic objectives.