# Trailing commissions in Annual Performance Report



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Has anyone tried to figure out if the trailing commissions of their ETFs and/or mutual funds in their annual performance report or what they're supposed to be (aka accurate)?

I'm trying to calculate my own figures and it's nowhere near the figure (low balled) reported in the annual report despite reading the "fine print". So the next question is "what is the point of reporting that inaccurate figure anyways"? Other than CRM2 requirements? Keep clients delusionally happy 

The GIC compensation number appears to be accurate (simple enough).


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

I did it before they were mandated and that was part of me kissing my broker goodbye about 2014 and moving back to diy after five years test driving how a broker might help us. the limited marginal help was not worth the marginal cost.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

I checked one account. My calculation was within 5% of what the report stated for trailing commissions. I calculated based on holding the month end value for the entire month, whereas TD calculates it based on the average daily holding value. That probably explains the discrepancy in my calculation. I don't hold much in the way of trailer fee paying mutual funds... less than $35 in trailer fees for all of 2020.

How are you calculating what it should be? The trailing commission on statements is only what the MF company pays your broker, not the entire MER.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> How are you calculating what it should be?* The trailing commission on statements is only what the MF company pays your broker,* not the entire MER.


 ... well, that's the problem I'm having. 

I like to keep it simple so just took the MarketValue of the fund at year-end (ie Dec.31,2020) and multiplied it by the MER (difference between this % and the TER is very small) and got something like $80. This calculates only on 1 fund but I got 3 funds. However, the Annual Report said I paid only $75 in total for the entire year on the trailing commissions. Which seems too good to be true. 

Or what is it that I'm doing incorrectly? Maybe I need to pull out the TERs individually ... is that it?


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> despite reading the "fine print"


You need better reading glasses LOL 😉 

On my TDDI statement Trailing Commissions are listed under "Compensation we received from other parties" wth the following explanation:


> "Trailing Commissions are paid by the issuing company (e.g. a mutual fund company) to TD Direct Investing for the delivery of services you receive. Trailing commission may vary based on the specific investment you have purchased and is not charged directly to you, though it does reduce the amount of the investment's return."


Trailing commissions are a portion of the MER that gets paid from the mutual fund company to your broker or investment dealer. The amount varies by fund type. Typical rates (at least by TD mutual funds) are 0.25% for money market funds, index funds and D-series mutual funds, 0.5% for bond funds and 1% for equity funds. Trailer fees are specified in the prospectus under Dealer Compensation.

To estimate it you could take: (fund value at the start of year + fund value at the end of the year) / 2 x trailer fee %. To do it more accurately you should do a similar calculation except do it individually for each month using trailer fee / 12, then add the 12 monthly values.

Trailer fee is only a part of he total fee the fund company charges in the form of MER and TER.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

In the prospectus of the mutual fund the company usually states that trailer commissions are paid on the value of mutual funds held.  It is calculated daily and paid monthly.

As for the report, it will be based on the "actual" payment made from the mutual fund company to the dealer. This will make it even more difficult for you to audit. Even if you went in and calculated the amount owed to the dealer, on a daily basis, you still would not come up with the right number because all the mutual fund companies will have a different "cut-off" day for their payment and with many, this is a variable date. Basically at some point in the month, the mutual fund company says "let's do the trailers today" and they process their payment. You will have no way of knowing what day that is for any given payment/mutual fund. Some use a constant date. Some use the day where things are a little slow that day. There is no way to know.

Coming close to the number will be the best audit one can do.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

GreatLaker said:


> You need better reading glasses LOL 😉



... I'm getting some weird formatting on my reply to your post.

Yeah, I need new glasses plus a new brain trying to figure out how RBC came up with my trailing commissions.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ And here is what my annual report says:



> You may have also paid charges to a third party in connection with account activity. An example of such charges includes mutual fund short term trading fees. *We have not reported these charges as they are not considered remuneration to the firm.*
> 
> Spread based revenue for performing foreign exchange transactions is not included on this report. For further details, please refer to our Operation of Account Agreement.
> 
> ...


 .. so it's a standard no-load fund with a MER + TER. Having to re-read the "fine print" multiple times as per the bold above, then what is RBC reporting as the "trailing commissions" then?

Initially, I took the total MER as the "trailing fees" but then after reading your post, that ain't right so I assumed the TER itself is the "trailing commissions" but that ain't right either. 

Now re-reading your post (#5), I have to dig out the prospectus and look under the Dealer's Compensation to calculate which I have no problem with doing if that's the correct way of figuring it out. But the question becomes WTF is the Annual (Compensation) Report good for?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> In the prospectus of the mutual fund the company usually states that trailer commissions are paid on the value of mutual funds held.  It is calculated daily and paid monthly.
> 
> As for the report, it will be based on the "actual" payment made from the mutual fund company to the dealer. This will make it even more difficult for you to audit. Even if you went in and calculated the amount owed to the dealer, on a daily basis, you still would not come up with the right number because all the mutual fund companies will have a different "cut-off" day for their payment and with many, this is a variable date. Basically at some point in the month, the mutual fund company says "let's do the trailers today" and they process their payment. You will have no way of knowing what day that is for any given payment/mutual fund. Some use a constant date. Some use the day where things are a little slow that day. There is no way to know.
> 
> Coming close to the number will be the best audit one can do.


 .. and so the question becomes WTF is the Annual (Compensation) Report good for? Hoping the client salivate?

Plus I'm not "auditing" or even trying ... if I don't have confidence that I'm paying the right trailing commissions amounts ... how can I have confidence to buy/switch to their ETFs, supposedly with "low" MERs?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

interesting, I thought TER was included in the MER.
I think the disclosures should be more clear.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> .. and so the question becomes WTF is the Annual (Compensation) Report good for? Hoping the client salivate?
> 
> Plus I'm not "auditing" or even trying ... if I don't have confidence that I'm paying the right trailing commissions amounts ... how can I have confidence to buy/switch to their ETFs, supposedly with "low" MERs?


Confirming the financial payments is auditing.

The report is simply to let you know "how much" money was paid on your behalf to your dealer. In other words, how much money did the dealer make from being the dealer on your investment. As I said, the report is impossible to audit. That is why independent auditors are mandatory in the mutual fund business and they are the only ones with all the information to verify these details.

Whether that fixes any corruption I will not say, but that is how it all works.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> Confirming the financial payments is auditing.
> 
> *The report is simply to let you know "how much" money was paid on your behalf to your dealer.* In other words, how much money did the dealer make from being the dealer on your investment. As I said, the report is impossible to audit. That is why independent auditors are mandatory in the mutual fund business and they are the only ones with all the information to verify these details.
> 
> Whether that fixes any corruption I will not say, but that is how it all works.


 ... typical financial advisor's spin... I don't suppose the revelation of "how much money was *paid on my behalf* to my dealer" didn't cost me a cent? 

So the official question is "what is the purpose of CRM2"?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ... typical financial advisor's spin... I don't suppose the revelation of "how much money was *paid on my behalf* to my dealer" didn't cost me a cent?
> 
> So the official question is "what is the purpose of CRM2"?


I told you. It is to let you know how much money was paid to your dealer, on your behalf, because of the investments that you have with them.

Beaver. I am sorry if you don't want the answer to come from me. I know you would be irritated with any answer I gave you but, my help was not intended to anger you. So I will leave you with your predicament.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> I told you. It is to let you know how much money was paid to your dealer, on your behalf, because of the investments that you have with them.
> 
> Beaver. I am sorry if you don't want the answer to come from me. I know you would be irritated with any answer I gave you but, my help was not intended to anger you.


 ... I'm not angry with you (irritated, yes as I should've known better where the answer is coming from - a typical financial advisor's viewpoint.). 

Let me put it this way, have you ever put yourself in the clients' shoes or go shopping to find the advertised price as $3.99, only to discover that you paid $13.99 on your credit card? Only thing is you're being charged $13.99 year after year with mutual funds ... and possibly ETFs.



> So I will leave you with your predicament.


 ... I'm not in a predicament as the official question still hasn't been answered... what is the purpose of CRM2? I thought you would have some expertise in answering this.

Let me also put the above question in another way ... imagine me popping this question in my potential hiring of you as my investment/financial advisor. Do I expect to get that kind of answer?


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

I don't know why my post where I quoted Beaver101 had all those lines on it. I thought maybe with my new reading glasses I was seeing things I never noticed before. 

Depending on how much the value of your holdings fluctuated during the year you could probably do a close enough calculation to the actual trailer fee charged either with the annual or monthly calculation estimate methods I mentioned.

The fees part of CRM2 is to help investors determine if they got good value from the advisor or broker for the fees paid to them. In my experience the advisor just recommends whatever investing product pays them good commissions.  If you are holding A-series or I-series funds at a discount broker, look into switching to a D-series if available. Switching among different fee structures of the same fund should not be a taxable event in a non-reg account.

Back when CRM2 was being developed I think there was discussion and contention from the investment dealers that they did not want the fees paid listed on the statements to list all fees... just the fees they received. Even if it left investors partly in the dark.

I remember when I first started investing, a lot of MFs had 2.25% fees plus an 8% front end load. However you could get that front end load reduced to 5% by mustering all your courage and telling the advisor "*I want a discount*". Then deferred sales charges were introduced. What a great concept! All you had to do was hold that [email protected] fund for 7 years and there was no sales charge at all.  Now with MERs in the 0.05 to 0.10 range for Canada & US, and 0.2% range for balanced ETFs I'm not too unhappy.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Try Highwiew Financial blog article on CRM2 

@Beaver: Stop beating on the messenger. CRM2 is intended to provide improved disclosure on fees and commissions paid to your brokerage but only goes a small way to full disclosure of costs because of push back from the financial industry. It does NOT include internal management fees of a particular fund (mutual, ETF, etc) itself. Investors still, to a large degree, believe they are getting free advice from their broker (has changed somewhat with % of AUM models) which of course is not true at all. CRM2 at least tells the investor what one's broker is getting paid. Small steps.....


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I'm not angry with you (irritated, yes as I should've known better where the answer is coming from - a typical financial advisor's viewpoint.).
> 
> Let me put it this way, have you ever put yourself in the clients' shoes or go shopping to find the advertised price as $3.99, only to discover that you paid $13.99 on your credit card? Only thing is you're being charged $13.99 year after year with mutual funds ... and possibly ETFs.
> 
> ...


Look Beav. I have probably angered, at one time or another, just about every frequent poster on this board, as they have to me. Just about everyone of them, apart from you, has eventually seen that my intent was not to anger them but to give my opinion on the matter, and the anger is simply a biproduct of a vigorous debate. With that in mind, they all seem to get over it, as have I. With you, not so much.

Yes. I have worked in the financial services industry as I have worked in many other industries. That seems to be a sore spot with you but in the case of the answer to this question, it was experience that offered ta pretty good description of what is actually going on, why it is going on and with that, giving more insight as to why it is so difficult to verify.

I really wish we could bury the hatchet. It makes little difference to me, in the long run, but with it underlying just about every response you make to my posts, it probably confuses some readers, in some of those instances.

In any case, your question here has been answered.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

I believe the important part is that you do get a very clear picture of exactly what your funds are worth.
Sure it's hard to compare costs, and they thrive on obscurity.

That being said, it's why many people switch to ETFs, or direct stock purchases.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

GreatLaker said:


> I don't know why my post where I quoted Beaver101 had all those lines on it. I thought maybe with my new reading glasses I was seeing things I never noticed before.


 ... your new reading glasses are working fine, it's at my end figured out. Sorry about that. Was working on an Excel file and copied the report's text from there to here so ended up with the Excel grid lines too. 



> Depending on how much the value of your holdings fluctuated during the year you could probably do a close enough calculation to the actual trailer fee charged either with the annual or monthly calculation estimate methods I mentioned.


 ... I'm going to follow your instructions - search for the Dealer Compensation in the prospectus as the Annual Report doesn't indicate a trailer commission % (unlike TDDI) ... it's just a lump sum figure. I would be quite happy to get a reasonable ballpark to what's reported to me on the Annual Report, like with your 5% margin. Right now, I can't figure out anything given the AR said "this lump sum is what's paid to your dealer". Take it or leave it. Duh.



> The fees part of CRM2 is to help investors determine if they got good value from the advisor or broker for the fees paid to them. In my experience the advisor just recommends whatever investing product pays them good commissions.  If you are holding A-series or I-series funds at a discount broker, look into switching to a D-series if available. Switching among different fee structures of the same fund should not be a taxable event in a non-reg account.


 ... the thing is my funds are on D series and I'm getting that crappy-reporting.



> Back when CRM2 was being developed I think there was discussion and contention from the investment dealers that they did not want the fees paid listed on the statements to list all fees... just the fees they received. Even if it left investors partly in the dark.


 ... the lights are still dark over here with RBC's AR!



> I remember when I first started investing, a lot of MFs had 2.25% fees plus an 8% front end load. However you could get that front end load reduced to 5% by mustering all your courage and telling the advisor "*I want a discount*". Then deferred sales charges were introduced. What a great concept! All you had to do was hold that [email protected] fund for 7 years and there was no sales charge at all.  Now with MERs in the 0.05 to 0.10 range for Canada & US, and 0.2% range for balanced ETFs I'm not too unhappy.


 ... this is it. And that's why we're on this forum, literally D-I-Y ... so we (the customer/client) don't have to be paying fees for doing the advisor's homework! As mentioned, I need confidence that we are indeed paying much lower fees in ETFs when fees transparency is as clear as mud after moving onto D series mutual funds.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> Look Beav. I have probably angered, at one time or another, just about every frequent poster on this board, as they have to me. Just about everyone of them, apart from you, has eventually seen that my intent was not to anger them but to give my opinion on the matter, and the anger is simply a biproduct of a vigorous debate. With that in mind, they all seem to get over it, as have I. With you, not so much.
> 
> Yes. I have worked in the financial services industry as I have worked in many other industries. That seems to be a sore spot with you but in the case of the answer to this question, it was experience that offered ta pretty good description of what is actually going on, why it is going on and with that, giving more insight as to why it is so difficult to verify.
> 
> ...


 ... right, spin it to your satisfaction. I'm not sure why you as a financial expert makes it so difficult when someone else (like GL above) gets to the point of explaining it clearly.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Try Highwiew Financial blog article on CRM2
> 
> @Beaver: Stop beating on the messenger. CRM2 is intended to provide improved disclosure on fees and commissions paid to your brokerage but only goes a small way to full disclosure of costs because of push back from the financial industry. It does NOT include internal management fees of a particular fund (mutual, ETF, etc) itself.


 ... I'm not trying to beat the messenger. Let me put it this way, would financial advisors themselves as investors not want to know what they're paying for their own investments? Or it's just okay to dump everything in the pot as at the end of the day, they're getting the best of the brew from the pot.



> Investors still, to a large degree, believe they are getting free advice from their broker (has changed somewhat with % of AUM models) which of course is not true at all. *CRM2 at least tells the investor what one's broker is getting paid. Small steps*.....


 ... well, that's the purpose. And I supposed the customer is forever "grateful" for the small step. However, it doesn't help to report a figure that is potentially misleading ... might as well not report at all.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Does this help?



https://funds.rbcgam.com/_assets-custom/pdf/cost-of-mf-investing_e.pdf


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> I believe the important part is that you do get a very clear picture of exactly what your funds are worth.
> Sure it's hard to compare costs, and they thrive on obscurity.
> 
> That being said, it's why many people switch to ETFs, or direct stock purchases.


 ... that's what I'm trying to do ... switch my mutual funds to ETFs. If the reporting of compensation on mutual funds is misleading, then imagine how it is on ETFs. 

So are we all supposed to take on face-value we're paying pennies on our ETFs MER/TERs (ie. no one questions this?) 

I have no issue with stock ... you pay the commissions as per brokerage's published schedule.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

And note....TER is independent of MER and TER is trading expense ratio...not trailing expense ratio as some people think.

Both MER and TER should be reported on the Fund Facts.

are you simply look to isolate the trailing commission?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> Does this help?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 .. changed my reply after relooking at your chart.

Management Fee (ME) = Investment Management % (IM %) + Trailing Commissions % (TC %) 
Eg. ME = .60% but TC % ≠ TER % so what is it? and where do you find the IM%?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> And note....TER is independent of MER and TER is trading expense ratio...not trailing expense ratio as some people think.
> 
> Both MER and TER should be reported on the Fund Facts.
> 
> *are you simply look to isolate the trailing commission?*


 .. yes as that's was reported to me. Simple as that.

You defined TER as trading expense ratio. So that's charged through the fund itself, correct?

You said Trailing Expense ratio is not what some people think it is. So what is it?

And what is a "trailing commission" that we pay (as a commission) as reported to us?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ... right, spin it to your satisfaction. I'm not sure why you as a financial expert makes it so difficult when someone else (like GL above) gets to the point of explaining it clearly.


Sorry if I confused you. At least you got your answer. By the way. I did not come up with CRM2. I had no input on it at all. I was not trying to spin anything. Just trying to help you understand the calculations that go into the number that you were querying about.

The reason CRM2 was put in place was to ensure that the client understood that fees were being paid to their dealer, on their behalf. Most of us probably knew that, if we understood what an MER was and what trailer fees are, but not everyone out there does. Also, the regulators were tired of hearing someone say that they were not told this or that. This way, everyone is told. That is the purpose of CRM2, at least with respect to mutual fund trailers.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Beaver101 said:


> .. yes as that's was reported to me. Simple as that.
> 
> You defined TER as trading expense ratio. So that's charged through the fund itself, correct?
> 
> ...


TER is paid from the fund. Some people think the T in TER is for trailing. TER is not trailing commission. Its a trading expense. a measure of the funds trading costs.

TD discloses the maximum trailing commission on its funds. i assume everyone does. Ranges from 0-1%. If you know the MER, and you know the max. Trailing commission, you can estimate the IM. 

I haven’t looked at my statements and I forgot a lot about CRM. What’s disclosed on your statements......just the trailing commission?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> What’s disclosed on your statements......just the trailing commission?


 ... just a lump sum "trailing commission" in my "year end annual performance/compensation" report. 

$75 for 3 funds ... that's cheap, reasonable, or what? 



> TD discloses the maximum trailing commission on its funds. i assume everyone does. Ranges from 0-1%. If you know the MER, and you know the max. Trailing commission, you can estimate the IM.


 ... where is the maximum trailing commissions being reported by TD? 

Based on what you're saying above, is the trailing commission maximum of 1% applicable to D series or in TD's case e-series?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

FWIW, ETF providers do not pay any trailing commissions to brokerages (just like stocks). The MER associated with ETFs is associated with the ETF itself, e.g. Management Fee to operate the ETF and to pay the index provider (e.g.S&P, MSCI, FTSE) for the use of their index plus TER. That is why you see, for example for Vanguard VBAL, a management fee of 0.22% and a total MER of 0.25%. That is all separate from issuing companies like a Pfizer and a Vanguard covering broker administrative costs to mail out things like proxy circulars to shareholders, prospectuses, mutual fund performance reports, etc. As I understand it, those are done at cost.

A brokerage account without bonds, without (most) mutual funds, without ISAs, and without GICs, would generally have zero 'commissions and fees' paid to the brokerage. Some mutual fund companies such as Mawer do not pay trailing commissions at all. One of the largest travesties in my opinion is the 0.25% trailer commission paid on Series A ISAs. 

The other travesty is the beefy commission a GIC provider pays to the brokerage for brokering GICs. That said, we get the advertised interest rate - only that it is lower such as Home Trust GICs in the broker channel than it is in the retail channel such as Oaken Financial.

CRM2 needs more transparency but it is up to advocates like retail investors, some advisors like Dan Hallett and John DeGoey and our securities regulators to continue the push for more transparency. The CSC and OSC were well on their way to doing so, except someone bought off Doug Ford and a cabinet minister or so last year on putting the brakes on elimination of some fees such as trailing commissions on D series mutual funds. Bay Street put a noose on Queen's Park.

Some day, we may see better breakdowns. Don't asphyxiate yourself waiting.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ ... just a lump sum "trailing commission" in my "year end annual performance/compensation" report.
> 
> $75 for 3 funds ... that's cheap, reasonable, or what?
> 
> ...


I gave some examples of TD trailer fees for common fund types upthread in Post #5. TD mutual funds are provided by TD Asset Management. You can see the complete list of trailer fees in the Dealer Compensation section of the TDAM Prospectus. You need to know what type of fund and what series of fund you hold. That complexity is among the reasons I only hold a small amount in mutual funds that pay trailers.

My calculation for the TD fund I checked was slightly higher than what my TDDI statement indicated, probably because I used month-end fund values rather than the average daily value calculation that TDAM uses.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The best I know is that ALL(?) D series mutual funds pay trailer commissions/fees of 0.25%. D series was a way for mutual fund companies to head off regulator intervention and in some cases litigation to skate past the fact discount brokerages do not provide investor advice and thus it is 'criminal' that they would be compensated by fund providers to provide something discount brokerages cannot legally do.

If the (D series) trailer commission model eventually goes the way of the dodo bird (to zero), there will need to be an offset somewhere for brokerages to cover their costs for providing mutual funds on their platforms. Perhaps there will be a buy/sell commission similar to stocks. It remains to be seen where the model goes. 

Right now, the D series trailer commission at least helps the smaller portfolios where people buying mutual funds do so on a periodic basis because they can do so in increments as low as $25 is many cases and not incur an upfront commission. Some will argue that some discount brokerages already provide 'no cost' purchases of ETFs, which they do, but they are making money on the side with securities lending, and bid/ask spreads, something that cannot be done with mutual funds. The solution cannot be 'zero cost'.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Thanks ALL for the responses with special thanks to AltaRed, GreatLaker for the breakdown/details. Will digest on these further.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

You're welcome. lol


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ What're you (or the financial advisory side) is trying to say with the 'lol' ?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I gave the olive branch a try upthread, which you did not accept. The anger seems to me to reside with some resentment you have to my time spent in the Financial Services industry, since it always comes up in your responses, even if it is not relevant. Since I cannot go back and change history I was hoping you might someday get over it.

That said, if I can't get you to set aside your anger then I might as well enjoy it. What else can I do? lol


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ No, it's you who can't get over the perception that I'm angry with you as a financial advisor which I told you I wasn't (irritated/annoyed=yes)... and upthread you go I was blaming you or you didn't create CRM2? Of course not, unless you knowingly are working with the regulators.

Maybe you thought you had offered me an olive thread (or shouldn't it be the other way when I gave my thanks to you?) But you had to add an "lol" which I now get is your little game in the head of enjoyment. So be it .. have fun in your head. Sheesh.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

You thanked me for something. Wow. Didn't notice. Perhaps my bad.

Anyway, I shouldn't be poking the bear. My apologies. Have a good day.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

OptsyEagle said:


> You thanked me for something. Wow. Didn't notice. Perhaps my bad.
> 
> Anyway, I shouldn't be poking the bear. My apologies. Have a good day.


You mean poking the beaver!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

If anyone is interested ... 

Found out what the "trailing commissions percentages" are on all my RBC funds ... ranged from .25% to .15% depending on type of fund (very close to what AltaRed & GreatLaker said). And was able to ballpark calculations to year-end reporting within a $5 margin. 

Upon this review, I better move my HISA (my bad) somewhere ...


----------

