Unable to understand logic behind why there is no exit load on liquid fund
I think you are having trouble understanding what 'liquid' means. Liquidity refers to how easily an asset can be converted to cash. More liquid = more easily converted to cash, less liquid, less so. Any kind of exit load is going to make an asset less liquid due to the penalties associated with making the sale. So, the whole point of liquid funds is to give people the option of selling quickly if they need to. Since an exit load is meant to discourage this behavior, liquid funds tend not to have one. The point isn't what the financial institution 'gets', it's about offering a service to clients with a particular investment need. Imagine that a fund had a large exit load that declined over several years. If you wanted to sell some or all of your investment in that fund you would face a large fee, unless you held it a long time. You would be hesitant to sell because waiting longer would save you money. That is the exact opposite of a liquid investment.  Therefore the ideal level for a liquid fund is to have zero exit load.
The 2 and 20 rule is a premium arrangement that hedge funds offer and venture capital funds offer, and they also offer different variations of it. The 2 is the management fee as percent of assets under management, the 20 is the profit cut, which they only get if they are profitable. There are 0/20, 1/15, and many variations. You're assuming that nobody offers this arrangement because it isn't offered to you, but that's because nobody offers it to people that aren't wealthy enough to legally qualify for their fund. When you park 6 or 7 figure amounts in bank accounts, they'll send your information out to the funds that operate the way you wish they operated. "The root of the advice Bob is being given is from the premise that the market is temporarily down.    If the market is temporarily down, then the stocks in ""Fund #1"" are on-sale and likely to go up soon (soon is very subjective).     If the market is going to go up soon (again subjective) you are probably better in fictitious Fund #1.    This is the valid logic that is being used by the rep.   I don't think this is manipulative based on costs.    It's really up to Bob whether he agrees with that logic or if he disagrees with that logic and to make his own decision based on that. If this were my account, I would make the decision on where to withdraw based on my target asset allocation. Bob (for good or bad reasons) decided on 2/3 Fund 1 and 1/3 Fund 2. I'd make the withdraw that returns me to my target allocation of 2/3 Fund 1 and 1/3 Fund 2. Depending on performance and contributions, that might be selling Fund 1, selling Fund 2, or selling some of both." "I think that ""memoryless"" in this context of a given stock's performance is not a term of art. IMO, it's an anecdotal concept or cliche used to make a point about holding a stock. Sometimes people get stuck... they buy a stock or fund at 50, it goes down to 30, then hold onto it so they can ""get back to even"". By holding the loser stock for emotional reasons, the person potentially misses out on gains elsewhere." Because someone smarter than you by 50 IQ points (a quant) will depart their larger position long before you have a chance to see it coming. Your stop losses are useless as the market will open with the issue below your sell price. Your trade even if place at the same mine would settle after theirs. don't piss in the tall grass with the big dogs. If they are wrong or right does not matter you will be haircut or whipsawed. "The argument you are making here is similar to the problem I have with the stronger forms of the efficient market hypothesis.  That is if the market already has incorporated all of the information about the correct prices, then there's no reason to question any prices and then the prices never change.  However, the mechanism through which the market incorporates this information is via the actors buying an selling based on what they see as the market being incorrect. The most basic concept of this problem (I think) starts with the idea that every investor is passive and they simply buy the market as one basket.  So every paycheck, the index fund buys some more stock in the market in a completely static way.  This means the demand for each stock is the same.  No one is paying attention to the actual companies' performance so a poor performer's stock price never moves.  The same for the high performer.  The only thing moving prices is demand but that's always up at a more or less constant rate. This is a topic that has a lot of discussion lately in financial circles.  Here are two articles about this topic but I'm not convinced the author is completely serious hence the ""worst-case scenario"" title. These are interesting reads but again, take this with a grain of salt.  You should follow the links in the articles because they give a more nuanced understanding of each potential issue.  One thing that's important is that the reality is nothing like what I outline above. One of the links in these articles that is interesting is the one that talks about how we now have more indexes than stocks on the US markets.  The writer points to this as a problem in the first article, but think for a moment why that is.  There are many different types of strategies that active managers follow in how they determine what goes in a fund based on different stock metrics.  If a stocks P/E ratio drops below a critical level, for example, a number of indexes are going to sell it.  Some might buy it.  It's up to the investors (you and me) to pick which of these strategies we believe in. Another thing to consider is that active managers are losing their clients to the passive funds.  They have a vested interest in attacking passive management." What you want is the distribution yield, which is 2.65. You can see the yield on FT as well, which is listed as 2.64. The difference between the 2 values is likely to be due to different dates of updates. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CORP:LSE:USD "High liquidity doesn't necessarily mean that ""everybody is getting rid of the stock"", since somebody is obviously buying whatever stock that is being sold. Also, as mentioned, low liquidity may mean that you would have trouble selling the stock in the future." If I invest X each month, where does X go - an existing (low yield)   bond, or a new bond (at the current interest rate)? This has to be viewed in a larger context.  If the fund has outflows greater than or equal to inflows then chances are there isn't any buying being done with your money as that cash is going to those selling their shares in the fund.  If though inflows are greater than outflows, there may be some new purchases or not.  Don't forget that the new purchase could be an existing bond as the fund has to maintain the duration of being a short-term, intermediate-term or long-term bond fund though there are some exceptions like convertibles or high yield where duration isn't likely a factor. Does that just depend on what the fund manager is doing at the time   (buying/selling)? No, it depends on the shares being created or redeemed as well as the manager's discretion. If I put Y into a fund, and leave it there for 50 years, where does Y   go when all of the bonds at the time I made the purchase mature?  You're missing that the fund may buy and sell bonds at various times as for example a long-term bond fund may not have issues nearing maturity because of what part of the yield curve it is to mimic. Does Y just get reinvested in new bonds at the interest rate at that time? Y gets mixed with the other money in the fund that may increase or decrease in value over time.  This is part of the risk in a bond fund where NAV can fluctuate versus a money market mutual fund where the NAV is somewhat fixed at $1/share. Yes, but it must be remembered that these conditions only last for instants, and that's why only HFTs can take advantage of this. During 2/28/14's selloff from the invasion of Ukraine, many times, there were moments where there was overwhelming liquidity on the bid relative to the ask, but the price continued to drop. Given that a mutual fund manager knows, at the end of the day, precisely how many shares/units/whatever of each investment (stock, equity, etc.) they own, plus their bank balance,  It is calculating this given. There are multiple orders that a fund manager requests for execution, some get settled [i.e. get converted into trade], the shares itself don't get into account immediately, but next day or 2 days later depending on the exchange. Similarly he would have sold quite a few shares and that would still show shares in his account. The bank balance itself will not show the funds to pay as the fund manager has purchased something ... or the funds received as the fund manager has sold something. So in general they roughly know the value ... but they don't exactly know the value and would have to factor the above variables. That's not a simple task when you are talking about multiple trades across multiple shares. This idea does not make sense for most mutual funds. The net asset value, or NAV, is the current market value of a fund's holdings, minus the fund's liabilities, that is usually expressed as a per-share amount. For most funds, the NAV is determined daily, after the close of trading on some specified financial exchange, but some funds update their NAV multiple times during the trading day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_fund I am not certain, but I believe that OppenheimerFunds does not report intraday prices.  I would call them up and ask. "Overall LCR is good for the financial system and makes for healthier, more liquid banks. But some of the assumptions are heavy-handed.  For instance, if a Non-Bank FI has a revolver used for backstop (subscription facilities), LCR assumes they will draw 100% of the revolver in a 30-day stress case. 100 percent! So the bank has to hold $1 of liquid assets for every $1 of revolver commitment (not even actual lending). ""Outflow rates"" are similarly conservative for other borrowers - 30% for corporate CP backstop facilities, which are only available to the most creditworthy companies.  Another issue is that some High Quality Liquid Assets actually attract Basel 3 capital. So LCR is forcing banks to hold these assets which increase their B3A/B3S capital requirement. It's double jeopardy.  And of course there's the additional cost and operational risk of implementing and monitoring any new regulation. Banks must hire or train people to calculate LCR, and those people can make mistakes, leading to penalties. However most large banks have been calculating LCR well ahead of the phase-in date." "As more actively managed funds are driven out of the market, the pricing of individual stocks should become less rational. I.e. more stocks will become underpriced relative to their peers. As stock prices become less rational, the reward for active investing will increase, since it will become easier to ""pick a winner"". Eventually, the market will reach a new equilibrium where only active investors who are good enough to turn a profit will remain. Even then, passive investment will still do roughly as well as ""the market"" since it has low overhead and minimal investment lag. There is no reason to expect the system to collapse, since it is characterized primarily by negative feedback loops rather than positive feedback.  The last few decades have seen a shift from active to passive investment because increased market transparency and efficiency have reduced the labor required to keep pricing rational. Basically, as people have gotten better at predicting stock performance, less active investment has been required to keep prices rational." "In a perfect world of random stock returns (with a drift) there is no reason to ""take profit"" by exiting a position because there is no reason to think price appreciation will be followed by decline.   In our imperfect world, there are many rules of thumb that occasionally work but if any one of them works consistently over a long period of time, everyone starts to practice that rule and then it stops working.  Therefore, there are no such rules of thumb that work reliably and consistently over long periods of time and are expected to continue doing so.  Finding such a rule is and always has been a moving target. The rational, consistently sensible reasons to sell a stock are: These rules are very different from my interpretation of the ""walk with your chips"" behavior mentioned in your question." "Loads may be widespread but they are absolutely not an ""industry standard"".  Almost every major provider of mutual funds has ""no load"" funds. I'm sure your bank wants you to buy the funds with front loads, but they can't force you to buy those funds (unless you sign such a disclaimer when you open the account). What your bank can do is charge their own transaction fees for ""third-party"" funds, and those may end up being as much as or more than the funds' own loads. I don't know which bank you have, but many banks have their own mutual funds that have no loads or other transaction fees.  Essentially you can rearrange your portfolio however you want (within reason) at no cost as long as you buy and sell their funds exclusively.  But of course every bank is different, and in many cases those funds will perform poorly compared to investment companies like Vanguard.  Of course every mutual fund must report its performance so you can always check that yourself. If your bank refuses to let you buy any no-load mutual funds (even ones that they run themselves) and/or wants to charge you steep transaction fees in order to discourage buying them, then may I suggest a different bank? FYI, mutual funds generally ""make their money"" on management fees.  If a fund advertises a load but a particularly low management fee, it may actually be worth buying compared to another fund with no load and a high management fee, if you don't expect to be buying and selling frequently.  On the other hand, if a fund has a high management fee and a high load, it's probably garbage."