March 30, 2010
"Supreme Court hands victory to mutual fund industry"

This Reuters article discusses the Supreme Court decision regarding mutual funds and "a 1982 standard to decide the fairness of fund fees."
The two main things I notice about this article are its inaccessibility for the common, non-banker American and the way it frames the story as "winner achieves victory".
On the first point, I had a difficult time understanding the article because I know very little about banking and mutual funds and none of the terms were defined. Many of the quotes are from people in the industry, and thus I cannot understand the value, significance, or possible bias of that person. The article does provide information (and a link) on Harris Associates, the party that was first sued in the case: "The highly-anticipated decision came in a case where three shareholders in Oakmark Funds sued the funds' adviser, Harris Associates, which decided which stocks to buy and sell. Harris is an indirect subsidiary of Natixis SA (CNAT.PA) affiliate Natixis Global Asset Management LP."
...but this same background info is not provided for the remaining companies and firms mentioned.
On the second point, the article really frames this as a victory - it even uses that word in the title. it quotes several people who are in favor of this ruling and all of the quotes discuss how stabilizing this is for the industry, how happy they are, etc. I have to wonder if I should be happy too. This article tells me that this big victory has been won and it seems like "everyone" is happy about it, at least according to them, so should I be happy too? I feel that I am left with little info on the other, losing side of the argument, and am only given the option to bask in the glory that the mutual funds have received. They could be taking all of my money, and I would have no idea because everyone seemed so happy and I have no idea what the jargon means!!