Expense ratio vs Redemption fees

An Investment Consultant recently contacted me regarding my current retirement portfolio (held by a large firm). This company offered a free evaluation and of course has come back with a proposed re-balanced portfolio. Two funds they have recommended, a Large Blend and a Small Blend, have redemption fees of 2.00. The Large Blend has an expense ratio of .37 while the Small Blend expense ratio is 1.30. Other funds I have purchased in the past have modest expense ratios and no redemption fees (DODBX for one).

The Investment Consultant told me the reason she is recommending these funds is to reduce my holding in Financials, increase IT, and move .10 to International Equities. The good news, though I haven't seen it in writing anywhere, is I will not be charged any fees or commssions for this re-balancing.

Is there a rule as to what is reasonable for these redemption fees? Both funds have outperformed their category average and have comparable YTD returns on the funds they are replacing.

Thank you.

Yes, there is. The rule is anything over 0 is too high. Go to Vanguard, or Fidelity, or T Rowe Price and you will see that they offer a wide variety of very excellent low cost mutual funds with low expense ratios, and in most cases, the funds have NO redemption fees or 12(b)1 fees, or front end loads or back end loads, or any other junk type fees. I would highly recommend the first fund family on my list... Vanguard. The reason the advisor (salesman) is recommending those funds is because he (or she) is getting a commission to sell them, and the fund has to recoup that commission somehow, so they get it back in high fees such as redemption fees and expense ratios.

Do yourself a favor, figure out your asset allocation, and go to Vanguard and select those funds that are appropriate for you. Or, a simple yet very effective solution is just to pick the appropriate target retirement fund and put all of your money there, and Vanguard does the asset allocation work for you.