mogul777: PH&N D series to my knowledge are available without transaction costs at three discount brokerages: RBC Direct Investing, BMO Investorline, and Scotia iTrade. You are right though: most people don't know PH&N D series is available them.
I think there is a major difference between .25% and 1.00% trailer fee. .25% is used to compensate the discount brokerage regarding to distribution. 1% is used to compensate the full service brokerage and the broker. Why should I be paying 1% or more annually when I should be paying .25%? That is why I feel comfortable calling the D series no load. CIBC, Scotia, and BMO should create a D series version of their funds. I have taken the CSC course and I know that by convention: mutual funds without a front load or back load is called no load. The question is the same: Why should I be paying 1% or more annually in trailer fee for no advice offered? I am just bringing transparency to the system, since most people are not aware of it.
Vanguard does securities lending the right way. BGI does securities lending, but gorge half of the profit. Further information:
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/columnists/larry_macdonald/article.jsp?content=20090604_152031_5284 and
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124363555788367705.html#articleTabs=article
Like my original post, I like iShares CDN Value Index Fund (XCV) over PH&N Dividend Income D and RBC Canadian Dividend Series D. In this crazy market, the flexibility of the ETF is a blessing just in case you need to sell.
Regarding to 30 stocks too few, I am just saying that you can replicate the ETF within reasonable cost. Here are my true biases: I am deeply influenced by efficient market hypothesis and I accept that unsystematic risk is efficiently priced most of the time. (Note: Systematic risk is another story for me) I am also affected by the Three Factor Model (value stocks and small stocks are great at times) and that is why I am in favor of XCV. We have to agree to disagree.