As of mid-2003, according to the Investment Company Institute, there are 8,212 funds doing business in this country. The total is down a mere 141, or less than 2 percent, from the all- time high of 8,353 in March 2002.

Since March 2000, the month the Standard & Poor's 500 Index topped out in the stock market, the number of funds has actually grown by 345, or 4.4 percent.

This will draw few cheers from fund critics, who began complaining long and loud in the roaring 1990s that there were too many funds. Look, they said, the number has ballooned far beyond the total of securities listed on the New York Stock Exchange, which stood at 3,560 the last time I checked.

On closer inspection, that comparison is meaningless. Funds hold portfolios of numerous securities mixed together. They may also own stocks and bonds not listed on the NYSE. The number of possible combinations from both NYSE and non-NYSE offerings could justify funds by the millions if that were what investors wanted.

Both Sides Now

Another strange thing about the too-many-funds complaint: It is often raised right alongside laments that there isn't enough price competition among funds. The industry is simultaneously accused of giving us too much and not enough.

``Certainly, the mutual fund industry is competitive,'' say Gregory Baer and Gary Gensler in their 2002 book ``The Great Mutual Fund Trap.'' ``There are thousands of funds and hundreds of fund companies.''

``That does not mean, however, that the industry competes on cost,'' they argue. ``Mutual funds compete on service and hope of outperforming the market. Cost is an afterthought for the customer.''

Now, one could counter that the customers treat cost as an afterthought because saving on expenses isn't their ultimate objective. Their aim is to get a reasonable return consistent with the amount of risk they are willing to take. Costs are only one element of that.