HW "Skip" Weldon wrote:
- quote -

Skip,
For mutual funds...this has plenty of ugly stats:
http://www.fpanet.org/journal/articl...0298-art11.cfm

That article references some of the better-known studies into the
question. Burton Malkiel's is a good start and the outcomes are
discussed in his "Random Walk Down Wall Street."

You'll find studies with different outcomes than that one. I believe
overwhelmingly it's found that that higher expenses correlate to lower
returns, or alternatively that higher expenses don't correlate to higher
returns. The studies finding otherwise seem to have obvious flaws like
not adjusting for survivorship bias (the fact that the lousy funds close
shop, leaving only the pool of higher-performing funds left for a
long-term study that ignores fund closures).

-Tad

Does anyone have statistics that compare increasing expense with
investment returns over the long-term?

For instance, with expenses at 1%, X% of investors beat the market
averages. At, 1.5% expense, X% beat the market. At 2%, etc.

(I know we all have opinions <grin> , my question concerns stats.)

-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC