Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:20:35 CST
From: "BMS" 
Newsgroups: misc.invest.financial-plan
Subject: Return vs. Expenses
	iQBVAwUAQVVwo/l/I4+O31e5AQE1fQH9HWxuLiD69ibymBIqSKVpKDk7CQODCfn1
	7N9dR6VX3bmkbsyQTnBnFYRJnT7BM4MVynUmdfllNwk7pJlz3zomlA==
	=OyS6

The Boston Globe did a story this week on mutual funds and how the scandals 
have hurt and helped mutual fund families, the local interests in Putnam and 
MFS. American Funds were mentioned as big winner both in avoiding the 
scandals and returns to investors. In fact the story pointed out that 
American Funds, with higher expenses, consistently did better than funds 
like, Vanguard, that extolled their lower expenses.

Another item came out about how Vanguard's non index funds weren't that good 
of funds.

The question is how important of measure is it for funds, low expenses or 
high, net after expenses return?