Quotes on Fees

Passive management does not give investors the return of the index; it gives them the return of the index less costs. So, the longer they have their money passively managed, the greater their underperformance will be relative to the index.

Beating the market averages, after paying substantial costs and fees, is an against-the-odds game; yet a few people can do it, particularly those who view it as a game full of craziness with an occasional mispriced something or other.

Speculation is a loser's game. Because of the costs, it has to be a loser's game.

If your preference is managed funds, you want a managed fund that, one might put it, is like a sailboat fighting not a typhoon of costs but only a breeze.

I've often said that the efficient market hypothesis, or EMH, has a lot of truth to it, but the CMH -- or "cost matters hypothesis" -- is eternally truthful to the last penny.

On average, the average large-stock fund manager produces average returns before fees and below-average returns after fees. So compared with after-fee returns, an index fund is superior.

If all that can be promised is an average result, how can managers expect to be paid large fees for providing that average result?