<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Book Review: Common Sense on Mutual Funds</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thefinancebuff.com/book-review-common-sense-on-mutual.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thefinancebuff.com/book-review-common-sense-on-mutual.html</link>
	<description>like a friend telling you about money ...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 11:06:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: TFB</title>
		<link>http://thefinancebuff.com/book-review-common-sense-on-mutual.html#comment-92</link>
		<dc:creator>TFB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.thefinancebuff.com/?p=88#comment-92</guid>
		<description>FMF gave a good answer and I agree. This sums it up well:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Performance comes and goes. Expenses are forever.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Front end load is a sunk cost. So forget about that. Ongoing expenses are going to stay. If a high cost fund had high enough returns to compensate for its high expenses, count yourself lucky. You luck may not run forever, but the high expenses will. You also have to look at how the high cost fund had high returns. Perhaps it took high risk. You are better off with a low expense fund with lower risk and the same return.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FMF gave a good answer and I agree. This sums it up well:</p>
<p>Performance comes and goes. Expenses are forever.</p>
<p>Front end load is a sunk cost. So forget about that. Ongoing expenses are going to stay. If a high cost fund had high enough returns to compensate for its high expenses, count yourself lucky. You luck may not run forever, but the high expenses will. You also have to look at how the high cost fund had high returns. Perhaps it took high risk. You are better off with a low expense fund with lower risk and the same return.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EasyChange</title>
		<link>http://thefinancebuff.com/book-review-common-sense-on-mutual.html#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator>EasyChange</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.thefinancebuff.com/?p=88#comment-91</guid>
		<description>I had a question after reading this book quite recently. I posted the &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://easychange.blogspot.com/2007/03/cost-matters-these-mutual-funds-are.html&quot; REL=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mutual fund transfer &lt;/a&gt; question on my blog and over at Free Money Finance. What do you think is the correct move in light of Mr. Bogle&#039;s book?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had a question after reading this book quite recently. I posted the <a HREF="http://easychange.blogspot.com/2007/03/cost-matters-these-mutual-funds-are.html" REL="nofollow">mutual fund transfer </a> question on my blog and over at Free Money Finance. What do you think is the correct move in light of Mr. Bogle&#8217;s book?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

