Originally Posted by youbet
marko - I'm surprised that you're so surprised by what you're seeing. Based on reading zillions of your posts, you seem plenty savvy to understand that even small differences in strategies and management style and capability can offset small differences in expense ratios in managed funds. And with index funds, assuming they all do a good job of tracking the index, the expense ratio is everything. But, with index funds expense ratios are generally small and differences border on inconsequential unless you're talking about large amounts of money over long periods of time.
I'm surprised you're chosing examples from Vanguard's managed funds for comparisons instead of their index funds.
Yeah. What I've learned from this is that notably different/better returns based solely on lower expenses are only part of the equation.
Somehow, my expectation was that I could make a pure apples/apples comparison and clearly see how lower expenses would be the main contributor to return results.
In short, I was looking for V funds with near identical makeup to what I currently own that would markedly out perform what I have, based mostly on the oft repeated mantra that low fees are key.
I was looking for some sort of proof that would drive me from my TRP comfort level, sort of a "look! the same fund makeup and a 2% annual difference!".
As discussed, the Vanguard index funds do indeed outperform the TRP index funds, just not by as much as I was expecting.