[poundwise]

Good points.

For many people, selecting a good, low-cost, fund family, like Vanguard, and selecting either an index fund (or more than one) or to participate in a 'target-date' fund (these have higher expenses, even at Vanguard) is probably the best way to go. That being the case, the best way to obtain those particular funds is through Vanguard itself.

If one is not tied to Vanguard (or T. Rowe, etc.) or to sub .50% expense ratios, then there are literally hundreds of funds to choose from, which have expense ratios from .50 to 1.1%. It seems that, in particular, a funds like to show a ratio of just under 1% as there are many that fit that bill.

Also, I think people should keep in mind that a low expense ratio is only one point to evaluate concerning a mutual fund. If a fund averages a return of 13% over the last 5-10 years and has an expense ratio of 1.5% then that compares very favorably with a fund that averages 10% with an expense ratio of .30%.

Of course, it should also be mentioned that some load funds are excellent performers. I'm in favor of no-load funds myself, especially for most of us individual investors, however, I don't automatically rule out a fund due to a load. A friend of mine holds several that have generated big returns for him over the course of about 10 years.