Bogleheads.org

Would a long history of a better net rate of return of mutual fund A change your decision? What if that rate was seen at the 1,3,5, and 10 year mark? Does that make any difference?

If that's the case, then why are expense ratios so important. It just seems like from the research I've been doing that the expense ratio is the most important criteria in choosing a mutual fund. But, if the net rate of return includes all fees included in the expense ratio, then a mutual fund with ...

I asked a Fidelity rep about choosing mutual funds based on expense ratios, and he said the rate of return graph/chart that you view for mutual funds is a NET rate of return, meaning it already accounts for expense ratios.

Does this mean expense ratios don't matter as much?

Is there any online brokerage firm where you can buy Vanguard no load mutual funds for free, besides at Vanguard itself?