agalkin, I believe most of us got to the point of agreeing cost being the only factor to consider in the case of an index fund - all other things being relatively equal...except for you. Now, you still are adament it is not the case. I'm confused as to why you will not provide the example two index funds you are thinking of where had you invested in one you would have lost a significant amount of money than what you did invest in.
I think many of us are finding it quite unbelievable that two comparable index funds exist where one that cost more significantly outperformed another which was lower cost.
My personal belief is that you are in fact not talking about index funds, or two index funds which are not essentially the same for this scenario. But, if I am wrong, so be it - just prove it. I have no problem being wrong if shown the facts - that has not happened.
As Govoni has basically said - you could end this discussion and show beyond doubt that you are correct - just provide the two funds - what's the problem with that? I guarantee you - nobody cares at all about how you choose investments and whether you are right or wrong. If you are right, that there are two comparable index funds that performed so radically different from each other, then you will have made a bunch of believers.
I think everyone is giving you lots of opportunity to prove your point - you haven't done that. I don't think you should call people idiots for doubting and questioning you.
Of cause I will not tell you what funds I invested in because...
[/quote][b]Then how do you expect anyone to believe what you are saying?[/b] Why should anyone believe you? Because your method of choosing investments is proprietary you can't tell us? I will be the first person here to stand up and support you - just show why your position deserves being supported. Nobody cares about what criteria you judged the fund(s) on - what is the fund and what were the alternative/comparable funds you considered?