> Yeah, I think that's exactly what OP was saying.
No, it's definitely not. OP thinks that the argument for index funds "ignores transaction costs" when that's pretty much the entire crux of the argument: if a mutual fund won't do much better than an index fund, you should go with an index fund as it has substantially less costs.
No, it's definitely not. OP thinks that the argument for index funds "ignores transaction costs" when that's pretty much the entire crux of the argument: if a mutual fund won't do much better than an index fund, you should go with an index fund as it has substantially less costs.