Cost is one of the very few things an investor can control. A low-cost way of getting the investment exposures you are after should be your base case, and you should only deviate from that when the chances of outperforming are high going forward. Historical performance isn’t sufficient to make that leap.

Tom Brakke, CFA (@researchpuzzler ) is a consultant, writer, and investment adviser who specializes in the analysis of investment decision making and the communication of investment ideas.

Michelle Perry Higgins. Diamonds in the Rough are Rare, but They Do Exist

For the vast majority of the mutual-fund universe, my answer would be an unequivocal No. It usually doesn’t make sense to accept high expense ratios because there are an abundance of amazing funds to choose from that have such low costs. Of course, there are exceptions. Some sectors may be more expensive to operate than others, so assessing a fund’s expense ratio is an important part in analyzing the fund’s overall performance. If you’ve done your homework and find a diamond in the rough with an exceptional track record, then perhaps it’s a fund worth considering.

Michelle Perry Higgins (@RetirementMPH ) is a financial planner and principal at California Financial Advisors.

Scott Adams. If You Ask the Investment Professional…

There are two things that any investment professional will tell you with confidence:

1.Past performance is no indication of future performance.

2.Hey, look at how good my track record is!

Scott Adams is the creator of the Dilbert comic strip that appears in thousands of newspapers world-wide and www.dilbert.com .

Larry Zimpleman: Ask Yourself These Questions

This is actually a somewhat complicated question. First of all, it’s not that easy to get reliable and consistent information to know what the average expense might be for a given fund style. And there is also the question of how much risk the portfolio manager is taking to achieve the return—that is likely of more importance than the fund expenses. Probably the best information that I could offer to someone is to look at the returns of the fund over an entire market cycle—not just over a three- or five-year period. Make sure that the returns are above average over that entire market cycle—if that happens, the expense differences will not make as much difference.

Other questions to ask:

• Over the time period reviewed, did the fund manager invest heavily outside of the fund’s benchmark?
• How does this performance compare with its peers?
• How risky is the fund? The performance may be good over a certain time period, but does the level of risk suit the investor’s tolerance level? Is the risk outsized relative to peers?

Suffice it to say, it is important to find out what’s behind the curtain and ask questions before deciding if a fund is right for you and your portfolio.

Larry D. Zimpleman is chairman, president and chief executive officer of the Principal Financial Group.

Burton Malkiel: High Expenses Persist After Performance Peaks

Should investors accept higher-than-average expenses to get a fund with a great track record?

Great track records tend not to persist, but high expenses do. Don’t pay high expenses to chase performance.

Dr. Burton G. Malkiel, the Chemical Bank Chairman’s professor of economics, emeritus, and senior economist at Princeton University, is the author of the widely read investment book, A Random Walk Down Wall Street.

Sheryl Garrett. Save Time and Money by Going With the Odds

Should investors accept higher-than-average expenses to get a fund with a great track record?

If by the phrase track record we are simply talking gross returns after expenses, my answer is NO. In order for a fund to outperform its benchmark index after expenses, it generally has to take on more risk, often trade more frequently, resulting in less net-return after tax, just to keep pace with its benchmark. With that said, there are a handful of mutual-fund managers that have consistently outperformed their benchmark on a risk-adjusted, net after-tax basis for years. But, will they continue?

One of the few things we can control about our investment returns is expenses. Rather than attempting to beat the market, save time and money and go with the odds—own the market as determined by the appropriate asset allocation for your personal needs and circumstances.

Sheryl Garrett (@SherylGarrett ) is founder of the Garrett Planning Network.

Terrance Odean. The Answer Is Simple:

NO.

Terrance Odean is the Rudd Family Foundation professor and chair of the Finance Group at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.

Rick Ferri. It’s Tough to Beat a Portfolio Full of Index Funds

Ninety-seven percent of mutual funds that outperform can be attributed to luck—not skill—according to Profs. Eugene Fama and Ken French in Luck versus Skill in the Cross Section of Mutual Fund Returns. The paper examines the past performance of actively managed mutual funds that invest primarily in U.S. equities. Their conclusion is that the vast majority of fund managers do not have enough skill to produce risk-adjusted expected returns that cover their costs.

I also think it’s a mistake to focus on one fund versus one index. Investing isn’t about one fund in one asset class—it’s about an entire portfolio holding multiple asset classes. The odds of selecting enough winning active funds to offset the losing funds are minuscule.

A portfolio of low-cost index funds has a significantly greater chance to outperform a comparable portfolio of all active funds. My latest book, The Power of Passive Investing, shows that a portfolio holding five index funds has a 95% probability of outperforming a portfolio holding five active funds in the same asset classes.

In the end, your portfolio return matters most. It’s tough to beat a strategy of all index funds, all of the time.

Rick Ferri is the founder of Portfolio Solutions and the author of six books on low-cost index fund and ETF investing. His blog is RickFerri.com .

Charles Rotblut: Only Go Active If the Fund Beats Its Peers and Compensates for High Fees

Only if the fund has a consistent record of beating its peers, generates enough excess return on an average year to overcome the high fees and follows a unique strategy toward investing. But, I’m still skeptical of a fund with excessive fees.

Charles Rotblut (@charlesrotblut ) is a vice president with the American Association of Individual Investors.

George Papadopoulos. You Can’t Control Performance but You Can Control Fees

Investors might accept higher-than-average expenses to get a fund with a great track record only if they could be guaranteed that the great track record would continue after they bought it. However, we can never control the performance of our individual investments. We can, though, control how much of our entire investment goes toward fees (the lower the better).

George Papadopoulos (@feeonlyplanner ) is founder of the eponymous Fee Only Wealth Management firm based in Novi, Mich. serving affluent individuals and families.

Manisha Thakor. Be the Market—Don’t Try to Beat It

As a passionate proponent of passive investing, I’d say no. My logic is threefold.

First, what you receive in returns is by definition after expenses. To increase the odds of higher net returns, I like to seek out low-cost investment vehicles such as DFA funds, Vanguard index funds and ETFs. Or said slightly differently, the higher the fees the higher the performance hurdle for an active fund versus a passive vehicle.

Second, a whole host of academic studies have shown there is actually in many cases an inverse correlation between fees and performance. So this means by fishing in a pool of higher-than-average fee funds you are putting yourself in the direct path of a strong headwind.

Last but not least—as we’ve all read in the footnotes of any financial literature—past performance is no guarantee of future return. Time and again studies have shown how, across asset classes, the top-performing fund over one time period often ends up being at the bottom of the pack in subsequent years.

For these reasons I feel the way to play the winner’s game is to strive to be the market (through the use of low-fee, passive-oriented investment strategies and a heavy emphasis on asset allocation) as opposed to trying to beat the market (by looking for the proverbial higher-fee, four-leaf clover in the vast fields of the investment landscape).

Manisha Thakor (@ManishaThakor ) is the founder and CEO of Santa Fe, N.M.-based MoneyZen Wealth Management, LLC (an independent RIA and member of the BAM Alliance).

Gus Sauter. If You Must, Minimize Your Handicap with Low-Cost Active Funds

Should investors accept higher-than-average expenses to get a fund with a great track record?

There are some exceptional investors that might be worth paying up for, like a Warren Buffett. Even though your net return will be less if you pay them more, conceptually, your net might still be superior to other investment opportunities.

However, just because a manager has outperformed in the past does not necessarily mean that they are truly a superior investor or that they will outperform in the future. It just means that the bets they took in the past paid off over the time period you are observing. And, perhaps surprisingly, it’s very difficult to determine if their success was due to skill or luck.

Indeed, on many occasions the Oracle from Omaha, Warren Buffett, has advised that most investors would be better off investing in low-cost index funds that provide market-like returns—the exact opposite of paying up for a superior manager.

I agree. The handicap of actively managed funds is high costs. If you’re going to invest in active funds, minimize the handicap by investing in low-cost active funds, not high-cost active funds.

George U. Gus Sauter is a senior consultant to Vanguard Group. From 2003 through 2012, Mr. Sauter served as Vanguard’s chief investment officer.