Of course. I'm just saying that you moved the goalposts. This wasn't a discussion about public subsidies for stadiums. You argued against the economic impact of a Super Bowl by linking to an article on a different topic.

That article is about the economic impact of building a new stadium, which is indeed dubious, as most of the spending for and around stadium events would occur anyway.

But big events like the Super Bowl do bring in significant economic activity, as the spending is most likely by out-of-towners and large corporations, that would not be spent in that city without the SB. It’s not as significant as the industry likes to tout, but studies have shown that the effect is real.

Cool!

Ross and Joey have Charlie Wheeler in common, but she's shown as two separate points in the image.

You don't see the fees directly (it's not like you get billed or have it deducted from your balance). The fees are paid out of the fund's assets, and so they're an invisible drag on your returns. If the fees are 0.10, that means that 0.10% of the fund's total assets are paid out as fees every year, and from your standpoint it will look like the return on the fund is 0.10% worse than the underlying investments.

I know that spot!

Operating expenses include all ongoing expenses, including marketing, etc. The only expenses that aren’t included are capital expenses (eg, buying planes), which aren’t shown directly on an income statement (the depreciation is an operating expense, not the purchase price).

Look more closely. United Tech and Raytheon is on there, but at a higher inflation-adjusted number.