busterbluth

Yes, quite correct. I think sticking to one way of interpreting the expense would be less confusing - otherwise we'd be prone to negation errors.

In the text, Schweser solves it the way I did above but in #5 they used a separate formula causing a non-negative number ... but all in all they seem to mean current economic expense is down by $15. Had the actual investment return been greater the expense would be up by the higher return difference.