This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and check out other Battle of the Brands posts.

To some degree, a face-off between Vanguard and Fidelity is really a face-off between John Bogle, Vanguard's founder, and Peter Lynch, Fidelity's star fund manager. While Bogle was a pioneer in no-load and low-cost investing in index funds, Lynch was a proponent of investing in "what you know," or getting investing ideas from your day-to-day life. BloggingStocks covered this Bogle vs. Lynch match up back in September, and readers gave the financial edge to Lynch.

Privately held Fidelity Investments is made up by two independent but closely cooperating companies: Boston-based Fidelity Management and Research LLC serves the North American market, and Fidelity International Limited (FIL), spun off in 1969, provides investment products and services to clients in the rest of the world. Fidelity reported revenue of $12.87 billion in 2006, by offering a large family of mutual funds, as well as providing discount brokerage services, retirement services, estate planning, wealth management, securities execution and clearance, life insurance, and a number of other financial services. The founding Johnson family still controls Fidelity, but Peter Lynch and some other fund managers also hold stakes in the company.

Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke inherited a real mess from Alan Greenspan and the Bush Administration who were all asleep during their watch when noteworthy financial minds Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A) and John Bogel, the founder of the Vanguard Group, and numerous other people of substantial financial knowledge and integrity were sounding the alarms.

'My pal Warren' went as far as to call derivatives toxic waste and the true weapons of mass destruction. In the design and construction industry we commonly hear the phrase, "There is never enough time to do it right but there is always plenty of time do do it over!" Perhaps it is a common refrain in other professions too.

Well today, the Fed Chief urged preventive action. This is a crying shame. I do not doubt his wisdom on this matter, unfortunately the horses have long left the barn and now he wants to close the doors simply to prevent the barn from collapsing. We will need the barn if we can ever round up those horses again. Mr. Bernanke was none too fast to react to the serious nature of our economic problems but he is plenty serious now.

There are a handful or business commentators who are worth dropping everything and listening to, and I would put Vanguard Group founder John Bogle at the top of my list.

So that means everyone should drop everything and go read this interview he did with Fortune.

Always logical, some of Bogle's best wisdom comes on the topic of the bad mortgages that banks and hedge funds found themselves loading up on. Talking about his own experience making fixed income investments at Vanguard, he said this.:

The fixed income area is a stupid place to take risk. So, when someone came in and said, we can earn an extra half percent on this bond, I would say, do you think it has any higher risk? If not, why are they offering us an extra half percent?

It's absolutely fascinating that all these ostensibly intelligent people loaded up on subprime debt thinking that they could earn a higher yield without adding risk.

Forget complex reforms and more training -- maybe the executives who got their firms into this mess should have the graph above tattooed to their foreheads.

Check out the Bogle interview for his insight on other topics -- including his guess at the odds of a recession.

So it isn't every day that you get to ask an investment legend a question -- I would argue that Vanguard founder John Bogle has done more to help the small investor than everyone else in the history of the world combined times 10.

It really isn't even close. Index funds have enabled people saving for retirement to compound their money at a far, far better rate than they could before. Bogle's creation has allowed investors saving for retirement to let their money grow uninhibited, and cut off a stream of billions of dollars in undeserved management fees to poorly-performing mutual fund managers.

Tirade over. Fortune is giving readers an opportunity to submit a question to Mr. Bogle. A few hints: Don't ask him where the stock market is going. A cornerstone of his philosophy is his belief that it's nearly impossible to predict. Instead, ask him questions about public policy and corporate governance. Oh, and read his amazing and underrated book The Battle For the Soul of Capitalism.

I would ask him what he thinks about Social Security and whether it has a future in its current form. I would also want to know what he thinks about the huge improvements in corporate governance that have been achieved by activist hedge fund managers -- and whether enterprising investors might be able to find alpha by piggybacking off their picks.

There are literally hundreds of questions I could ask this legend -- I'm sure you have a few yourself.

It's been three weeks since our Money Face-Off feature ran here at BloggingStocks and on AOL, offering you the opportunity to share who you though had the financial edge in a series of twenty head-to-head match-ups. So I thought I'd take another look and see how things have worked out.

It's hard to pick just one big winner. In terms of the largest lead over a rival, Ivanka Trump easily beats Paris Hilton with 89% of the vote. Others holding big leads over their opponents include Tiger Woods, Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, and Rupert Murdoch.

In terms of receiving the most votes, the clear leader is the Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart match-up, with just short of 150,000 votes. Other big vote getters were Tiger Woods vs. David Beckham, Rudy Giuliani vs. Michael Bloomberg, and Bill Gates vs. Steve Jobs. In terms of the liveliest discussions in the comments, the winners are Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart, Erin Burnett vs. Maria Bartiromo, and Bono vs. Angelina Jolie. Also check out the comments for the J.K. Rowling vs. J.R.R Tolkien, Tiger Woods vs. David Beckham, and Ivanka Trump vs. Paris Hilton posts.

As for the face-off posts here that got the most attention, the clear winner is Erin Burnett vs. Maria Bartiromo, with more than 13,000 hits. Lindsay Lohan vs. Britney Spears and Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart also attracted lots of readers.

Results for all the face-offs follow below, but keep in mind that the voting is still open. It's not too late to add your vote or let us know what you think.

It's been a week since our Money Face-Off posts ran here on BloggingStocks and less than a week since the Money Face-Offs were featured on the AOL welcome page, and the response has been terrific. Many of the face-off polls have more than 50,000 votes thus far, and some of the match-ups are very close.

The closest of all is the face-off of CNBC anchors Erin Burnett and Maria Bartiromo: 50/50 with more than 61,000 votes so far. And the post has garnered 39 comments so far. The commenters have strong opinions, whether defending Bartiromo or Burnett, wishing other anchors had been included, complaining about the photos, or even questioning the Money Face-Off feature itself. Be sure to check it out.

The face-off between the former and current New York City mayors, Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, garnered more than 67,000 votes. While Bloomberg has his defenders, presidential candidate Giuliani currently has a small lead in this match-up, with a little over half the votes. Can he hold on to that lead, though?

The match-up of supermodels turned businesswomen, Tyra Banks vs. Heidi Klum, also has more than 50,000 votes so far. In this case, it's Klum in the lead with about 55 percent of the vote. Only one reader, a Tyra Banks fan, has commented so far. Feel free to add your thoughts about which former supermodel you think is more successful.

Few professional money managers have had the success Peter Lynch has had. The former Fidelity manager of the widely-held Magellan mutual fund racked up great returns year after year in his tenure at Fidelity. After he retired in the 1990s, Lynch wrote a few books (which are worthy reads, I might add), and aimed them at the "everyman" of investing: the normal American consumer (hopefully, investor).

Along with Vanguard founder John Bogle, Lynch is someone I've followed for some time, and following much of what he said has, well, done right by me. But, after having talked with many a business associate and family member in the past year -- as the market has swayed to and fro -- few of them follow Lynch's investing strategy. That is, if they have an investing strategy at all beyond pumping 0.5% into that 401k and putting 50% of their portfolios into their employer's stock. Yikes!

The average mutual fund is a dog and laggard, yet salespeople rope everyday people into these expensive funds by the boatload. Bogle would have said, "just buy index funds and be done with it." Lynch would have said, "check the price-to-earnings ratio, make an informed choice, and be done with it." Both are exemplary ways to examine and adjust your portfolio.

Does it take some self-education? Sure it does -- but hey, it's only your money, right? Why would anyone pay an underperforming fund manager when buying a no-cost index fund produces better returns? Yes, in many cases the situation is a bit more complex than that, and tax rules and holding periods (among other things) come into play. Still, do you invest like Peter Lynch did? If not, why?

This post is part of our Money Face-Offs feature. Let us know who you think comes out ahead in this head-to-head match-up, and check out our other Money Face-Off posts.

If you're into no-cost investing, you've probably heard the name John Bogle before. The founder of the world's most populated mutual fund company, Vanguard Group, Inc., is completely synonymous with the premise of low- to no-cost investing. To the average joe, that means index funds that track whatever index suits your investment tolerance and pocketbook. Bogle has been a fierce critic of the mutual fund industry (along with me), which charges huge sales loads for minimal performance metrics if you were to average out the thousands of them.

Bogle loves to posit this: Who's getting rich from mutual funds? Those who manage them, but hardly anyone else. Bogle continues to burn the active mutual fund industry on the basis of costs alone. He's probably the largest proponent of investor performance there is, even though he is no longer at the helm of Vanguard. Suggested reading for starters: Bogle on Mutual Funds. There are many other fine selections as well.

According to a piece (subscription required) in The Wall Street Journal, enhanced index funds are lagging the market.

These funds seek to combine active investing with indexing, and often attempt to enhance performance through derivatives trading, or weeding out stocks that the manager believes are particularly bad. The goal is to attempt to outperform the index by 1 or 2 percentage points with limited volatility.

This quote from The Journal pretty much sums up the problem:

"Typically, enhanced index funds have very reliable higher returns than the benchmark index they track," said Carl Hess, practice director for the Americas at Watson Wyatt Investment Consulting.

But like the old efficient markets analogy about walking around in a parking lot looking for dollar bills, any investment that provides "very reliable higher returns" is destined to level off once its superiority becomes common knowledge. The whole basis for indexing is the acceptance that beating the market is close to impossible, and that the only things we as investors can really control are fees and diversification. The idea of enhanced index funds is a bit of a contradiction.

Investors should probably stay away from these funds, particularly those with high fees. If you want to try to achieve returns close to those of the indices, your best bet is traditional index funds.

Marketwatch's Chuck Jaffe recently conducted an interview with the greatest friend the individual investor has ever had: John Bogle.

Bogle banged the drum for the cause he has made famous: Active investing generally leads to poor returns, and the best thing an investor can do is buy index funds and rely on the long-term returns generated by businesses to create long-term portfolio success.

Jaffe asked Bogle for his reaction to the numerous market gurus who have suggested that the future returns of the market will be lower than in the past. Bogle explained that lower dividend yields and slower earnings growth will lead to an average annual return of around 7%, more than 2% less than the historical yield of the market. What should investors do about that? They just have to save more money, according to Mr. Bogle.

Bogle remains a big supporter of traditional index funds, and isn't too impressed with ETFs or hybrid funds. As he said in a recent column, "Mama, what have they done to my song?"

All of his books are terrific, but an absolute must-read is his tome on corporate governance, The Battle For the Soul of Capitalism.

A lot people look to religion or spirituality when things appear to be in chaos. But when the financial markets are looking out of control, investors should look up Vanguard Group founder John Bogle for reassurance.

BusinessWeek did just that, and Bogle was his same-old self: Investors should stay the course, ignore the volatility, but make sure that they have an adequate percentage of their portfolio in bonds. Of course, that right ratio depends on your time horizon and the size of your portfolio.

Bogle explains more intelligently than I can here why investors shouldn't do anything. As I said in my Volatile Market: Just ignore it, don't try to time it, individual investors (and the experts too) have a terrible record of timing the market. It's why the average investor's return is so much lower than the market's average return: We have a tendency to jump in and out at precisely the wrong times. What's the solution? Buy and hold!

I love Bogle's use of Shakespeare to describe the current market turmoil: "A tale told by an idiot -- full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Mark Hulbert discussed an interesting new study in Sunday's New York Times. He sums it up: "Don't even consider holding actively managed mutual funds unless you're willing to switch funds often. All other fund investors should simply buy and hold an index fund for the long term."

The author of the study argues that mutual funds underperform over the long-term not because of the inability of professional managers to pick stocks, but because of the way money flows into funds affects returns. That's right! Blame yourself for the poor performance of your funds! Basically, Jonathan Berk, the University of California professor who wrote the paper, argues that managers who perform well attract greater investments and so the funds stop performing well.

The professor suggests a complicated method of checking your funds regularly and selling bottom-performing funds and buying top-performing ones -- sounds to me a lot like performance-chasing. It also seems to run contrary to Berk's complaint that managers who perform well take on too much in the way of assets. Isn't performance-chasing what causes that problem?

Particularly given the costs of switching funds frequently (mainly taxes), I think investors will still do far better owning index funds. It's a lot easier too, isn't it?

In his column "The Intelligent Investor" in the latest issue of Money Magazine, Jason Zweig offers some great tips for investors to "Stop worrying and stay invested" in the presence of a volatile markets. He also gives one of the best pieces of advice for trading that I have ever seen: "Wait for the bell. If the market is open, your portfolio should be closed. Later you can be more objective."

Don't worry about missing opportunities: All the research shows that frequent trading kills performance. Trading during the day will trick you into making impulsive investments, and make your regimen more gambler than cerebral. This also goes nicely with one of the best investing quotes of the year, from John Bogle's interview with the same magazine in March: "The stock market turns out to be a giant distraction from the reality of owning businesses, which is what investing really is. In the short run, expectations seem to drive the market, but in the long run nearly 100% of the returns on stocks come from the real market - the sum of dividend yield and earnings growth."

Zweig's advice is certainly something I plan to incorporate into my own investing. For more great insight from Zweig, buy the most recent edition of Benjamin Graham's classic book The Intelligent Investor, which has timely commentary from Zweig following each chapter.

In the classic comedy Rush Hour 2, Chris Tucker explains his method of detection to Jackie Chan:

James Carter (Chris Tucker): Lee, let me introduce you to Carter's new theory of criminal investigation: follow the rich white man.
Lee (Jackie Chan): Follow the rich white man?
James Carter: Behind every big crime there's a rich white man waiting for his cut.

And sure enough, according to MarketWatch, most hedge funds made out like bandits in February, as they had correctly forecast the subprime lending crisis that led to the collapse of companies like Novastar Financial.

In the mind-boggling world of credit derivatives (Incidentally, go pick up a copy of Traders, Guns, and Money), even the experts can't quite seem to figure out who was bearing the risk that allowed the funds to succeed. Some suggest pensions funds and overseas investors, but no one really knows.

Tuesday's Wall Street Journal featured one of the most interesting pieces [subscription required] I've seen in a long-time. It's kind of like the old VH1 show Where Are They Now? where you found out that the singers you loved in high school are either on coke, living on a farm or recording gospel music.. Except the Wall Street Journal piece is about mutual fund managers.

Do you remember those internet funds during the late 1990s that were achieving triple-digit annual returns, enticing retail investors to pour billions into them right before the internet bubble burst? But while they lasted, their returns were impressive:

At the end of March 2000, there were 275 funds -- about 9% of the stock funds around at the time -- posting gains of 100% or more for the previous 12 months, according to fund tracker Morningstar Inc. Of those, 24 funds returned more than 200%, and one, PBHG New Opportunities, shot out the lights with an astonishing 533% gain.

Morningstar tracked down the funds and fund mangers achieving those mind-boggling returns. Check it out: