I've had several people advise me that the growth of $10k charts that you see for mutual funds, and provided by, e.g., Morningstar, account for the expense ratio of that fund (but not sales loads). So you can compare the performance of two funds with different expense ratios, and see how $10k would have performed if invested in those funds.
However, as I did some more research I found that Investopedia seems to say the exact opposite:
The returns shown in [a growth of 10k] chart include reinvestment of dividends and capital gains, but exclude fees and sales charges. ... Since it excludes fund management fees and other charges such as sales and redemption expenses, the growth shown is overstated, and the actual returns that would accrue to an investor would be lower than those shown.
First, let me say that I thought the "expense ratio" for a mutual fund was, or at least included "management fees" (Bogleheads Wiki seems to support this, and Investopedia says that the expense ratio includes the "fee paid to a fund's investment manager/advisor" and is also sometimes called the management expense ratio). So if the growth of 10k chart excludes the management fee(s), then it can't be including the expense ratio.
What's the straight scoop? Is Investopedia wrong? Am I missing some subtlety in the terminology? Is there a chart that's similar to a growth of 10k chart that does account for the expense ratio?