I have, what I consider to be, a great fund SVAAX (Federated Strategic Value) that uses both dividend yield and dividend growth strategies plus it pays a monthly distribution with a current yield of about 3.2%. I have owned this fund for better than eight years and my cost basis per share is about $3.80 with a current price of $6.35. My brokerage account statement reflects my annual rate of return on the fund at about 13.0%.
With this, I'm thinking as @Mark wrote above ... "one can have both." But have ... "Patience" ... "Trust the Process" ... "Time to Execute" ... etc.
Indeed, from my perspective, the fund has served me well and makes up about a 50% position in my growth & income domestic equity sleeve. It's other two sleeve members, at about 25% each, are ANCFX (growth strategy) and FDSAX (yield strategy).

Dividend investing strategies have a strong appeal for retirees. As I approach retirement – I am uncertain how to design one that takes into account the ongoing interest rate increasing cycle. I would appreciate thoughts on how others are planning to navigate it in the next few years.

@Kaspa,
Lost medical receipts might be retrievable by finding past checking statements (my bank keeps these available online electronicly in pdfs going back multiple years). Once you identify a lost payment save as a pdf (download to a storage device or the cloud). Also, lost payment records by credit card can be retrieved similarly.
You might even be able to ask your dentist's/doctor's office or hospital billing department to retrieve patient payments.
Items and services that are reimbursable are linked here (Qualified medical expenses):
hsacenter.com/what-is-an-hsa/qualified-medical-expenses/
H.S.A can be very helpful after age 65:

Many out-of-pocket expenses qualify for tax-free H.S.A withdrawals even after you’re on Medicare. You can use the money to pay premiums for Medicare Part B, Part D prescription-drug coverage or all-in-one private Medicare Advantage plans (but not for medigap premiums). You can also use the money for co-payments and deductibles you pay for medical expenses, out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, vision and dental care, and even a portion of qualified long-term-care premiums ($3,500 in 2012 for people ages 61 to 70, for example and more if you’re older)

Article:
health-savings-accounts-after-medicare
IRS Link to Pub 502:
https://irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf

The brokerage account offers SIPC protection. The regular account does not. Although this is probably no issue given it's Vanguard I'd rather have the protection than not. This advantage outweighed any disadvantages in my case so I made the switch years ago when first presented with the option.

Wow @Roy - you got an early start! Let me take a wild guess - did you invest in Fidelity Magellan?
I first started investing via mutual funds through Prudential-Bache. I believe the first mutual fund my account executive put me in was Templeton Growth. It was probably 10 years later I withdrew my account and invested directly via no-load funds, mainly Janus and Acorn at the time. Today, all of our investments are with T. Rowe Price, Pimco and Grandeur Peak via online broker TDA. What a head spinning evolution!

Thanks for posting, Ted. This is a fascinating topic, and one that I've spent a lot of time pondering.
Faber & Gray are smart guys. But they only told half the story. Buffett recognized that paying dividends robs the investor of the magic of compounding (in addition to imposing current tax liability). Imagine how contrarian that concept was 50 years ago!
As a result of Buffett's rationale, for a long time I never focused on building a dividend stock selection strategy (even though I knew that Buffett did not confine himself to non-dividend paying stocks).
Awhile ago, however, I came across the ideas of Geraldine Weiss, particularly that a stock's dividend yield cycles between highs and lows like PE ratios, and that high relative dividend yields can be a proxy for value. This led to the creation of a very interesting dividend model that produced far more capital appreciation than income in our testing.
So when I read Faber and Gray pit value against yield, my initial thought was "why not both?"

PBKCM,
Welcome to MFO, appreciate your participation and unique perspective. I've been investing in mutual funds since probably 1982 (19 years old).
What all goes into determining position size of an investment in your mutual fund?
Thank you!

As a public service, here is the elusive Q-39, in it's entirety:
Q-39. When must a distribution from an HSA be taken to pay or reimburse, on a tax-free basis, qualified medical expenses incurred in the current year?
A-39. An account beneficiary may defer to later taxable years distributions from HSAs to pay or reimburse qualified medical expenses incurred in the current year as long as the expenses were incurred after the HSA was established. Similarly, a distribution from an HSA in the current year can be used to pay or reimburse expenses incurred in any prior year as long as the expenses were incurred after the HSA was established. Thus, there is no time limit on when the distribution must occur. However, to be excludable from the account beneficiary’s gross income, he or she must keep records sufficient to later show that the distributions were exclusively to pay or reimburse qualified medical expenses, that the qualified medical expenses have not been previously paid or reimbursed from another source and that the medical expenses have not been taken as an itemized deduction in any prior taxable year. See Notice 2004-2, Q&A 31 and also Notice 2004-25, for transition relief in calendar year 2004 for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred before opening an HSA.
Example. An eligible individual contributes $1,000 to an HSA in 2004. On December 1, 2004, the individual incurs a $1,500 qualified medical expense and has a balance in his HSA of $1,025. On January 3, 2005, the individual contributes another $1,000 to the HSA, bringing the balance in the HSA to $2,025. In June, 2005, the individual receives a distribution of $1,500 to reimburse him for the $1,500 medical expense incurred in 2004. The individual can show that the $1,500 HSA distribution in 2005 is a reimbursement for a qualified medical expense that has not been previously paid or otherwise reimbursed and has not been taken as an itemized deduction. The distribution is excludable from the account beneficiary’s gross income.

No time limit. The only requirement is that you must have opened the HSA (or its predecessor, if you moved accounts) prior to incurring the qualified expenses.
So if you opened your HSA in May 2010, then you can hold onto all those bills and proofs of payments from May 2010 on, and use them to justify HSA withdrawals that you make in 2025.
This seemed too good to be true, so years ago I bookmarked an IRS publication on the subject. Look for Q-39 in this 2004 IRS Bulletin:
https://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-33_IRB
"there is no time limit on when the distribution must occur"

FYI: Robo advisors are undoubtedly responsible for some of the most important changes in the financial industry over the last few years. More transparency, lower fees and at least part of the rise in passive investing can be traced to them.
But now there’s a bigger question. Are robos becoming the more expensive option?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-26/in-the-battle-for-low-fee-financial-advice-diy-beats-the-robos

FYI: In normal times a bullish sentiment reading of 40% wouldn’t be much of a big deal, but given the state of sentiment over the last several years, 40% is now considered an accomplishment. In this week’s sentiment survey from AAII, bullish sentiment increased 1.7 percentage points up to 39.6%. That represents a five-week high, but also a record 147 straight weeks where bulls have failed to be in the majority.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/bullish-sentiment-approaches-40/

FYI: The wait is finally over for the highly anticipated debut of USAA as an ETF issuer. After more than three years since they first requested permission to bring ETFs to market, USAA is listing today its first six ETFs on the NYSE Arca.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/daily-etf-watch/usaa-launches-first-etf-lineup?nopaging=1

I ignore Morningstar. But then, I ignore most “authority” figures.
Geez - What’s wrong with reading the Prospectus and the most recent Fund Report to see if you can live with the stated fees, have confidence in their investment approach, and desire to own the assets the fund holds?
Oh - Almost forgot: The Prospectus shows the fund’s returns for the past 10 years - which ought to prevent even the least circumspect of individuals from bumbling into something like HSGFX.

@sma3, what does this mean:

There is a little consistency Five star funds averaged 3 stars in 10 years, 4 stars ave 2.8 three stars 2.5 and two stars 2.2

It is not clear to me what you are saying.
I just checked my Schwab account, and I have nothing but 4 and 5 star funds. Should I be worried? Should I sell FMIJX, PONDX, GTLOX, SGENX or DSENX?

I could not access the article, but I am curious about where the new 5 star funds come from. How many come from new funds turning 3 years old? From the stats furnished by @sma3, it looks like the old funds did worse (on average) after 10 years. The only exception is the 2* funds went up to 2.2* after 10 years. Do these stats factor in suvivorship bias? I would deduce that newer funds are the way to go, before they turn 3.

Fortunately I have the cash to be able to cover medical expenses, so I treat HSAs as super duper Roth IRAs. Money checks in, but it doesn't check out. (As you do, I also keep track of medical expenses so that I will, some years down the road, be able to pull all the money out tax-free.)
That said, I've worked with a few different HSAs. One way or another, with nearly all HSAs you're going to wind up paying at least $25 or so per year to invest. That could come from a trading requirement (or inactivity fees if you don't trade), a bank account or an investing account annual fee, etc.
The Bruce Fund seems to be an exception, but its offerings are, shall we say, not copious? Saturna has a $25 inactivity fee if you don't have a transaction each calendar year (though that drops to $12.50 if all you hold are mutual funds, and they do offer NTF funds including some that are popular here, such as DSENX).
One would like to avoid tying up money on the bank side (paying peanuts), and invest all the money - at least if you use the HSA as I do, as a supercharged IRA. Keeping cash on the bank side to avoid the annual fees seems like a losing proposition over the long term.
You'll find my thoughts on the three HSA mentioned in the cited article as a comment there: https://thefinancebuff.com/best-hsa-provider-for-investing-hsa-money.html#comment-21591
Someone there just posted about a new HSA administrator, Lively ($30/year to invest):
https://thefinancebuff.com/best-hsa-provider-for-investing-hsa-money.html#comment-21595
Here's the TDA commission and fee schedule for that account (short term trading on NTF funds is defined as 90 days, and just $25 for TF funds):
https://www.tdameritrade.com/retail-en_us/resources/pdf/SDPS1009.pdf
Lively is a VC backed startup that just started providing an investment option a month ago. Looks very good, assuming it will survive in this form. $30 fee is in the right ballpark, and has no min balance requirement to start investing or to keep on the bank side.
Regarding Optum Bank (a subsidiary of United Health) - here's an old fee schedule, but it seems consistent with bee's figures. The eAccess account does charge $1/mo ($12/yr), but that's on the bank side, and waived with balances above $500. You need (or at least needed at the time of the fee schedule cited) to keep at least $2K on the bank side, and you still paid $3/mo ($36/yr) extra to invest.
In case you're having problems with their fund list (I am), here's a simple pdf from January 2017:

A few excerpts from the WSJ article:
"A study published by Morningstar last month said the stars point investors to funds “likelier to outperform in the future.”
"Morningstar founder Joe Mansueto said... that the firm’s analysis of past ratings found “some modest predictive value.” Chief Executive Kunal Kapoor... called the star system “a better predictor than it ever has been.”
"In its written statement to the Journal, Morningstar said its analysis has found “the Star Rating is moderately predictive,” which “conforms to what we’d expect of a backward-looking, entirely quantitative measure.”
"The Journal’s analysis found that most five-star funds perform somewhat better than lower-rated ones, yet on the average, five-star funds eventually turn into merely ordinary performers."
Pretty much nothing new here. All of this has been discussed on FundAlarm and MFO for many years. As Andy says, above, "all the analysis shows is that mean reversion is alive and well at some level - not exactly a brilliant revelation."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-morningstar-mirage-1508946687
(hope it will open for non subscribers)
'A Wall Street Journal analysis of Morningstar mutual-fund ratings over 14 years found that top-rated funds drew the vast majority of investor dollars, but most didn’t continue performing at that level. Morningstar said it has never billed its ratings as predictive and they should be a starting point for investors selecting funds.
"Of funds awarded a coveted five-star overall rating, only 12% did well enough over the next five years to earn a top rating for that period; 10% performed so poorly they were branded with a rock-bottom one-star rating."
There is a little consistency Five star funds averaged 3 stars in 10 years, 4 stars ave 2.8 three stars 2.5 and two stars 2.2
Thank god there is no "Snowball mirage" !

@carew388 "Two ntf alternatives to GABCX are MERFX ARBFX."
I looked at all three, having owned MERFX for a long time. GABCX is not avaliable for new accounts at either Fido, Schwab or Vanguard ( I can't stand Mario anyway so I would have to hold my nose) The other two are similar but ARBFX has a smaller asset base and has done a little better long term. Don't expect rocketships but it has produced a relatively modest return without a lot of downside. They do better in years when there is a lot of merger activity
I have to be put into the bearish camp, near retirement and more worried about "the return of my capital than the return on my capital". I have left my long term funds alone but have ratcheted down equity exposure over the year to about 30% to 35% and emphasizing short duration bonds

@PBKCM If I understand correctly, which I may not, your fund uses technical analysis to decide risk on / risk off, then, as of last year (maybe due to your arrival?), quantitative analysis to choose what to invest in. Held up very well in 2008-2009 (though any new fund had an advantage then, since it would have started off with cash), not so well in 2011, and overall higher returns and higher volatility compared to peers. Perfectly respectable, reasonably priced for this kind of fund, and makes sense that in a bull market it would have 5 stars.
I was going to ask how you're positioned, but I see you answered that elsewhere: risk on.
I guess I'd like to know how you're confident that you can do the risk-on/risk-off better than peers, since effective market timing is kind of the holy grail of investing: everyone is looking for it, but it may not exist.

Hi @expatsp
I can't speak with any specificity how the firm approached management before I arrived. Marty's father Lane Kerns started the firm in 1996. Marty joined the firm about 10 years ago after practicing law for 15 years. In August 2008, they launched the mutual fund.
Marty's Dad retired in 2014 shortly before I started with the firm. Initially, I was hired to build out quantitative SMA strategies and help refine the firm's hedging process (Risk On / Risk Off process). As of January 31, 2016, Marty asked me to become a PM on the fund. As described on the website, we now use those SMAs and hedging process in managing the fund.
Marty and I teamed up on the mutual fund as the market was making a major bottom, so we have not had to deal with any serious corrections yet. Time will tell whether we add alpha with our hedging process. Personally, I believe the next bear market will be more severe than the 2015-16 "bear market." If so, the potential for alpha would appear to exist.