@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.

I'm bearish over the next 3 years maybe. But damn if i have any guesses for the next year let alone month. I usually follow dash of insight for 3-9 month indicators. And he mainly focuses on whether a 20+% drawdown is expected.

“Tonight, it's all about the Astros for us longtime Houstonians.”
Verlander never performed up to his potential in Detroit following one or two good years. His team only made it to the World Series once in his long tenure in Detroit. Arrogant and overly confident. Sometimes disrespects managers or teammates. Easily looses cool. Watch for a heater down the middle when he’s really p’d off late in the game with runners aboard.
PS: Jerking him after 7 the other night was a very smart move. If your bullpen is deep and rested, Astros might slide by. Me doubts it.
:)

@Maurice: Thank for your imput. Earnings aside, I'm still negative on the sector, XLE for example has been in the red for the last five years.
Regards,
Ted

Maybe I missed it, but does John Bogle discuss what impact stock buybacks have had on equities returns and dividend yields? This is especially important when a company finances these stock buybacks with a bond offering. Do we as investors own the bonds that buyback the stock or the now higher priced stock that now has taken on the debt to service these buybacks? Any then there is the hope of repatriating corporate earning into stock buybacks and it's implication of the markets.
From a Forbes article:

“There has been only one major driving force during the market rise of the past eight years: stock buybacks!”

Link (2017):
stock-buybacks-the-greatest-deception
and,

It’s an incredible thought that the driving force of the bull market in stocks may have been these buybacks. It has important implications for investors.

Link (2013):
why-are-stocks-rising
As we move away from a low interest rate environment and less and less QE, many of these financially engineered strategies could negatively impact future investor returns. Are these issues on the radar of smart guys like Mr. Bogle?
Everyone is hoping for a beautiful unwind as the Fed removes QE while at the same time raises interest rates. Not everyone will have chair when the music stops and the cost of capital returns to normal.

While I enjoy Ms. Morgenson's columns and generally agree with them, they nevertheless tend to resemble hit pieces with the occasional questionable statement or two. Never factually wrong, but laden with innuendo.
She decries the "often hefty costs associated with TIAA funds". Yet elsewhere in the article she she states that "the average asset-weighted expense ratio on TIAA’s mutual funds was 0.32 percent in 2016", and acknowledges that this was "lower than the 0.57 percent mutual fund industry average".
She attempts some jiujitsu by arguing that this is still too high (though not calling the fees "hefty" in this section). Here's how she does that:
:
"Although lower than the 0.57 percent mutual fund industry average, it is more expensive than a low-cost provider like Vanguard, whose average expense ratio was 0.11 percent in 2016."
She gives M* as her data source. Here's what M* had to say:

The asset-weighted average fee of Vanguard’s funds fell to 0.11% from 0.14% during the past three years [2013-2016]. This 21% decline was the largest percentage decline among the largest fund providers, thanks to large flows into Vanguard’s low-priced ETFs and index funds and falling fees in some of Vanguard’s largest funds as the fund company passes improving efficiencies to fundholders. During that period, Vanguard has strengthened its leading position, as its market share rose to 22% from 18%. Vanguard’s 2016 asset-weighted average expense ratio of 0.11% was significantly below that of the second-lowest-cost provider, SPDR State Street, at 0.19%, followed by Dimensional Fund Advisors at 0.36%.

What we glean from this is that (a) you need to look at active/passive mix before chastising a family for high fees or lauding it for low ones, and (b) TIAA's 0.32% is right in line with other low cost families. Is Vanguard the only family that advisors are now allowed to use? Who are these other low cost providers that are like Vanguard?
That's not to say TIAA may not have been taken some dubious actions. Likely enough to take some of the shine off its white knight image. But ISTM not enough (or at least not enough documented) to paint it as an especially bad actor.
The one complaint she linked to seems to have merit IMHO. We have to take her word on the whistle-blower complaint though, since it is currently confidential. We don't know what else is in it, just as we didn't know the additional M* data that I gave above. (Yup, there's my own innuendo, without AFAIK misstating facts.)
To repeat, I like Ms. Morgenson's columns, I think she does a great job at digging through the underside of the financial world. But I don't take them (or any columnist piece) as gospel.

You can also read my responses in that thread. RPHYX has not had a single losing year, and only one losing quarter. Theoretically it should be impossible to outperform cash (under your mattress) 100% of the time while maintaining the same liquidity.
Put money at risk, any risk, and sooner or later a bad thing will happen (though perhaps not in your lifetime, let alone within your investment horizon). That includes putting money in banks (which can and do fail, freezing funds for short periods of time) and MMFs (which can break a buck and/or put a hold on your cash).
It's not a question of whether it is "worth taking risk" to outperform cash - if you want to generate any income from cash you have to take on risk. It's a question of characterizing the risks (lower return/loss of principal, volatility, liquidity), quantifying them, and then seeing if you're satisfied with the returns given the estimated levels of risk.
Actual performance of RPHYX does not appear to have been declining over the past three years. Its three year performance (as of Sept. 30th) was 2.20%, its one year performance was 2.32%, and its nine month YTD performance is 1.72% (which annualizes to 2.30%, though based on its October month-to-date performance is a figure that likely won't be achieved).

Moved some of our taxable account from SWTSX to PONDX probably will need it in the next 3-5 years, so lowering equity exposure while allowing room to run still. 30% bonds, 15% international index, rest still us index. A bit nervous having a bond fund in a taxable account. But it seemed better than the NTF nontaxable funds available to us.

This time, this is not even a follow up, but a duplicate. From the article:

The article “New Target-Date Funds Are Geared for Withdrawal Time” first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

MFO: New Target-Date Funds Are Geared For Withdrawal Time
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/35821/new-target-date-funds-are-geared-for-withdrawal-time
Having taken a closer look at the TRP fund, it appears to be simply another managed payout fund, like VPGDX. As such, it's not a new type of fund. The Vanguard fund targets a 4% payout based on the fund's value over the past three years, while TRLAX targets a 5% payout based on the fund's value over the past five years. I haven't compared glide paths.
The Fidelity funds, in contrast, claim that they're designed for RMD distributions, but don't manage the payouts. So ISTM that what's new with them is the marketing pitch, not the funds themselves.
Managed payout funds (including the TRP fund, but not the Fidelity funds) seem designed for people who want an annuity (cash stream) but are unwilling to cede control or ownership. As MikeM highlighted in his quote of Wade Pfau, if what you want is a cash stream and potential legacy, annuities are still the better way to go.

Re - How many funds? ... Does it matter?
John Hussman’s been trying to convince his investors for years that one fund is all they need.
Do the math.
1 X -10% = -10%.
18 X +10% ÷ 18 = +10%
In the above example, the 18 funds clearly were better. In reality, it matters very little.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
October 12, 2017
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
This week marked the 30th anniversary of the October 19th, 1987 market crash when the blue chip Dow plummeted nearly 25%, behaving like the shakiest of emerging markets. It’s a stark contrast to the market’s current behavior which is eerily subdued and trading at record highs.
What caused the Dow to drop 508 points on that single day, now forever known as Black Monday? As Ben Levisohn wrote in his excellent article in Barron’s titled Black Monday 2.O: The Next Machine-Driven Meltdown:
“…experts found a culprit: so-called portfolio insurance, a quantitative tool designed to use futures contracts to protect against market losses. Instead, it created a poisonous feedback loop, as automated selling begat more of the same.”
Fast forward 30 years, and that type of automated trading program seems almost quaint. Quantitative, rules-based systems known as algorithms, computer- based trading programs and strategies have grown exponentially in number, trading volume and complexity since then. And as Barron’s Levisohn wrote: “…bear a resemblance to those blamed for Black Monday.”
How risky are the markets now?
That is the focus of this week’s WEALTHTRACK and our guest, a leading expert on risk. We’ll be joined by Richard Bookstaber, Chief Risk Officer in the Office of the Chief Investment Officer for the $110 billion University of California Pension and Endowment portfolios. Bookstaber has had chief risk officer roles at major investment firms ranging from hedge funds Bridgewater and Moore Capital to investment banks Morgan Stanley and Salomon Brothers. From 2009 to 2015 he switched to the public sector, working at the SEC and U.S. Treasury. Among his projects was helping build out the risk management structure for the Financial Stability Oversight Council and drafting the Volcker Rule which restricts proprietary trading by banks.
Bookstaber is also an author of two highly regarded books on financial risk. His most recent is The End of Theory: Financial Crises, The Failure of Economics, and the Sweep of Human Interaction. His first, A Demon of Our Own Design: Markets, Hedge Funds and the Perils of Financial Innovation, published in 2007 presciently warned of the perils of the explosion of financial derivatives, some of which he helped create.
In a 2007 WEALTHTRACK appearance he alerted us about the twin risks of high leverage and complex financial instruments. How right he was. On this week’s show we will discuss the new risks he sees in the markets now, some created by regulations created to solve the old ones!
If you’d like to see the show before it airs, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Bookstaber about his new book, which can be seen exclusively on our website. Also, a reminder that WEALTHTRACK is available as a YouTube Channel, so if you are unable to join us for the show on television, you can watch it on our website, WealthTrack.com, or by subscribing to our YouTube Channel.
Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one.
Best regards,
Consuelo

FYI: If you started saving 30 years ago, you got a quick education in the worst Mr. Market can dish out. The Dow Jones industrial average plunged 508 points, or 22.61%, the worst one-day crash in history. Those who weren’t scared out of the stock market have done well: The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index has gained an average 9.59% since then. But a few funds have done exceptionally well and are being run by the same management team today. Here are the stock funds that have done the best since Wall Street’s darkest day.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20171019/FREE/101909999/PH
1. Federated Kaufmann (KAUFX)
2. Vanguard PRIMECAP (VPMCX)
3. Janus Henderson Small-Cap Value (JSIVX)
4. Wasatch Small Cap Growth Investor (WAAEX)
5. First Eagle Fund of America (FEAFX)
6. ClearBridge Aggressive Growth (SHRAX)
7. Gabelli Asset (GABAX)
8. Ariel Fund (ARGFX)
9. Heartland Value Investor (HRTVX)
10. Elfun Trusts (ELFNX)

I know free ETF/stock trades sounds great at Robinhood, but I'm curious how many investors here value things like security and stability of their financial institutions. What I mean is sometimes when I look at these small upstart brokers, I wonder how likely they are to be hacked like Equifax and how stable their financial resources are if there was suddenly a run on the bank style type crisis like 2008. I'm not saying big brokers like TD and Schwab and Fidelity can't be hacked or experience such runs, but I do think they are better able to handle distress than maybe newer brokers can. And I also wonder how many online security people a broker like Robinhood can afford and whether running maybe on a more shoestring budget makes them more vulnerable to cyber attacks. I also sometimes wonder about things like credit quality at all brokers. For instance, I know that for a while E*Trade didn't have the best of credit ratings, although it has improved in recent years. The other issue is narrow breath of product and financial tools, but most investors seem cognizant of that when they sign up for Robinhood.

@ MFO Members: If either or both of these funds do anywhere as well as their parent funds, they should viewed as buys;
Regards,
Ted
Wellington: 88 years 8.29% Average Annual Return
Wellesley: 47 years 9.84% Average Annual Return:
As 9/30/17