There are criteria, and then there are the application of those criteria.
For example, though it's not a major factor for me, like Hank I do look at fund size. But unlike Hank, I don't have a preference for larger funds; mine is for anything not extreme (not itsy bitsy unless new, and not humongous).
In addition to criteria already mentioned, I look at manager age, experience, and track record. Keep in mind none of this may help. Bob Stansky had a great record at Fidelity Growth Company, but floundered taking over Magellan. That was especially true once the fund doubled in size from the $50B when he took it over. By the time Stansky left, it had fallen back to the $50B size it was when he took it over.
A good example of how the factors I care about interrelate is BTMIX - a fund I asked about several months ago. Baird brought over a team from BMO who had done a fine job there. So even though the fund was (and is) tiny and has no track record, it's in a good family for bonds with very low costs and a proven management team.
Part of looking at a fund family is how they handle management transitions. (IMHO T. Rowe Price is superb at this, taking months or years to do a handoff and with full transparency.) In the past, I might have looked at LSBDX, as it appeared to have a transition plan in place (Gaffney taking over for Fuss, now about 83). That's gone, or rather she's gone. Eagan and Stokes started along with Gaffney, but they hadn't been groomed as Fuss' successor. I'd like a bit more clarity about a transition plan before considering this fund again.

Wow! You're likely to get a plethora of widely different reactions. Sorry for the redundancy that follows. (I also require 20 minutes to change a light bulb.)
Premise: First, you need some sense of your goals, investing philosophy and the degree of risk you're willing to take.
Than you need a plan.*
Than you select funds that fit the plan.
-
To the heart of the question, here's what I look for:
- Below average fees
- Reputation of the house for integrity, consistency and client service
- A fund's long term performance with a proven track record extending back well over a decade. (I tend to focus on Lipper's category ratings.)
- I like larger funds. They've grown large for a reason. There should be some economics of scale. And the detrimental effects of hot money chasing short term performance and than leaving in droves is likely to be less.
- I also favor larger longer established houses thinking they can afford deeper research staffs.
* For what interest it may hold, here's one plan that might be suitable for a moderate-risk investor 20 years into retirement (like myself).
80% Buy and Hold: (1) 22-25% diversified income, (2) 22-25% balanced, (3) 30-35% hybrids (three uniquely different funds positioned somewhere between income and balanced on the risk spectrum), (4) 7-10% international bond funds, (5) 7-10% inflation-sensitive funds (like real estate and commodities).
20% Flexible Portfolio: Nominally, 50% cash / 50% equity. Since this portion is by definition flexible, the cash could range anywhere from 0% to 100%. Currently, I'm a bit overweight equities and tilted slightly towards an energy/NR fund where I still perceive some value.
I too have trouble limiting the number of funds. Goal is 12. Currently 14. :)

@kevindow Check out some of the closed-end funds from Tortoise (TPZ, TYG, NTP, etc.) I've owned some of them off and on over the years but now just hold a few individual MLPs.

"The nearly 19-year-old Defined Risk Strategy" - not fund, i.e. private money
Also from the article:
"The $1.5 billion Swan Defined Risk mutual fund (ticker: SDRAX), launched in 2012, hasn’t performed as well, which is largely a function of time and the market cycle. It’s up an average of 4% a year over the past three years, versus 12.9% for the S&P 500. "
Makes one wonder what is "All Seasons" about this fund.

@shipwreckedandalone,
Nice work on your closed end funds. I use to dabble in them some years back; but, not anymore. I'd be interested in knowing how you continue to fair with them. I'd buy at good discounts and when they narrowed I'd sell collecting the dividends while I waited for the discount to narrow. Sometimes it worked ... and, sometimes it did not.
Old_Skeet

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
IInvestors who bought master limited partnerships years ago, thinking they had found a high-yielding bond substitute with tax advantages, have been sorely tried. Those who held on through the 18-month downturn have gotten some welcome relief these past 10 weeks as the sector rebounded from its staggering 60% plunge from 2014 highs.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=MLPs+Are+Rallying—but+They’re+Still+Risky+Barron's

I am the most patient investor I know, not always that way but age and time will do that.
I saw the opening was on Bonds, so I looked at my only 4 bond funds TGEIX, PIMIX MWTRX, TGBAX for 1yr and YTD. The leader YTD is TGEIX-Emerging Market Bond, for 1 yr.TGEIX. The worst TGBAX for both YTD and I yr. No changes planned. For 5 years none are loosers.

I used to be like that but for intellectual hygiene (my brain clarity and challenges thereto) I went a few years ago to ML via BoA and Fido only, and so I buy only whatever is offered therein for free. Works okay thus far, although I forsake Bruce and some (many) others, yes. Also I trade and 'time' less than in decades past. But tracking and tax time are way simpler.
@AndyJ, if you like JENSX you might want to look into the thus far outperforming LC etfs SPHD, NOBL, CAPE, and latterly OUSA.

"Cunningham said Thursday that he is retiring due to a health issue of a family member that requires his attention."
And, too, assets under management have declined by $13 billion - 25% or so - in three years.
David

T. Rowe Price Group Inc. said Tuesday it is diversifying its equity fund lineup, announcing the launch of three new funds and the renaming of another in a quantitatively managed series.
[...]
[Sudhir] Nanda has been managing T. Rowe's Diversified Small-Cap Growth Fund for about a decade. The fund functioned as a proof of concept for his methods. It's now been renamed the QM U.S. Small-Cap Growth Equity Fund. "It wasn't something which happened overnight," Nanda said. "I think we've reached a point where we think it's a pretty well-proven process."
[...]
The QM U.S. Small-Cap Growth Equity fund has about $4 billion in assets under management. It joins the newly launched funds, the QM U.S. Value Equity Fund, QM U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Core Equity Fund and QM Global Equity Fund.

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2016/04/19/t-rowe-price-rolls-out-new-quantitative-funds.html?ana=yahoo
For what interest it holds. PRDSX can be rather volatile, but it has had some very good years (e.g. 2013= 44%).
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=PRDSX (SC Growth)
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=TQMVX (Value)
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=TQSMX&v_linkcomp=link&linkplmt=RN&v_link=findFundModule (SC/MC Core)
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=TQGEX&v_linkcomp=link&linkplmt=RN&v_link=findFundModule (Global Equity)

@jerry: "I remember many years ago when it for one year one of the top records." I believe that's when George Washington was the fund manager.
Regards,
Ted

I remember many years ago when it for one year one of the top records.

I owned two of their int'l funds at different times, years ago, EXWAX and EXITX. Preferred the latter although M* always talked up EXWAX and never even did a report on EXITX. They were decent performers until around 2011, and they haven't done much of anything good since then.
Have to wonder if there's any traceable connection with the ipo in late 2011.

A queer and wonderful trail though, Ted. Bernie Klawans - an aerospace engineer, right Charles? - ran it for decades, from 1971-2011, likely out of his garage. One-page website, no 800-number, no reports or newsletters or commentaries. Brought on a successor when he was in his late 80s, worked with him for a couple years, retired in April and passed away within about six months. Then his chosen successor, Craig Arnholt, died unexpectedly within a year. The Board of Trustees actually managed the fund for six months (largely successful - they beat both their LV peers and the S&P) before finding a manager who'd run the fund for a pittance. The new guy was doing fine then ... kapow! He lost 22% in September and October of 2014, when the rest of the market was essentially flat. That was a combination of a big stake in Fannie and Freddie - adverse court ruling cut their market value by half in a month - and energy exposure. He's been staggering toward the cliff ever since.
Though the website's a lot nicer.

For some insane reason my 2 kids and their spouses allow me to oversee their IRA's. I've had some fun with this project (for the 2 kids this has been over 20 years). Former FA's might remember my "Annual Angst' post wherein I asked advice on their then-current port, and received great responses. However, when I see a fund such as Sequoia falling over the cliff due to stupidity, I SELL, no need to ask. This has been my hobby, not theirs, and I think they (and I) might be happy with with index stuff now. We got out with a gain, but its made me wiser (ha, I hope).
best, hawk

This is a good fund to demonstrate just how bunched together bond funds tend to be.
MCOIX (class I) with its 0.50% ER does get a 5* rating. But its sibling shares classes don't.
MSCAX.lw (class A, load waived) with its 0.75% ER gets a 4* rating.
MSCVX (Investor class) with its 0.83% ER gets a 2* rating.
A tiny difference in expenses (resulting in a tiny difference in returns) can make a large difference in ratings. One way of taking this is that a large difference in percentiles could represent a minscule performance difference, depending on the type of fund.
Then there is the matter of loads. Obviously if you can get MSCAX load-waived (e.g. at Schwab), that's going to be better than MSCVX, since the former has a lower ER.
But with respect to star ratings, Morningstar incorporates the front end load into the calculations. It amortizes the load over the period of interest (3, 5, or 10 years), to calculate a reduced load-adjusted return. That's why A shares will often have lower star ratings than load-waived A shares.
The longer the period, the less of an impact (per year) the load has. So if a fund has a ten year history, Morningstar calculates the load adjusted returns for all three periods, gets star ratings for all of them, and combines them into a single rating. But if a fund like this one has only a three year rating, the impact of the load is overstated.
That is because the load is amortized only over a short three year span. Consequently, the star rating may take an oversized hit from the load simply because the fund's lifetime is somewhat short.
Just another idiosyncrasy to keep in mind.

Hi Mark,
Until last weekend the weather had been dreadful, but not like other parts of the country where they're getting hammered. I love Mother Nature dearly, but she can be quite contrary at times. My neighbors just started cutting their grass - the barbarians.
BTW, my basement sale purchase of XOM is actually in the green +6%. However, my SQM buy is doing very well. I like this stock. It's one of the few pure lithium plays. Growth plus a 2.6% yield. Why don't you buy a Tesla?
The silver juniors? feh. Peter Lynch 101 - play what you know. I've collected coins for 60 years and this looks like it just might be my third rodeo. We'll see.
take care and good fortune,
rono

@ Junkster,
Thanks for the insight. Back than Price's wording was more vague: "Round trips" (in/out/in again) within 90 days were deemed excessive. About a decade ago (maybe less) they went to the present 30-day hold (If you sell a fund you can't buy back in for 30 days). Also, the present 90-day redemption fees (on many of their funds) did not exist (to the best of my knowledge) in the 90s.
I'm probably one of the few here who still keeps money directly at the several houses rather than using a brokerage.. Without trying to defend this archaic practice, I will say that it does impose some badly needed discipline on me and eliminates a lot of second-guessing as to whether I'm in the very best performing fund in its class. I'm afraid such constant comparing of funds would drive me nuts.
But have left a number of houses over the past two decades when they failed to meet my needs. Among those were Calamos, Strong, TIAA-CREF.
-
*Forgive me! Almost forgot to note that I left Hussman several years ago. However ... That one's on a different planet. Check-out HSGFX. The guy can't even make money after the Dow plunges 2000 points to start the year.

My income sleeve is up ytd about 2.75% which consist of six funds (GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX & TSIAX) and my hybrid income sleeve also consisting of six funds (CAPAX, CTFAX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX) is up about 3.25%. Currently, I don't have any funds within my portfolio that are not up ytd. Overall, my portfolio as a whole is up ytd about 4.1%; and, in comparison, the Lipper Balanced Index is up about 3.1%.

If you are up 4.1% YTD with the large cash position you hold then that is a very commendable return. Congrats!
Edit: So are you including cash as part of your portfolio because if you are you must have some boffo equity funds YTD? As I recall you were a bit of a momentum investor so that would not surprise me at all.
The other ones where I have money, such as D&C, there just isn't much reason to trade. Maybe one or two changes a year. I'd love to hear Junkster reveal what it takes to be banned from a fund house! God knows I've tried their patience over the years.:)

T Rowe was the very first fund family I was banned from when I held an account there in the early to mid 90s.

Junkster said "In the old days at INVESCO and Strong you could buy and sell their in house funds at will with no fees whatsoever."
Curiously, An agent at Strong was the only one ever to call into question my frequent exchanges (during a phoned-in exchange) over the 3-4 years I had money there. But no other actions were taken. Other houses haven't ever said a word. I do read their FT regs in the Prospectus and attempt to steer clear.
I worry a lot with T Rowe. Tends to be the one where 90% of my portfolio changes occur. In part due to their large selection of funds and in part because I tend to hold both a Roth and Traditional IRA with them. Taking a distribution from one usually involves some rebalancing in the other. But so far, no problems with them.
The other ones where I have money, such as D&C, there just isn't much reason to trade. Maybe one or two changes a year. I'd love to hear Junkster reveal what it takes to be banned from a fund house! God knows I've tried their patience over the years. :)