Morningstar premium screener. Ask for 2004 annual returns >= 0 and 2005 returns >=0 and ...
Pretty easy (but you do need a premium account with M*). The tedious part was transcribing the tickers :-( But I find a manual exercise like that helpful; it forces me to take a close look at the results.
Beyond that, I just made notes on a few funds that I've kept eyes on, like Bernstein (for very stable very short term state-specific munis), TCW/MetWest, and Vanguard. WEFIX was on my short list for years (and I'd included it in a suggested portfolio for a friend), until they upped the min and created a more expensive retail class.

@msf: an excellent piece of research. What research tool or resource did you use to find all those funds with positive returns in the past 10 calendar years?

Now you're getting close to the interesting part of the case. Derf is right - the piper gets paid one way or the other.
Some of what's at issue here is whether the employer could have the employees pay. The plan docs say no, but the docs also give employer the responsibility to interpret what "employer pays fees" means.
So, if employees pay implicitly (via higher retail fund fees and a kickback to the plan operator), does that violate the terms of the plan?
The employer is obviously taking the position that the requirement that the employer pay the fees refers only to explicit fees; those fees that are billed directly to the employer.
The case is not so much about retail vs. institutional class shares.
Where is all the outrage with Vanguard using investor class shares in its target date funds? Same idea - Vanguard doesn't charge the investor a management fee for those funds; instead it gets paid for its costs by charging higher (investor class share) fees in the underlying funds.
The question of three year limit is in a sense a side matter. I think it's interesting, but then again, I think most stuff is interesting. As I recall (it's been a little while since I read the case) ERISA does not support a continuing violations theory argument. In plain English, that means that the fact that the act is still ongoing (a continuing violation) doesn't save you from the three year statute of limitations.
The appeal claims (rightly I feel) that it's not a single ongoing act (that started more than three years ago), but repeated breaches of fiduciary duty. Every time a plan trustee acts or doesn't act, he or she is making a decision, which must be in the best interest of the employees.
This argument won't get damages going back more than the three year limit, but it should allow damages for the past three years, even on funds that were originally selected more than three years ago. Just MHO - I'm not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV.

According to M*, there are exactly two non-bond funds that did not lose money in any of the past ten calendar years. WICAX (one of the three funds named), and KRFEX.
While NSTLX (the institutional share class of N&B Strategic Income) makes the cut, the ticker that was given in the article, NSTAX (A class) does not, because that share class did not exist until 3/3/2008.
Both share classes of TCW Total return (TGLMX as well as the named TGMNX) made the grade, but it is worth noting that management changed about midway through the ten years. The MetWest management that TCW bought is great, but I'd rather invest in their flagship fund MWTIX.
As I've said before, I don't think there's anything magical about 0.000% return. But FWIW, the other nonlosers are:
Taxable bond funds: FXICX, AALPX, AVEFX, BBBMX, CCBAX, DFIHX, DFGFX, SDGIX, FGUSX, FPNIX, GSTGX, MXSDX, HUBAX, JASBX, JIBDX, HLLVX, LKFIX, DFCFX, DFYGX, MSTIX, MUCYX, BSBAX, PYSBX, PRVBX, PIASX, PMYIX, PSBAX, PIFZX, SIGVX, STBFX, BSGAX, PRWBX, TSDOX, DIHQX, FOSIX, UGSDX, VBISX, VFIRX (note only the Admiral shares made the cut), WEFIX (used to be NTF until Weitz added a retail class with a 0.25% admin fee in 2011), SGVAX, MVSAX
Muni bond funds: ALABX, ATOIX, SDCMX, SDDMX, SDNYX (Bernstein short duration funds don't make much but are very stable; don't know any way to get them without a load), MDLMX, MINSX, CNTIX, HICOX, NSMIX, DFSMX, DSIBX, FMUUX, FSHIX (the retail version, FMTAX - load waived at Vanguard - lost a few basis points in 2008 and 2013), FISHX (the T class lost 0.17% in 2013), FSTFX, FFTFX, GSDUX, FLTRX, SUMAX, PRMDX, PRFSX, LTCAX, LTMIX, VMLTX, VWSTX, SCTIX, SMUAX, SHDAX.
Not surprisingly, the muni bond funds tend to be short or short-intermediate.

Hi rono. Hard to give suggestions to a guy I used to take advice from. Heck, I think I remember guys like you and Ed talking about PRWCX 7 or 8 years ago.
Good luck on your roll over and have a happy retirement. I'm sure you and the Barron von Rothschild have all the bases covered.

your passion for news/ investing/ mfo is admirable. while i don't always agree with your style, i wish you many more years of the same energy!
fa

2fundalarm: I peddling the bike as fast as I can, but at 78 that's not very fast. !
Regards,
Ted

FPA New Income FPNIX
30 years without a single calendar year loss under management by FPA
Prior to that an additional 9 years without a calendar year loss
Total of 39 consecutive "up" calendar year total returns
Source: Yahoo Finance performance data
In its commentary on the fund, M* states "This fund starts with a laserlike focus on not losing money".......and "This fund hasn't lost money on a total-return basis in a single calendar year since 1984 "

I'd rather have GLRBX, EXDAX or BERIX (taking the negative years as they come).

RE: "The U.S. dollar is soaring and deflation fears are mounting. Stock benchmarks are swinging wildly as global growth fears rise." ... Charles Dickens might love this. "Swinging wildly" has a nice ring. But, is this kind of hype typical of Fidelity's communications with their investors? I hope not. (Perhaps that's the reason I don't own any of their funds.)
Yes - there's some underlying truth to each point. The dollar has been very strong (sometimes seen as a positive) due to the improving condition of the U.S. economy relative to much of the world and expectations interest rates will be rising here. However, the recent 9% retrenchment in the S&P doesn't even qualify as a normal "correction" under the generally accepted definition of 10% or more. Repeat: Not even a "correction" by standard definition. ... So, another 9% off relatively soon wouldn't surprise me. Nor is it in itself cause for alarm. That's what stock markets do - and have historically done. They rise and fall.
As guardians of their investors' money, Fidelity owes it to them to shoot straight. Skip the hyperbole. Tell them that valuations are stretched in many markets and they shouldn't expect the kind of stock market gains going forward they've seen over the past 5 years. Caution them about the significant dangers bonds face should rates rise. Point out market sectors where valuations look most attractive. Talk about the virtues of rebalancing periodically for most investors. Above all else, remind them that equity investing is for the long term as measured in years - not day to day or weekly.

Hi, Rono, I too have my rollover IRA at TRP. PRWCX is my core holding, but it closed to new investors at the end of June. I believe TRP may make an exception for IRA rollovers. Doesn't hurt to ask if you like the fund. I have done well by it. PRWCX was also the core holding in my TRP 401k for the past few years. I'm 61 now and retired last year. Happy investing!

@Vert.
It's because of the way they handled ICMYX.
They merged it into ICMUX this past January and touted the reduction in fee.
ICMUX, which only dates back about 4 years, is a Great Owl Fund.
Top quintile performer. Max drawdown only -1.4% (September 2011).
Folks on the board have compared it to David Sherman's conservative funds (RPHYX and RSIVX).
All good right?
Except ICMYX was actually the oldest share class with about 7 years performance.
And, it contained performance for a steady-eddy income fund that would be disconcerting for very conservative investors.
It drew down -14.6% in November 2008.
Here's current performance snap shot from their website:

Note the inception date of Intrepid Income. Performance before August 2010 does not appear, since it was in the different share class.
To their credit, they do show the earlier quarterly performance in the fund's summary prospectus.
But most fund screening tools and performance plotters (eg. M*) will just not pick this up.
As if the poor performance never happened.
I think it's borderline non-disclosure, calling into question the firm's integrity. So, hard for me to recommend.
Maybe this stuff is common practice and I'm being too critical.
Just does not seem right.

FYI: The past 10 years of market history has been interesting, to put it mildly.
Regards,
Ted
http://investorplace.com/2014/10/mutual-funds-10-years-positive-returns/print

Good to hear from ya @rono.
Having the account in the brokerage was a great move. I don't know much about TRP except that they are a good company to deal with. Your asset allocation figures are a good starting point and I'm sure you will adjust as time and circumstance permit. As for international equities, I personally like 30-40% of the equity portion in international. That would include emerging markets albeit at a small portion of that. You mentioned Matthews Asia. MPACX would be a good general pick. Their Pacific Tiger fund could fit within the EM portion. I really like MAINX for a small part of your fixed income portion.
I was in a similar position several years ago. I ended up picking an asset allocation fund of funds as my core holding and then branching off of that. In our older years simplicity can be a great thing.
Think about having ten percent of your portfolio as play or speculative. You could invest in some individual stocks or ETFs that you feel might go up.
I'm sure you will get plenty of advice here.
All the best, John.

Hi folks,
Just looking for your goodly wisdom. I'm retired and have a middle six figure 457 account (state gov't) that I just rolled into an IRA at Price (brokerage account). Took care of it online and over the phone in about an hour. Check's in the mail to me to forward. And yes, it's made out to them in my name.
I wee bit of background. 66 and retired. Active investor for 30 years (e. g. I was buying with my retirement account on Black Friday; I moved all the cash and bonds in both my wife and my retirement accounts into equities when the first Gulf War broke out; I went bullish on gold and silver in 2002 and hit my first homerun with Silver Weaton SLW.) Note that I am a momentum investor as compared to buy & hold.
I've got a DB pension and social security, no debt and wifey is about the same.
Some of this IRA I plan to spend wantonly and with great abandon. Some I plan to leave to my estate. Some I'll play with for giggles. What I need to do is to protect and safeguard the majority while covering myself against most economic probabilities. If we start with the traditional allocation it would be something like 34/56/10 - equities, bonds, cash. If I include a speculation fund, let's call it 30/50/10/10.
What percentage of int'l in each category?
What equity funds to consider?
What bond funds to consider?
What external funds to consider? (i.e. this is a Brokerage account so I could buy a Matthews Asian fund if I wanted).
Any and all suggestions are most welcome.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono

FYI: When the stock market is falling, mutual funds with low beta — sensitivity to movements in the benchmark index — should do better, right?
Not necessarily. Funds with the lowest 3-year beta have generated a variety of returns in the past three years and over shorter terms
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg1NjQ0OTI=
Enlarged Graphic: http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WMUTpent101614.gif&docId=722014&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1152&caption=&id=721922

Dow futures down 178.
A few years back I had a friend who rode the train from Albany to Seattle. Their ticket was cheap but they didn't have a sleeper. I couldn't do that. They also brought a lot of food on board they had gotten previously. They are one meal each day from the train service so as to have one hot meal.
First thing we did after picking them up at the station was go to a restaurant for a big meal.

Basically, you had generation one of L/S funds where managers often seemed to feel required to have a bunch of longs and a bunch of shorts. Either the funds didn't do that much of anything or didn't do that well. Then you started to have funds able to dial up and down risk more significantly and able to actually participate more in the markets. Now people are upset when the markets are down 7% or so and the funds were not able to move in a week or two.
They're not hedge funds, if you think they are going to dramatically change their holdings in a week's time, you're going to be disappointed. L/S funds are not going to shield you from every move lower in a market. If the market moves lower over months and over the course of 6-9 months they pull a "it's bad, not our fault market sucks", then yeah, that's a problem.
Funds like Pimco's All Asset/All Authority are upsetting because they're too conservative until they're not. People act like the manager of ARIVX is an evil lunatic for holding near 75% cash until this happens and the fund is suddenly near the very top of its category YTD and MTD and now I'll guess people are probably scrambling back into it. If things suddenly change for the better, those people will be all upset again.
Pimco Managed Futures has done astonishingly well. I can guarantee you that there will be a period where it's positioned wrong and people will be upset and dump it. That said, I remain rather fascinated by a managed futures mutual fund that is doing better than some managed futures hedge funds. It is also ahead of its category average by about 11%.

I have FVALX which does not call itself a hedged equity fund but does same thing in times manager deems bad. Needless to say M* classifies it as L/s. What a joke.

Doing better than Hussman, with a much simpler strategy that likely leads to far less costs for shareholders - it's what I've thought Hussman should be doing for a few years now: if you're that bearish, stop holding things like Panera and having a complex options hedging strategy and go to mostly cash and things like Walgreens.

Looks like they are all in. Not what I would have expected from a L/S fund.
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=RGHVX

Most L/S funds are heavily invested. People weren't happy with L/S funds that were basically close to market neutral, now you have ones that can be more long and .... most of them are.

FYI: There’s been a debate in recent years about whether target-date funds expose investors saving for retirement to too much risk at the point they are leaving the workforce.
Now Rob Arnott, a respected investor and researcher, is raising concerns about the aggressiveness of the target funds designed for the youngest workers.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/10/15/target-funds-are-too-risky-for-youngest-workers-arnott/tab/print/?mg=blogs-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Ftotalreturn%2F2014%2F10%2F15%2Ftarget-funds-are-too-risky-for-youngest-workers-arnott%2Ftab%2Fprint&fpid=2,121

FYI: Among the hottest corners of the stock market in recent years have been energy focused master limited partnerships. But amid the recent tumult, MLPs have been one of the hardest hit corners of the market and it’s not entirely clear why.
One MLP specialist guesses that “newbie” investors in these complicated stocks are to blame.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/10/15/mlps-have-been-getting-crushed-blame-the-newbies/tab/print/

I rarely read the talking heads because (and you learn this after almost 50 years in the game) they know absolutely nothing more than me, you, or the man in the moon. They just understand the art of articulation combined with a little bit of knowledge. Too bad knowledge isn't a marker for being a successful trader/investor. I could only skim through the verbiage but as John Wayne alluded to before " new bull market in bonds" ????? Has this talking head been on vacation all year??? And a sea change???? Haven't Treasuries this year already been saying a sea change????
Now let's see if those intraday lows in the 10 year hold or now that the talking heads are believers that yields gradually begin to tick up.