TRRBX which has been around since 2002 has a pretty stellar record (rank in category):

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)

FYI: Some famous sports quotes can help advisors think about the various aspects of selecting an ETF.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/etf-industry-perspective/vanguard-5-considerations-choosing-investment-beyond-just-cost

FYI: A 2015 study of global pension assets from Towers Watson revealed that the 16 largest pension markets in the world increased their allocations to alternative asset classes from about 5% in 1995 to 20% in 2015.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-performance-fees-add-risk

Yes. Merrill went ahead and implemented the DOL rule in retirement accounts effective the original day in June. One still can continue trading as self-directed and pay 6.95 per equity trade and get mutual funds etc. .45 fiduciary stuff provides strategic risk based asset allocation and rebalancing with cheap etfs for those who cant do it themselves and starts at $5000 minimum. .85% service includes a larger fund selection and a human being to talk to... i believe the min is $25k. Note that all models are created by the CIO office and are of institutional quality from open architecture platform. Mutual fund shares within those are either advisory or institutional, depending on the company.
And then there is merrill lynch, a full service brokerage: financial planning, behaviorial, alternatives, financing, etc. All new retirement accounts have been fee-based fiduciary relationships since june, or none. Taxable could be any.
Hope this clarifies the new post-DOL arrangement at merrill somewhat.

This website will help you "get a human" at a variety of different companies when you call:
gethuman.com/phone-number
As an example, I typed in Eversource (my Electric Utility Company) and got this:

Thanks @Ted and @TheShadow for bringing these funds and this article to the board.
I came across another article (I linked below) back in May, but in light of these funds introduction I thought it was worthy of re-posting. The article looks at using an single open ended mutual fund as the sole source for a 4% withdrawal rate in retirement.
VWINX was one of the funds research and the winner of the back test.
Just wondering if MFOers feel that a globally managed fund like Global Wellesley might serve a similar role in a retirement distribution strategy?
Article:
long-term-growing-income-open-end-mutual-fund-possible
MFO discussion on VWINX:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/33358/vwinx

Robinhood will cover any fees charged by your old brokerage.

Only for your first transfer into Robinhood.
https://support.robinhood.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001535326-Stock-Transfer

Full ACAT transfer from TDA costs $75 (though partial is free). Robinhood doesn't seem to have promotions to accept the new account.
It's easy to get free trades at various brokerages. It's harder getting assets out of an account. Even harder for tax-favored accounts (especially hard for HSA accounts); perhaps that's why you restricted your suggestion to taxable assets.

Robinhood will cover any fees charged by your old brokerage.

It means that the share class has not existed long enough for the star rating, but that this rating comes from another share class. TUHYX started 5/19/2017, the fund started 4/30/17 (TUHIX)

Full ACAT transfer from TDA costs $75 (though partial is free). Robinhood doesn't seem to have promotions to accept the new account.
It's easy to get free trades at various brokerages. It's harder getting assets out of an account. Even harder for tax-favored accounts (especially hard for HSA accounts); perhaps that's why you restricted your suggestion to taxable assets.

@MSF I see your point, but it's $6.95 to sell an ETF outside the NTF platform, not $50, as shares are treated as stocks for commission purposes. Instead of selling, probably the best strategy would be to find a reasonable substitute in the new list to existing ETF positions and just add to your position with that ETF while holding onto the old one--an annoyance for record keeping admittedly, but you wouldn't have to realize any additional capital gains too soon. I agree there is a bit of marketing shenanigans here, but I also think there are some interesting new options on this list and it is true that costs have declined for a number of broad bread and butter index style SPDR ETFs such as total market, emerging, agg bond, small cap, etc that are now transaction free. I don't see it nearly as negatively as the Financial Buff does.

Transfer your taxable assets to Robinhood and you're all set.

@davidmoran: Two reasons, it's 5% premium to NAV, and the high degree of leverage 44% in a rising interest rate enviornment.
Regards,
Ted

Yeah - If that shown 1.74% ER at Lipper is accurate, that’s a whale of an ER biting into your returns. Only way it could possibly be justified (perhaps in part) would be if this is some type of exotic fund which utilizes short selling and/or foreign currencies. Those types of income funds would be expected to cost a little more. I don’t know enough about this one to determine that.
As others have suggested, many fine income funds have ERs far below 1.74%. I happen to like DODIX, which had an ER of around .43% last time I checked. If you’re a bit more aggressive, their DODLX has a higher, but still competitive ER. You won’t see the ER reflected on your statement. It’s mostly hidden from view, but still detracts from fund returns. Worse, some managers will take undue risk with a high ER fund in an effort to compensate for the high ER.
Interestingly, Lipper scores your fund favorably, giving it 4 (out of 5) for total return, consistent return and preservation of capital (but knocks it on expense). Possibly, Lipper knows something I don’t. MaxFunds, on the other hand, rates the fund 32% (poor). Max suggests a best case for the fund in the next year to be +9% and worst case -12%. Consider those to be educated guesses, at best. I’m not telling you to sell it, but think you are correct in looking at similar funds having lower ERs and also questioning whether this kind of fund best meets your needs.

FYI: (This is a more detailed follow-up article.)
Starting Nov. 20, advisors who custody assets at TD Ameritrade will no longer be able to trade any Vanguard ETFs—and many iShares ETFs—commission free. Instead, the funds will carry a standard trading cost, starting at $6.95 per trade.
A handful of ETFs by PIMCO, PowerShares, State Street and VanEck will also be removed from commission-free trading.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/td-ameritrade-drops-major-no-fee-etfs?nopaging=1

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/52848/000093247117005506/globalwellesleyincomesupplem.htm
497 1 globalwellesleyincomesupplem.htm VANGUARD GLOBAL WELLESLEY INCOME FUND
Vanguard Global Wellesley® Income Fund
Supplement to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Dated October 10, 2017
Subscription Period
Vanguard Global Wellesley Income Fund is holding a subscription period from October 18, 2017, through November 1, 2017. During this period, the Fund will invest in money market instruments rather than seek to achieve its investment objective. This strategy should allow the Fund to accumulate sufficient assets to construct a complete portfolio within a single day and is expected to reduce initial trading costs.
The Fund reserves the right to terminate or extend its subscription period prior to November 1, 2017.
During the subscription period, you may invest in the Fund online (if you are registered for online access), or you may contact Vanguard by telephone or by mail to complete this transaction. Please see the Investing With Vanguard section of the prospectus for more details about requesting transactions.
© 2017 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.
PS 1496A 102017

@MSF I see your point, but it's $6.95 to sell an ETF outside the NTF platform, not $50, as shares are treated as stocks for commission purposes. Instead of selling, probably the best strategy would be to find a reasonable substitute in the new list to existing ETF positions and just add to your position with that ETF while holding onto the old one--an annoyance for record keeping admittedly, but you wouldn't have to realize any additional capital gains too soon. I agree there is a bit of marketing shenanigans here, but I also think there are some interesting new options on this list and it is true that costs have declined for a number of broad bread and butter index style SPDR ETFs such as total market, emerging, agg bond, small cap, etc that are now transaction free. I don't see it nearly as negatively as the Financial Buff does.

My issue isn't with the State Street changes, but with TDA promoting a new and improved, expanded list, when in fact it had nothing to do with the State Street improvements and dropped funds (not only Vanguard but iShares (what's the excuse there?).
It's the age old claim of "new and improved", where the changes are minimal and potentially harmful to existing customers. At $50 to sell existing ETF shares and possible taxable gains in the process, it could take years or decades for current customers to "benefit" from a drop of a few basis points.

@MSF I would say a 0.03% expense ratio is a pretty good deal on the SPDR Portfolio Total Stock Market ETF (SPTM) and an 0.11% one on the emerging markets fund--SPDR Portfolio Emerging Markets ETF (SPEM)--is the lowest fee currently available I believe on an emerging markets ETF. Also, although no S&P 500 ETF is available, the SPDR Portfolio Large Cap ETF (SPLG) also has a 0.03% expense ratio and I bet it's pretty close to an S&P 500 fund in how it moves. What this really is is an end-run around Standard & Poor's and Russell, which State Street is no longer paying licensing fees to by creating its own indexes. What also is a little trickier is liquidity as these are smaller ETFs than Vanguard's, but then most investors on this board are not institutional investors who need a lot of liquidity. I would advise placing limit orders on these ETFs till they get bigger if bid-ask spreads are wide. But I don't think this is a bad deal on the face of it.