There seems to be some confusion on this issue:
Saturna Brokerage is clearly the best and cheapest HSA custodian for mutual fund investors because their brokerage division uses a Pershing backend (the same backend that used to be used by Vanguard Brokerage Services) and has an extensive list of NTF funds from BlackRock, Calamos, Franklin Templeton, Ivy, Leuthold, Mainstay, MFS, Morgan Stanley, Munder, Nuveen, Putnam, Robeco, VanEck, Alger, Allianz, American Century, Appleseed, Ariel, Aston, Baron, Buffalo, Century, Chase, Double Line, Dreyfus, DWS, Entrepreneur, Federated, Guinness Atkinson, Harbor, Harding Loevner, Intrepid, Invesco/Aim, JP Morgan, Loomis Sayles, Managers, Matthews, Motley Fool, Muhlenkam, Needham, Neuberger Berma, Parnassus, Pax World, Permanent, Perritt, Pimco, ProFunds, Royce, T. Rowe Price, TCW Galileo, Third Avenue, Tocqueville, USAA, Villere Balanced, and Wells Fargo Advantage.
If you choose any of these fund families then your HSA can be fully invested without any fees at Saturna Brokerage so long as you place a free NTF buy+sell order once per year to avoid the $12.50 annual inactivity fee, which is itself already far cheaper than the fees and opportunity costs of every other HSA brokerage custodian (and you don't have to wait for the sell to clear either, so you can place a wash trade to both "sell $500" and "buy $500" of the same fund on the same day to generate activity without changing your portfolio for even a second).
People seem to think that you need to buy the Amana or Sextant funds to avoid fees at Saturna, but that's not true because Saturna has both a direct mutual fund division (as they're also the management company for the Amana and Sextant fund families) and a separate brokerage division like Vanguard so that you can establish either kind of account within their HSA wrapper.

Hi Guys,
A few days ago Catch22 posted a request for a little help in constructing a portfolio for a retiring couple. The response was huge, literally a tidal wave of informed questions and excellent suggestions. That was somewhat surprising given the fact that the profile for the retiring couple indicated that they were relatively well healed, and, for the most part, had pretty much all their ducks in proper alignment.
This was not a problematic assignment, yet the enthusiasm was infectious. Retirement planning occupies every investors planning process at least one time. It is one of the seminal events in a lifetime. The decision itself and the decision making process are stressful but necessary exercises.
Although decision making is more art then science, most retirement planning experts favor examining multiple options and doing “what if” scenario drills. That’s because the future is so uncertain. The decision to finally pull the retirement trigger is often painful. Sometimes analysis paralysis adds to the discomfort. The saving news is that there are some nice resources nearby on the Internet.
The mathematical tool that is specifically designed to address uncertain outcomes is Monte Carlo simulations.
All the major mutual fund houses acknowledge the retirement decision tipping point and the mental anguish it precipitates. They have reacted with free excellent Monte Carlo-like planning tools. That’s good.
I know, I know you’re saying” there he goes again”. That’s true. But within the last month I discovered a “better” Monte Carlo tool. I promise this is the last such posting (well at least for a few weeks).
Some investors are predisposed against statistical analyses, especially Monte Carlo techniques. It is perceived as far too mathematical, too exotic, too sophisticated. Nonsense; you need not know how to build a car to use it. There is financial risk to such ruinous behavior. The mathematics and the random selection of parameters is not conceptually complex; it is quite simple.
If that’s true you might ask, then why is the method not more commonly applied? The answer is that it is, especially since the proliferation of the home computer.
The speed of the modern computer allows the simple procedure to be executed thousands of times while a labor intensive pencil-and-paper approach could only evaluate a single scenario. The particular code that I will recommend does 10,000 random cases for each situation specified. Decision making teachers all endorse multiple option explorations over limited examinations. That’s the beauty and primary advantage of Monte Carlo simulations.
There is a large and constantly growing band of brothers who are recognizing its benefits and applying the Monte Carlo approach. It is a specifically suited tool for exploring uncertain events to estimate probabilities. The expanding field of advocates are found in the Mathematics, Physical Sciences, Computational, Engineering, Business, Financial, and Retirement Planning communities. From its limited World War II era introduction, it is now a ubiquitous tool.
In an uncertain environment, having some formal procedure to estimate the success odds of any project and its options is of paramount importance.
As behavioral researchers Belsky and Gilovich remarked: “Odds are, you don’t know what the odds are”. In some sense, investing is a form of gambling. Award winning economist Paul Samuelson cautioned that “It is not easy to get rich in Las Vegas, at Churchill Downs, or at the local Merrill Lynch office”. However, investing is not a Zero-Sum game. Odds can be tilted to favor the patient, prudent, and informed player.
The recently discovered superior Monte Carlo simulator is from Flexible Retirement Planner. Please consider exploiting this especially useful aid to the retirement decision process:
http://www.flexibleretirementplanner.com/wp/
or more directly to the simulator itself:
http://www.flexibleretirementplanner.com/wp/planner-launch-page/
It is very fast, very flexible, and very worth a visit. This particular Monte Carlo code was written by an experienced, practical, retirement specialist. The calculator’s organization clearly demonstrates the benefits of his hands-on experience.
Monte Carlo analyses are the only investment tool that yields a reasonable estimate of the odds for a successful retirement. It certainly is not perfect, but it is far better than a crystal ball. By using it to explore various retirement and investment options, a candidate retiree can adjust his plans to improve his performance.
Understand that Monte Carlo codes never guarantee 100 % accuracy. That’s impossible in an uncertain world full of unknowable Black Swan happenings.
Many industry specialists suggest that retirement be delayed until Monte Carlo simulations forecast a 95 % success likelihood. That means that there is a 5 % possibility of portfolio bankruptcy. There will always be residual risk in retirement. A parametric Monte Carlo analyses helps a candidate retiree to identify and to minimize that risk, not entirely eliminate it.
In some instances, the stock market will turn sour shortly into retirement. That is unfortunate but not fatal. Those retiring just before 2008 suffered that nightmare. No mechanical tool, no soothsayer could have forecasted that scenario. Don’t indiscriminately scapegoat the analytical tool for the Black Swan physical happening.
Please take advantage of this outstanding resource. It will be both a learning experience and an opportunity to assess your portfolio’s survival odds. Also, I suggest you do a few “what-if” exploratory cases to examine potential pitfalls and improvements. The referenced code makes that an easy chore.
Good luck guys. Some folks might even perceive running these codes as fun.
Anyway, I have fun making the Monte Carlo case. I shall now go quietly and happily into the night.
Best Regards.

These funds may be harder to find (without a load), than people think.
I have verified that TTRZX (and TGBAX) are available at Firstrade, as Kevin stated.
But, while Schwab shows TGTRX as NTF, Schwab only offers these shares to institutional investors. When I try to find a world bond fund from F-T available to retail investors, Schwab just comes back with TPINX (with front end load), TEGBX (with a level load, and limited to redemptions), and Class C of Templeton Total Global Return (also with a level load). That last one is worth highlighting, because sometimes Schwab using its own internal tickers for funds. Here it is using TTR1Z instead of the standard TTRCX. Perhaps Schwab also has its own symbol for the TGTRX shares that it sells to retail customers?
Just as C shares are level loads, apparently so are the R (retirement) class shares FGBRX. These charge so much in 12b-1 fees, that like C shares, they must be called load funds. Those extra fees likely go to paying the retirement plan provider, so that the employer sponsoring the plan doesn't have to pay for the plan. (They're also offered in 529 plans and HSAs, where the fees would similarly go to the provider of the plan.)
So as near as I can see, the only way right now to get access (at the retail level) to noload open end versions of Hasenstab funds is to go through Firstrade. (They're in Flushing, Queens for anyone who wants to walk in.)

Hi Guys,
The excitement building for the upcoming MFO Fund Rating system is palpable. I too eagerly anticipate its complete publication. It will be a useful investment resource that is unique for MFO members. Good stuff.
The ubiquitous problem puzzling all mutual fund holders is the quagmire associated with finding a superior fund manager. In a sense, it is a task that is very similar to hiring any new employee.
Identifying superior management talent is an elusive chore. Given the poor past performance of active fund mangers, the odds are not tilted to favor the private investor.
The incoming MFO Fund Rating tables should make that arduous chore a lot easier.
The MFO team has done yeomen work in designing and assembling this magnificent resource. I really do like what I have seen. With the exception of a single column, it is data intensive. The one exception is “David’s Take”. Obviously, David’s Take is not data; it is a summary opinion.
I do not object to anyone expressing an investment opinion, especially our fair and well-informed website master. I will always value his opinion highly.
However, to establish a confidence in that judgment, I must know and understand precisely how that opinion was determined.
What factors differentiated the three definitive groupings: Positive, Mixed, Negative? Some investors will make choices based on the single entry. How does David arrive at this overarching fund judgment?
What specific criteria does he apply to each grouping? Are the criteria uniformly applied? Is it always dependent upon a face-to-face interview? If it is, a cautionary comment is warranted. Academic studies have concluded that interviews can distort and finally influence selection choices in a negative manner. Polished shoes and friendly manners do not necessarily map into exception stock selection talent.
I recognize that any “positive” assessment is no direct buy endorsement, but it can easily be interpreted as such by novice investors or infrequent visitors to the MFO website. There’s some danger if that column is not carefully defined and qualified. The over abundance of “positive” ratings could be troublesome.
Considering historical data sets, David Snowball’s optimistic “positive” rating assignments statistically conflicts with new fund survival rate data. David’s numbers are out of balance when compared to reality. Fund survival rate stats are available from many sources. Here is a Link to the 2012 S&P SPIVA report that includes a survivorship segment:
http://www.spindices.com/documents/spiva/spiva-us-year-end-2012.pdf
From that report: “ The turmoil of the past five years saw nearly 27% of domestic equity funds, 23% of international equity funds and 18% of fixed income funds merge or liquidate.” That’s a worrisome statistic.
That finding, which is consistent over numerous timeframes, is dismal. It warns against projecting overly optimistic assessments of fund management. Active fund success is a rare quality. John Bogle and the Investment Company Institute have frequently emphasized this negative aspect to actively managed funds.
There is an overwhelmingly high percentage of “positive” ratings in the “David’s Take” column of the MFO summary tables ( see the August MFO Commentary contribution from Charles). It lists a total of 77 fund reviews. From that subset of mutual fund reviews David liked 62 funds (80.5 %), was neutral on 12 funds (15.6 %), and disliked 3 funds ( 3.9 %).
In the future, that will not be representative of all the rated fund’s combined long-term performance or resiliency. That generous generic assessment flies against the headwinds of historical results. Many of these funds will not survive a 5-year trial-by-fire exposure. The markets are brutal masters.
Projecting new mutual fund successes is in soothsayer territory. It is a chancy business, both for the soothsayer himself and for those acting on his forecasts. A more conservative approach would be to patiently await actual real world test data, collected over at least even a modest 3-year period, before judging any new manager.
Consequently, my current conclusion is that a major disconnect will develop between David’s overall “positive” assessments and historical fund performance/survival. A few will prove their mettle; many others will disappoint or perhaps disappear.
Only one-third of actively managed funds outperform passive Index benchmarks annually. Those who do rotate towards the mean without long-term persistency. The superior performers over a 5-year cycle drop to under 20 % of the active manager universe.
I really do respect Professor Snowball and his work ethic. When I say his work product is outstanding I’m defaulting to military terminology. It doesn’t get any better than an “outstanding” commendation. But projecting fund performance is hazardous duty, and most who do tackle a daunting task.
It is far less risky to buy a fund manger with an established track record than to commit your fortune or retirement to someone without a recognized record, but only a sweet-sounding story. Being early into the game is not necessary for true investors.
Experience matters most. Damon Runyon said it perfectly in his “Guys and Dolls” musical: “It may be that the race doesn’t always go to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet”. In this instance, the swift and the strong are past mutual fund winners.
Remain patient and discriminating guys.
Best Regards.

Reply to @catch22: Hi Catch. Gee, I'm not advocating non-treatment or self treatment at all. If I had that sinus infection, I would be at my doctor's office getting antibiotics. I would have to pay for the visit and the drugs out of pocket. Out of pocket actually means out of my HSA savings account that holds tax free money. That money is in my HSA because I put it in savings instead of giving it upfront to the insurance company. If, catastrophically, my medical out of pocket expenses reached $4000, my CDHP plan starts to provide the same co-pays as a much more expensive HMO or PPO policy.
My argument and I think 'equalizers' mention of catastrophic insurance is that paying the health care bill yourself instead of the insurance company forking over the money gives the consumer an appreciation of costs. That would lead to price competition between health providers. Believe me, if consumers started looking for the best price, health providers would find a way to compete. I think that was the original point.
We may be arguing different point.

Reply to @equalizer: I think you are right-on with holding insurance for catastrophic care or in other words, having high deductible policies.
I switched to a CDHP plan about 3 years ago. I was nervous and hesitant at the time, but it's been a great way to go. I fund an HSA account with the money I saved by not paying for the higher HMO or PPO plans. So at the end of the year I've put money in the bank, tax free, instead of throwing it away on high premiums. If this was the way health care worked for everyone, people would look for value and competition would lower health care prices.
To Catch22's point, why would you not take care of that sinus infection before it got more serious? Why would you leave it untreated? You don't have to pay exorbitant monthly premiums to take care of that sinus infection. For most healthy people, paying out of pocket when needed and having that safe guard for catastrophic events is still much cheaper than paying a high monthly premium every month that you may or may not use. At least that has been the case for my wife and I.
Anyway Equalizer, I'm with you.

As promised here are some more details/suggestions:
HSA Administrators - the information you have appears very dated. HSA Administrators used to work with Resource Bank, Virginia Beach, VA (see, e.g. this 2006 page from Arkansas BC/BS, that links HSA Administrators and Resource Bank of Virginia Beach. But that bank changed names in 2007 due to troubles. HSA Administrators did use Resource Bank into 2007 (here's their direct application from that year). But now they use HSA Bank as their custodian.
Here are their current HSA fees, and current bank fees:
-$10 per check fees and $25 to close the account.
-Annual maintenance fee - $45 (payable with outside funds)
-Account setup fee - none that I can find
- Custodial fee 8 basis points per quarter for each fund owned (capped at $20K/fund) deducted from account balance
- $2/ATM withdrawal or debit card use (no charge for use as charge card)
- Tiered interest rates: 0.10% APY for up to $2500, 0.20% to $5K, 0.50% to $10K, and on up
- 22 Vanguard funds
My take on the fees is that unless one is really dedicated to some of the actively managed Vanguard funds listed, one would do better with an HSA Bank directly. For $66/year, one can invest 100% of the account, and get NTF Vanguard ETFs. For an account over $6K or so, one breaks even on expenses ($45 + 32 basis points with HSA Administrators vs. $66 at HSA Bank and TDAmeritrade).
Sterling Bank - a slightly cheaper way to get access to TDAmeritrade, assuming one trades infrequently (they appear to have a $10/trade charge after your first two trades/year). Their fees and additional fees include:
- Annual fee for TDAmeritrade: $16
- Monthly HSA fee $2.50 (you pay both monthly and annual fee if you invest w/TDAmeritrade)
- Closing fee: $20
- Set up fee: $5 (if done online)
- Various money access (debit card, check) fees, avoidable via "eCheck" - appears to be online bill payment/checks
- Tiered interest rates: 0.10% - 0.20% up to $5K, 0.65% to $10K, and up.
- Min bank balance required: Appears to be $20, according to the application form.
Various banks that offer a fixed set of mutual funds:
Optum Bank: Funds, and fees - including generally a $2K requirement in the bank before you can invest excess, and either $3/mo fee or a $5K bank balance to avoid fee
Select Account: Funds and fees, including a $1K min in bank before investing, $1/mo account fee, $1.50/mo for investing option (whether from list of mutual funds or using Schwab). Generally no other fees. Note that to use their brokerage requires you to keep $10K in the bank account. Also, unless you pick a higher cost account fee option (e.g. $2.50/mo instead of $1/mo), you'll get charged an annual fee of $100 by Schwab. So the real cost of the brokerage option is an extra $18/year, plus the inability to use the first $10K in the HSA (must keep $10K in bank).
Tower Bank: Funds, HSA fees (including $36/year to invest) and bank fees (no opening fee, $20 closing fee, minor money access fees).
Health Equity: Funds, fees (from enrollment form - $3.95/mo unless $2500 in HSA bank account), and must keep $2K in bank account before investing. This provider appears to allow individuals to apply, but hard to find much other info.

Most appropriate thread. I've been doing research myself. Sent email via websites to a few different providers. Only one to reply was HSA bank, confirming my read of their fees.
HSA bank (#1 in your list) charges $2.50/mo for the bank account, unless the balance is above $3K. HSA bank charges $3/mo for any investing - it offers a list of funds or a TDAmeritrade account - unless the balance in the bank account is over $5K. From memory, the interest paid on a $5K account is 0.30% (less for lower amounts), but check to verify.
Many banks use DEVINIR back end brokerage that provides a list of mutual funds you can invest in. HSA Bank is just one of those (if you choose their fund option instead of TDAmeritrade). It's usually a moderately small list of funds, but all the funds are load waived. The list varies from bank to bank, but generally only around the edges (many of the same funds in most lists). One of note is First Eagle Overseas A (load waived). You can think of these fund lists as similar to 401K offerings - load waived, limited selection.
The Alliant list is significantly longer, though also limited. Of note there is that they offer a few Vanguard funds (#3).
Got to dash - will fill in more details on these and others as time (and internet access) permits.

Reply to @Maurice: HSAs survive. HDHPs are more questionable - I've seen the issue raised but no clear answers yet. (The problem IMHO is the min level of coverage required of all health plans, though current HDHPs already provide for preventive care w/o deductibles.)
Worst case - you can continue using (spending from) your HSA.

Reply to @Gary:
Hi Gary,
What you're describing sounds like a Flexible Saving Account, not an HSA. Unused contributions to an HSA can be carried over from year to year.

#4 looks like a good plan, with a lot of fees though. If I read this right basic cost is in excess of $ 79.00 per year. Is your unused remainder carried over?
My only option is a payroll deduction as signed up for at enrollment. My HSA account does not have any such options where I am employed. In fact if it is not used up in the plan year - that unused remainder is forfeited. If I left the job for other employment and had more funds in the HSA then medical bills they would also be forfeited. I try to figure savings close to actual needs.
Gary

I was researching this option and come across a number of ways to invest HSA contributions into mutual funds.
Mutual funds which will act as HSA custodians for direct investors:
Geier Funds
Toreador Funds
Huntington Funds
Mirzam Funds
IMS Capital
Appleseed Fund
The Bruce Fund
Sparrow Capital
Roosevelt Multi-Cap Fund
Other HSA Mutual Fund options:
1.TD Ameritrade Brokerage Through hsabank.com/HSABank/Accountholders.aspx HSA Bank
-you can link an hsabank account to a TD Ameritrade brokerage, allowing for fee-free ETF trading.
2.Saturna Capitalsaturna.com/
-Brokerage based, no monthly or annual fee
-No fees if you invest in their mutual funds (AMANX, AMAGX, AMDWX, SSGFX, SSIFX, SCORX, SGHIX, STBFX, SBIFX)
-Commissions for self-directed trading ~ $14.95 per trade
-Inactive fee after 1 year ($12.50 or $25 for mutual fund/brokerage account)
3.alliantcreditunion.org/depositsinvestments/healthsavings/ Alliant Credit Union
-Pays 0.7% APY (updated 6/17/13) on balances above $100,
25 free checks, debit card, no fees. Join the PTA (local or national) to qualify for membership.
$5.95/month to invest anything over $1000 into Mutual Funds
4.healthsavingsaccount-hsa.com/hsadministratorsfundslist.htm Health Savings Administrators, are 15 Vanguard® Funds
-Debit Card alternative - not connected with mutual fund account
-Available through Resource Bank-There are no deposit fees, no per check fees and no fee to close the account.
-Pays 1% APR if monthly balance is above $1000
-FDIC insured
-Monthly maintenance fee - $2
-Account setup fee $ 20.00
-Annual administrative fee-single account $ 35.00
-Annual administrative fee-family account $ 60.00
-Administrative fees are payable direct in advance.
-Mutial Fund customers (no debit card)
- Custodial fee .00125 per quarter, deducted from account balance

Reply to @msf: Thanks, msf, for the info.
I'm not eligible to open an HSA. One of the main requirements for HSA is to have a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) which I don't have. So I'm still looking for options to buy FDSAX without the load.

AMatMFO, meet detrick. Detrick, meet AMatMFO.
Detrick started a thread where he asked how to select among fund options he has in his HealthEquity HSA. One of those options is FDSAX (SunAmerica Focused Div Strategy). So that could give you a way to get FDSAX without a front end load (assuming this HSA waives the load, and assuming you have an HSA you could transfer there).

Detrick, meet AMatMFO. AMatMFO, meet detrick.
AMatMFO recently started a thread on a particular fund in your set of offerings - SunAmerica Focused Div Strategy (FDSAX). In this thread you'll find some positive comments about the fund that go beyond counting stars. So you might find that thread useful.
Conversely, the question there is how to purchase the fund without paying the front end load. Using an HSA account like this one (assuming the investor has an HSA account that could be transferred) might be an answer to the question.
One qualification - I can't tell for sure whether HealthEquity waives front end loads. What I can tell from looking at its fund list, is that not all loads are waived. Funds are often sold in multiple share classes, and if the share class you're looking at charges too much (technically, a 12b-1 fee in excess of 0.25%/year), it is considered a load fund. That extra charge can be used to pay the broker (or HealthEquity).
One of the funds sold in this HSA, PIMCO Real Return R (PRRRX), fits that description. So you need to look out for not only which funds you want, but whether you'd be paying too much for them by buying them here. (The PIMCO fund is available from pretty much any broker in a "D class" that charges 1/4% less - PRRDX.)

Thank you all for your feedback - its appreciated. I wasn't entirely wanting to discuss asset allocation or the ins-and-outs of HSAs in detail. Rather, I wanted to better understand how I could go about selecting a particular fund in a given asset class. Are there other threads that already cover this? If so - please point me to them! :) Are there some philosophies that folks here ascribe to?
For example, all 4 diversified emerging markets funds (RNWEX, DREGX, ODVNX, HEMZX) are Morningstar 5 star funds, but have different expense ratios, performance history, and net assets. And probably a lot of other things!
Are there some good methods to assess mutual funds that I could work with? Right now I feel like I am close to just picking something in the dark. As an example andrei mentions that ARTKX is one of the "best" international value funds. That's great! But why?
Thanks!

Since you are responsible for certain health cost I woud determine what that amount would be in a 1-3 year timeframe and allocate those dollars to conservative investments. As you spend down these health savings remember to reallocate so you always have a 1-3 year conservative allocation to access. If your HSA accumulates beyond these 1-3 year health needs than create a diversified portfolio with 1/2 US and 1/2 Foriegn.
Choices for 1-3 year (safe) money:
Cash = 20% at all times to meet deductibles and maintenance expenses.
MWTRX - 1st choice...excellent long term safe money position (70% of safe money)
CHTBX - 2nd
PFODX - 3rd
PRRRX - 4th, May help protect your safe money when rates (inflation) returns (10% of safe money)

Hi,
I have an HSA with HealthEquity and would appreciate any input/advice on the available funds they have. It seems that in many cases there are multiple mutual funds in a single asset class and I am trying to better understand how to compare and select one.

Category Symbol	Fund	Name
COMMODITIES BROAD BASKET	PCRDX	PIMCO COMMODITY REAL RET STRAT D
DIVERSIFIED EMERGING MKTS	RNWEX	AMERICAN FUNDS NEW WORLD R4
DIVERSIFIED EMERGING MKTS	DREGX	DRIEHAUS EMERGING MARKETS GROWTH
DIVERSIFIED EMERGING MKTS	ODVNX	OPPENHEIMER DEVELOPING MARKETS N
DIVERSIFIED EMERGING MKTS	HEMZX	VIRTUS EMRG MKTS OPPTY FD CL A
FOREIGN LARGE BLEND	ARTKX	ARTISAN INTERNATIONAL VALUE INVESTOR
FOREIGN LARGE BLEND	LISOX	LAZARD INTL STRATEGIC EQUITY OPEN
FOREIGN LARGE BLEND	OIDNX	OPPENHEIMER INTERNATIONAL DIVERSIFIED N
FOREIGN LARGE GROWTH	OIGAX	OPPENHEIMER INTERNATIONAL GROWTH A
FOREIGN LARGE VALUE	MINGX	MFS INTERNATIONAL VALUE R3
INFLATION-PROTECTED BOND	PRRRX	PIMCO REAL RETURN R
INTERMEDIATE-TERM BOND	CHTBX	ASTON/TCH FIXED INCOME N
INTERMEDIATE-TERM BOND	MWTRX	METROPOLITAN WEST TOTAL RETURN BOND M
INTERMEDIATE-TERM BOND	PIOBX	PIONEER BOND FUND CL A
INTERMEDIATE-TERM BOND	CMPIX	PRINCIPAL INCOME A
INTERMEDIATE-TERM BOND	PDBAX	PRUDENTIAL TOTAL RETURN BOND A
LARGE BLEND	SMGIX	COLUMBIA CONTRARIAN CORE Z
LARGE GROWTH	WCEYX	IVY CORE EQUITY Y
LARGE VALUE	IEDAX	ING LARGE CAP VALUE A
LARGE VALUE	LCEIX	INVESCO DIVERSIFIED DIVIDEND INVESTOR
LARGE VALUE	FDSAX	SUNAMERICA FOCUSED DIVIDEND STRATEGY A
MID-CAP BLEND	FEFAX	FIRST EAGLE FUND OF AMERICA CL A
MID-CAP GROWTH	NICSX	NICHOLAS
MID-CAP GROWTH	PEMGX	PRINCIPAL MIDCAP A
MID-CAP GROWTH	RYBHX	RYDEX S&P MIDCAP 400 PURE GROWTH H
MODERATE ALLOCATION	BALFX	AMERICAN FUNDS AMERICAN BALANCED F-1
NATURAL RESOURCES	FMFTX	FIDELITY ADVISOR MATERIALS T
NATURAL RESOURCES	ICBMX	ICON MATERIALS S
NATURAL RESOURCES	RYBAX	RYDEX BASIC MATERIALS ADV
REAL ESTATE	RRREX	DWS RREEF REAL ESTATE SECURITIES S
REAL ESTATE	FHETX	FIDELITY ADVISOR REAL ESTATE T
REAL ESTATE	PETDX	PIMCO REAL ESTATE REAL RETURN STRATEGY D
REAL ESTATE	HLPPX	REMS REAL ESTATE VALUE OPPORTUNITY P
SMALL GROWTH	SASMX	CLEARBRIDGE SMALL CAP GROWTH A
SMALL GROWTH	JGMRX	JANUS TRITON R
WORLD BOND	GOBAX	LEGG MASON BW GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES BD A
WORLD BOND	MGGBX	MANAGERS GLOBAL INCOME OPPORTUNITY
WORLD BOND	PFODX	PIMCO FOREIGN BOND (USD-HEDGED) D
WORLD BOND	GTRAX	PRUDENTIAL GLOBAL TOTAL RETURN A

Also, are there any thoughts on COLUMBIA CONTRARIAN CORE Z (SMGIX)? I had been using a Vanguard Fund, but it is being replaced with this.
Thanks!

Reply to @Charles:
Hi Charles,
Many thanks for reading both parts of my overly long submittal. I appreciate your patience, your kind words, and your question.
I am a much more committed buy-and-hold investor now than I was when I purchased my first stock position in the mid-1950s. I was never a rapid fire trader, but I definitely was more active in the past than I currently am. Mine has been an emerging investment philosophy, guided both by practical experience and extensive book readings. I even took a few formal courses.
I have tried both technical and fundamental techniques, have abandoned many of them, and have loosely and selectively adopted a few elements from both disciplines. So my approach is a mixed bag given the uncertain persistency of any of these market tools.
Probably the most significant lesson that I extracted from this long, and sometimes sorrowful , investment history is the wisdom that markets are mean reverting. The marketplace has a strong, compelling pull towards a regression-to-the-mean. All good things end abruptly, so constant vigilance and adaptability are cornerstones for investment survival. But too much activity also hurts performance, so a balance, that is likely different for each market participant, must be identified.
Predating the Peter Lynch method of choosing a stock by personally testing its acceptance and its products, my first stock encounter was Chock Full o’Nuts company after I observed its hugely successful outlets in New York city.
Initially I traded using the Magee and Edwards tome “Technical Analysis of Stock Trades” as a guiding template. Later, I discovered Benjamin Graham’s “Intelligent Investor” book and mutated into a fundamentals-based investor. I discarded many of the principles advocated by both texts, but did retain those that fit my own investment style. At this moment, I invest using a loose and limited mix from both these tool kits
For example, from a technical perspective, several times each month, I still examine the 200-day Indices moving averages to gauge market momentum. Things evolve. In the past, I used the charts constructed from daily price changes; today, I use charts made from monthly reporting frequency. There is statistically a discernable difference. The daily formulation gave far too many false signals.
For example, from a fundamental perspective, I examine Price-to-Earnings ratios to gauge overpriced or underpriced scenarios. I review market-wide profit projections.
From a macroeconomic perspective, I review absolute GDP levels and their growth rates. Demographic shifts, inflation forecasts, and interest rates also influence market returns. I examine the AAII Investor Sentiment Survey to assess the individual investor’s overall emotional feelings from a contrarian’s viewpoint.
I only explore these numbers several times per month. Excessive trading is hazardous to our wealth; excessive market examination is hazardous to our wealth and health.
I do not evaluate these data in any formulaic manner. I suspect that my approach is much fuzzier and less disciplined than many who contribute to the MFO Board. Precise quantification of financial terms can be very misleading and give a false sense of security if the inputs are not accurate, if the data changes in unpredictable whip-like fashion, or if the models are incomplete or entirely wrong-headed. Investment data and analyses suffer from all these deficiencies.
I did not venture into the mutual fund mire until the mid-1980s. My bible for that entry decision was Burton Malkiel’s classic “A Random Walk Down Wall Street”. Until that fateful tipping point my smallish portfolio was 100 % in stock holdings. That book dramatically altered my investment perceptions and style.
Since my Malkiel enlightenment, I have more or less consistently shifted my portfolio away from individual stocks and into mutual funds and ETFs. I sold my last stock position about 5 years ago.
Today, I would classify my investment philosophy as buy-and-hold, but not forever. I typically trade only once or twice a year with a goal to incrementally improve my portfolio by pruning some unwise earlier investments.
I never have personally participated in the sector rotation tactic; I allow my active mutual fund managers to perform that delicate task. I’m simply not well informed enough to play that sensitive game. Again and again those annual Periodic Tables of sector returns demonstrate the volatility and the unpredictability of sector rewards. I am surely not a qualified soothsayer in that arena; I’m not sure anyone else is either.
I do have a few long term market preferences, and my portfolio reflects those biases. I do practice broad portfolio holdings diversification, but I have also overweighed my positions in the health care and the real estate sectors. That’s just me and my special brand of prejudices; I do not necessarily recommend those extra positions for someone else’s portfolio with its specific time horizon, risk aversion, target allocations, and special set of preferences.
In summary, I deploy my small array of market signals to incrementally adjust my top-tier asset allocation mix of equity and fixed income holdings. I do not use these indicators to modify my next level of allocation classes. My modest list of indicators is not sufficiently precise enough to perform that more subtle, sorting task.
I hope this clarifies, but I’m somewhat dubious given the rather disorganized manner by which I make and enforce my investment decisions. In every military battle, plans are modified after the first shot is fired.
Best Wishes.

Since gold's high in August 2011 the price has declined in the vicinity of 30%. Silver has declined some 54% since its April 2011 high. Listening to all the sages today on CNBC and elsewhere I hear a lot about don't worry, be happy because prices will go back up to the highs. I was hearing the same rhetoric in mid-2000 after the NASDAQ had declined over 30% and we saw how that eventually ended. True, precious metals aren't stocks but the previous bear market in gold lasted 20 years and the last bear market in silver about as long. Respect price action and don't be clouded by your biases, be that gold, stocks, or any investing/trading vehicle.
Edit: Lumpy died today. We oldtimers fondly remember that TV character from Leave It To Beaver.
Edit: And yes I know, the NASDAQ was more of a bubble than maybe gold and silver at their highs but the point is, bear markets can last a lot longer than the soothsayers would lead you to believe.