@PBKCM: Given what Old_Skeet said above about unrealized gains and high turnover of your fund, do you have any idea what you'll be paying out in distributions for 2017? Thanks.

@hank: Very prescient comments about Verlander; two long balls give the Dodgers a 3-1 lead and someone else had to win the game. I watched JV with the Tigers as you did.

FYI: U.S. stock index futures are expected to begin Thursday's trade on a relatively flat note, as investors gear up for another slew of major corporate earnings
Regards,
Ted
U.S.: (MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-steady-after-selloff-as-deluge-of-major-tech-earnings-await-2017-10-26/print
U.S.: (CNBC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/26/us-earnings-fed-ecb-data-on-the-agenda-for-wall-street.html
U.S.:-Europe-Asia: (Bloomberg)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-25/stock-slide-to-extend-to-asia-on-earnings-jitters-markets-wrap
Europe: (Marketwatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/european-stocks-cling-to-small-gains-as-investors-brace-for-ecb-move-2017-10-26/print
Europe: (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets/euro-heads-higher-as-ecb-heads-for-the-exit-idUSKBN1CV024
Europe: (CNBC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/26/european-markets-focus-on-earnings-ecb-meeting.html
Asia: (MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/downbeat-market-mood-carries-over-to-asia-2017-10-25/print
Asia: (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/japan-stocks-close/japans-nikkei-gets-boost-from-earnings-but-kobe-steel-falls-idUSL4N1N12LI
Asia: (CNBC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/25/asia-markets-focus-on-corporate-earnings-releases-ecb-meeting-ahead.html
Current Futures: Negative
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Even though I invest directly with 5 different houses, I’m probably getting “Schwabbed” by at least 2 of them. The exceptions (hopefully) might be D&C, and perhaps Oakmark and TRP (but wouldn’t bet my life on the last 2).
Of course, if you talked to the fund managers they’d feed you the same old line often used to justify 12b1 distribution fees: It’s saving their shareholders money by attracting more assets to the fund and allowing economics of scale to prevail. (pure horse *****)

It's actually a lot more than that - per account fees, setup fees, etc. Here's Schwab's current disclosure statement:
NTF funds: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/no_transaction_fee_funds.html
TF funds: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/transaction_fee_funds.html
I believe Schwab (which was the first with NTF funds in 1992) started at 0.25%. See this Forbes article (0.25% in 1998). That actually made some sense for boutique firms that weren't servicing small accounts efficiently. It was sold as a win-win. With more and more tasks becoming better automated using fairly generic systems in the past two decades, the savings have gone down while the charges by the brokerages have gone up.

Thanks for posting those fees assessed by the brokerages. I've dug them up from time to time (each time they seem to be a smidgen higher than the last). I figure that the only way NTF funds can pay those shelf space fees are:
a) having direct investors who subsidize platform investors (so that the blended cost to the fund is 0.25% or less), or
b) adding some other fee (e.g. adding to management fee and then management pays the shortfall from the 12b-1 fee, or adding an administrative fee, ...) or
c) you're a major fund family that has negotiated a lower fee with one or more brokerages

I ignore Morningstar. But then, I ignore most “authority” figures.
Geez - What’s wrong with reading the Prospectus and the most recent Fund Report to see if you can live with the stated fees, have confidence in their investment approach, and desire to own the assets the fund holds?
Oh - Almost forgot: The Prospectus shows the fund’s returns for the past 10 years - which ought to prevent even the least circumspect of individuals from bumbling into something like HSGFX.

@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:

We are NTF and Schwab, Fidelity, TD etc.
By the way, it costs a ton of money to get on those platforms. The majors want 40 bps for shelf space on the NTF platforms. That eats the whole 12b1 and then some. And they want 10 bps for shelf space on their institutional transaction fee platforms.
LLJB - thanks for the note on ETrade. I'll have our distributor see about getting our institutional share class on their platform. If anyone else has any problems finding either share class, please let me know which broker and we'll get on it.

Also NTF at E*TRADE with the same $100 minimum, institutional class not available, which I only checked because sometimes the minimum is a lot lower than published and I'd rather pay a transaction fee than the 12b-1.

@Old_Skeet- NTF at Schwab / $100 minimum, fwiw.

Hello,
Although my above comment was brief ... I've done a little more kicking of the tires on the fund.
For me, I like this fund because it actively engages the market with a turnover ratio of 318%. In addition, it seems even with the fast trading (so-to-speak) it has been able to build unrealized gains inspite of frequently trading. I'm thinking this is because the flash crowd through electronic trading has shortened the holding period for stocks and this has filtered through to many dynmanic and adaptive funds. And, it's forward P/E Ratio is listed at 17.3 which indicates to me it also is looking for some value positions as well as those with momentum.
The fund reminds me a lot of Ivy Asset Strategy in its early days when I invested in it along with Marketfield. When these funds became bloated (from my perspective) they lost their ability to position rather timely in the ever changing markets. I'm thinking this fund still has some time to run before it becomes bloated. With this, I am looking for a spot somewhere in the growth area of my portfolio. But, inorder to do this something needs to go. By the way I no longer own Ivy Asset Strategy and Marketfield as (for me) they lost their luster.
The acid test ... I'd put some of my money to work in it right away if it was available for me to invest in through my broker's platform. Currently, it is not. So, that is something my broker neeeds to find a work around on and/or I could also split some money off to another shop where it can be bought.
So, with Morningstar's five stars (*****) for me it has earned them over the past twelve months. Now, let's just see if the fund can maintain this rating as money (no doubt) pours in as investors discover it. Anyway, I'm thinking it to be a good ride in the current up market and with its hedging strategies will fair better than most in a downdraft.
Old_Skeet

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" !

@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.

@MikeM,
I began contributing individually to an H.S.A (I'm retired & PT self employed) a few year ago. My first contribution was a one time rollover from my SD IRA account to the Bruce Fund (BRUFX). Its historical returns are pretty good:

Anyone interested can view the fund here:
M* link to BRUFX-
morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/BRUFX/quote.html
As I have mentioned in other posts the Bruce Fund is a old school experience using snail mail for contributions and withdrawals, but the fund does have a basic online account service for viewing your account and downloading forms. I use Bill Pay at my bank which has allowed me to make monthly contributions electronically so I do not have a problem there and I infrequently make withdrawal.
I instead, keep track of my medically eligible expenses on a spreadsheet, pay for these costs out of pocket during the year and then decide at the end of the year whether I need to make a withdrawal from my H.S.A to reimburse these expenses. If not, I keep these records for the next year. H.S.A can roll eligible reimbursements into the future which is not the case with other health savings plans.
Anyway, to your question (I hadn't forgot) Bruce Fund does not offer some other features that other H.S.A provider do such as an investment platform and a debit/savings account. So no debit card, no cash account. Every dollar is fully invested in the Bruce Fund and only the Bruce Fund. From the articles I attached i would consider Optum Bank which seem to have a $1/month fee (eaccess account) and offers some mutual funds on its investment platform that interest me.
https://optumbank.com/
Mutual Fund offerings through Optum Bank (need Adobe Flash to view):
https://optumbank.com/individuals-families/how-to-invest-with-hsas/mutual-funds.html
Again, fees and transaction costs are what I have been trying to avoid. Bruce charges $15 service fee and it fund ER. No transaction costs. I may roll over a portion of my Bruce H.S.A to Optum (you are not limited to how many providers you have H.S.A with) and see how that goes. Optum seems to work with employers who offer H.S.A to their employees, but individuals can hold accounts there as well. Finally, many Credit Unions offer the H.S.A (savings/debit accounts). So I may approach a local credit union and combine that with my Bruce H.S.A.
Hope that helps and it would be great to hear form others who may have other H.S.A experiences.

Hi @expatsp
You noted 2011 and yes this was the period, when in July, Standard and Poors downgraded the "quality rating" of U.S., etc. instruments.
'Course, as things turned out; one would have done well in the long term government holdings, yes?
Views of a few selected items related to this thread, for the 2011 year.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?KCMTX,SPY,IEF,EDV&l=610&r=862&O=011000

@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.

Well, so much for Game 1. Hank - I don't know much about Verlander's history, but I'm pulling for him.
Thanks for the kind words, Old_Skeet and LLJB.
And thanks for the feedback JoJo26, would like to explore why you feel that way.
MikeM2 - you raise an interesting question. Alternatives have fallen out of favor in this long-running bull market. Even if you look at glidepaths for target date funds, there is no consensus on whether alternatives should be included, and if so, how much to weigh them.
My hunch is that: 1) alternatives will be desirable to own in the next volatile market, 2) the next volatile market could last awhile, and 3) investors will generally be late to the party getting into alternatives.
Of course, "alternatives" can encompass a lot of different strategies, so I probably shouldn't generalize. At our firm, our aggressive clients are 100% invested in our mutual fund, while our moderate clients are 60% invested in our mutual fund, if that helps.