Thanks @fred495. I own ARBIX, VWIAX,FMSDX, and will check out NVHAX, JHQAX, RCTIX, and TSIIX.

@Fred TMSRX's have been low, but maximum draw down was only 4.7% during the past three years. One year return is 18% and three year return is 5.4%. Their goal, if I remember correctly, is to make 6% plus the rate of inflation over time.
For me, TMSRX fits in as a low risk fund that will not lose much and will make decent returns. It fits in between bonds and stocks. Below are the funds that I am researching now. During changes in market conditions they do better or worse. I look at mixing and matching to have a consistent performance over time.
CRAAX, TMSRX, FMSDX, CTFAX, ETIMX, GAVIX, MNBAX, RBBAX, VWIAX, VTINX

I used to spend Saturday morning reading Barron's and it was filled with lots of information. $12.50 per month is a reasonable for digital subscription. Will check again if I can get it on my iPad. I also subscribe to Apple News Plus for $10 per month and I get assess to many news publications. Some includes Barron's and Bloomberg, only give a few articles. I like to support many worthy news such as NPR.

Thanks for comment @Sven.
Sounds like some here manage portfolios exceeding 1-2 M. And I’d hazard a guess the vast majority are well into 6 figures. When managing that amount of $$, one need glean only a relatively small amount of market insight from a $10-$15 monthly subscription (to Barron’s or other publication) to make a meaningful difference in portfolio value over a year’s time frame.
*Amazon’s Barron’s Kindle Edition = $12.50 monthly.

FSRPX and FSMEX paid capital gains 4/9/21. I did finally see it posted on Fidelity's website. I'll check out M* thanks @DaveSch...good stuff...that worked:

@msf said,

You don't want more money in the HSAs than you can withdraw tax-free (not enough medical expenses). Keep the faster growing assets in the genuine Roth IRAs.

An HSA can be inherited by a spouse...maybe the term is rolled into a spouse's HSA when a spouse is the benficiary of an HSA. So maybe having a little extra for that purpose makes sense. Otherwise, an HSA used for non-medical purposes (after age 65), is treated much like a deferred IRA with no RMDs.

I found this very interesting and worth sharing.
...
https://theretirementmanifesto.com/your-bucket-strategy-questions-answered/

A good, common sense piece with a bit of substance to it. A few items there worth highlighting:
- Asset allocation. Rather than work with fixed percentages, the allocation is done by time: so many years in cash, so many years in bonds, and the remainder in equities. In his case, he came up with 63% (not 60%) in equities. He's actually got a pretty conservative cash (3 year) / bond (8 year) allocation. The cash/bond allocation lets you invest the remainder (however much that is) in equities without worrying about sequence of return risk, volatility "risk", etc.
- Annuities. He avoids the question of what bucket this income stream (or pensions, or SS) falls into. If one were targeting a particular asset allocation, then this question would matter. But because he's basing cash and bond allocations on how much extra income he needs, this question never arises.
He touches on annuity strategies, which seems beyond the scope of bucket strategies. But since he went there, it's worth reiterating that for many people, using retirement assets to defer SS until age 70 is the optimal strategy.
In a new paper summarized here, 401(k) assets would be used to automatically provide an income stream until age 70. A temporary life annuity can provide the same income stream while enhancing value with mortality credits. (The downside is that if you die before age 70, you don't get the full value of the temporary annuity.)
https://www.kitces.com/blog/understanding-the-role-of-mortality-credits-why-immediate-annuities-beat-bond-ladders-for-retirement-income/
- HSAs. He keeps his in cash, presumably to spend as expenses are incurred. For investing, he recommends bucket 3 (equities). My take is different - I suggest bucket 2.
HSAs are like Roth IRAs - withdrawals are tax-free - so long as one can pair them with past medical expenses. I would put my slower growing Roth-ish assets into HSAs to limit the risk that the HSAs grow too fast. You don't want more money in the HSAs than you can withdraw tax-free (not enough medical expenses). Keep the faster growing assets in the genuine Roth IRAs.

It's a bit early for the 2021 postings, but CHTTX posted huge gains on 3/25 of what pretty much sums up as a split.

FYI and FWIW, below are excerpts from a somewhat confusing, at least to me, recent M* Quantitative Analysis Report.
On the one hand, M* claims that HMEZX has "a weak portfolio-management team" but, on the other hand, it also states that a "sign of strength at Highland is its management team, which boasts an average asset-weighted tenure of 15 years at the firm. This accumulation of experience builds confidence that the group can navigate a variety of market environments adeptly." Which is it? What am I missing?
"NexPoint Merger Arbitrage Z earns a Morningstar Quantitative Rating of Negative because of negative contributors including a weak portfolio-management team and a questionable investment process. [...]
Despite the portfolio managers with industry-standard experience and its longest-tenured manager's experience, the team managing NexPoint Merger Arbitrage Fund has a considerable number of weaknesses, warranting a Low People Pillar rating. The team is led by James D. Dondero, the longest-tenured manager on the strategy, who brings 23 years of industry experience. They’re also the named manager on eight additional funds, a total of $1.30 billion in assets. The funds have an average Morningstar Rating of 2.3 stars, demonstrating disappointing risk-adjusted performance. The team is small, but adequately equipped, with only two other supporting managers. Together, the three boast an average of nine years in the industry. [...]
Highland has a way to go to become an industry-standard steward, resulting in a Low Parent Pillar rating. Highland products are costlier than similarly distributed funds at other highly-rated asset managers, on average in the second most expensive quintile of category peers. The higher expense profile contributes negatively to the firm's overall stewardship rating and creates a larger performance hurdle. The firm has not had a durable fund lineup. Specifically, its five-year risk-adjusted success ratio demonstrates that only 21% of products both survived and beat their respective category average on a risk-adjusted basis,. A low success ratio not only indicates poor performance but also raises flags about a firm’s discipline around investment strategy and product development. A sign of strength at Highland is its management team, which boasts an average asset-weighted tenure of 15 years at the firm. This accumulation of experience builds confidence that the group can navigate a variety of market environments adeptly.
Mar 22, 2021"

Ny times article
Incognito search
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/04/09/business/investing-oil-gas-fossil.amp.html
Why Investing in Fossil Fuels Is So Tricky
***Demand for oil and gas is rising, yet it is expected to decline in the future as the world responds to global warming. Where does that leave investors?
An oil pump in Loco Hills, New Mexico, in the Permian Basin, which also stretches into Texas. While energy prices have been rising lately, climate change may contribute to a reduction of long-term demand for oil.
An oil pump in Loco Hills, New Mexico, in the Permian Basin, which also stretches into Texas. While energy prices have been rising lately, climate change may contribute to a reduction of long-term demand for oil.Credit...Joel Angel Juarez for The New York Times
By Mark A. Stein
As concerns about climate change push the world economy toward a lower-carbon future, investing in oil may seem a risky bet. For the long term, that may be true.
Yet for the moment, at least, oil and gas prices appear likely to continue to rise as the economy recovers from the pandemic-driven shutdown of millions of businesses, big and small.
These countervailing trends — increasing demand now and falling demand at some point, perhaps in the not-too-distant future — create a dilemma for investors.
The good news is that an array of traditional mutual funds and exchange-traded funds are available to help them navigate these uncertain waters. Some funds focus on slices of the industry, such as extracting crude oil and gas from the ground or delivering refined products to consumers. Others focus on so-called integrated companies that do it all. Some spice their holdings with some exposure to wind, solar or other alternative energy sources.
While the range of options may seem intimidating at first glance, the variety is an advantage for investors because it offers many ways to diversify energy investments in the U.S. market, which is dominated by two integrated titans, Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
Still, investing in the oil and gas industry is not for everyone, especially these days. Some people object to putting money into the fossil fuel industry. Even if that isn’t an issue for you, energy has historically been a volatile industry, with astounding booms and devastating busts. Through March, the S&P Composite 1500 Energy Index rose 72 percent since the end of October, a period during which the Food and Drug Administration approved the first Covid-19 vaccine and President Biden’s election raised expectations of additional economic stimulus.***
Could be few yrs upward according to author

Not much good to be said for gambling (sports and otherwise). However, in small amounts ($5-$25 a wager) it’s a useful way to understand your psychology and how overconfidence or greed can destroy an asset base. The psychology is quite similar. Run up a nice profit over weeks or months. Do everything “right”. Winnings pile up. Than become supremely over confident on one single wager. Bet the farm. Keep doubling-down until the bitter end. Difference is amount. Small time betting you might lose $50-$75 in a night. With investing, you might lose your life savings or destroy an empire.
“Know when to hold up. Know when to fold up ...”

The fine is aimed at the monopoly practice that Alibaba is practicing, not the type of business. Alibaba must not discourage or block other BTB companies when offering the same products or services to the consumers. That is considered anti-competitive practices. There must be more details on Alibaba that the public have not seen.
In the past, Microsoft was fine multiple times in Europe and US when they tied the Windows operating system to the Internet Explorer browser while they are other third party browsers, i.e. Netscape and few others. Microsoft went as far as crippling third party browsers and making them inoperable. I personally like Firefox and later Goggle Chrome for their speed and connectivity. After the court ruling, Microsoft has to sell their OS with debundle browser and allow the consumer to choose their preferred browser. Today Windows 10 OS can run multiple browsers including their own new ones, Edge and Blue Edge.
More info:

Beijing wants Alibaba to stop requiring merchants to chose between doing business with it and rival platforms, a practice known as ‘merchant exclusivity’, which critics say helped it become China’s largest e-commerce operation.
Aside from imposing the fine, among the highest ever antitrust penalties globally, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) ordered Alibaba to make “thorough rectifications” to strengthen internal compliance and protect consumer rights.
“The required corrective measures will likely limit Alibaba’s revenue growth as a further expansion in market share will be constrained,” said Lina Choi, Senior Vice President at Moody’s Investors Service.
“Investments to retain merchants and upgrade products and services will also reduce its profit margins.”
SAMR said it had determined Alibaba, which is also listed in New York, had prevented its merchants from using other online e-commerce platforms since 2015.
The practice, which the SAMR has previously spelt out as illegal, violates China’s antimonopoly law by hindering the free circulation of goods and infringing on the business interests of merchants, the regulator said.
The probe comes as China bolsters SAMR with extra staff and a wider jurisdiction amid a crackdown on technology conglomerates, signalling a new era after years of laissez-faire approach.
The agency has taken aim recently at China’s large tech giants in particular, mirroring increased scrutiny of the sector in the United States and Europe.

https://reuters.com/article/us-china-alibaba/alibaba-shrugs-off-2-75-billion-antitrust-fine-shares-rally-idUSKBN2BZ01P
Alibaba's anti-trust practice is no differ than those practices used by Standard Oil and AT&T (MaBell) before the breakup into smaller business units.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-04-08/how-bill-hwang-of-archegos-capital-lost-20-billion-in-two-days
Before he lost it all—all $20 billion—Bill Hwang was the greatest trader you’d never heard of.
***Starting in 2013, he parlayed more than $200 million left over from his shuttered hedge fund into a mind-boggling fortune by betting on stocks. Had he folded his hand in early March and cashed in, Hwang, 57, would have stood out among the world’s billionaires. There are richer men and women, of course, but their money is mostly tied up in businesses, real estate, complex investments, sports teams, and artwork. Hwang’s $20 billion net worth was almost as liquid as a government stimulus check. And then, in two short days, it was gone.
The sudden implosion of Hwang’s Archegos Capital Management in late March is one of the most spectacular failures in modern financial history: No individual has lost so much money so quickly. At its peak, Hwang’s wealth briefly eclipsed $30 billion. It’s also a peculiar one. Unlike the Wall Street stars and Nobel laureates who ran Long-Term Capital Management, which famously blew up in 1998, Hwang was largely unknown outside a small circle: fellow churchgoers and former hedge fund colleagues, as well as a handful of bankers.***
Win big...loose big
Anyone came close w their portfolios?

har --- read the MFO discussions --- sober and well-reasoned warnings abound for month after month after month after month.
Studz must be shaking his head even more than the rest of us.
MFool articles about this, well, that hed of theirs must be what is called a standing hed.
Shiller p/e has become less meaningful, evidently, I mean forget its history, and is at 37 this weekend, and while I doubt it will stick at 40 for years, the dip strength and buying penchant are just consistently strong. SP500 is now strongly over 4100. Trivial for it to hit a hundred higher per Derf's BMO cite above, eventually, and not far off.
I think the year will end, if we are all really lucky, with it @ 3800. And many of us buying or having bought prior. And Shiller still really, really high.

I have been looking at Highland Capital Management with respect to their NexPoint Merger Arbitrage fund (HMEZX).
.......................
If anybody has more up to date information on the fund advisor's bankruptcy status, I would appreciate hearing from you.
But, buyer beware.
Fred

This is a great find, Fred. I was looking into this fund too, great pair with other funds when combined, tested in Portfoliovisualizer. However, now I'm hesitating to purchase this fund. Does anyone know if it is a good choice? It is on the list of GreatOwnls.

The stock market can't just go up forever. Per the Motley Fool's "A Stock Market Crash May Be Imminent" article (bold added by me).....
"Dating back 150 years, there have only been five instances where the S&P 500's Shiller price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio has surpassed and sustained 30. The Shiller P/E ratio measures average inflation-adjusted earnings from the previous 10 years and is also known as the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio, or CAPE. On April 6, the Shiller P/E ratio for the S&P 500 was nearly 36.7, which is well over double its historic average of 16.8.
Furthermore, in the previous four instances where the S&P 500's Shiller P/E hit 30, the index lost anywhere from 20% to as much as 89% of its value. Although we're unlikely to see Great Depression-like losses of 89% ever again, at least a 20% decline has been the recipe when valuations get extended."

I found this (excerpt below) on The Street.com
“When you buy gold and silver physically backed ETFs you do not own the physical metal, you own a paper representation. With respect to the gold ETFs, for every share you buy, you "own" one tenth of an ounce of gold; for silver, it's one ounce.The actual metal is stored by a custodian , usually one of the large banks like JPMorgan”
My take ... While the ETF investors didn’t own gold directly, it appears their shares of the gold ETF were backed by physical gold stored somewhere. Now ... for every ounce of gold sold from the ETFs there must have been someone else buying that ounce. I think JohnN’s speculation about smaller investors buying-up large quantities of gold in the form of bullion coins, etc. is accurate. Also, I think I’ve read somewhere recently that some central banks around the world are loading up.
Here Central Banks Add Over 8 Tons of Gold to Reserves in February
Point - The outflowing gold was actually just changing hands . I’m tempted to say it moved from weaker hands into stronger ones.
How much gold exists above ground? Here “The best estimates currently available suggest that around 201,296 tonnes of gold has been mined throughout history,”
(Note: Some types of gold ETFs own futures contracts rather than the metal. Not sure whether John’s article is including that type ETF in its reporting.)

Hahahaha. I love that skit of his....

Thanks @hank...great link. She likes the public markets verse the private and as we know these two markets can require further explanation:

Thanks @hank...great link. She likes the public markets verse the private and as we know these two markets can require further explanation:

@JohnN - Would you please explain where that gold flowed to? #@*&#!
Gold’s perked up in recent days. Near $1750 after dipping below $1700. Mining stocks have recovered. OPGSX, of which I own a bit, is almost back to break-even for the year. Encouraging after a poor start to ‘21.
Don’t try to read much into gold’s fluctuations. Its price swings mean little day to day or even week to week. Trends can quickly reverse in either direction. 4-5% one-day swings in mining funds occur. If you want to own, hold for the long term. Yes - you can try to time it, but very risky.
-
@bee - FWIW: One source I read (by subscription) has argued lately that “real” interest rates have actually been falling this year because the rate increases in bonds aren’t keeping up with inflation. I don’t know if that’s right or not - but it’s an interesting way of looking at the bigger picture.