My "plan" is to buy FBIOX whenever the so-called slow-sto goes below 20 and turns around as per this chart http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=fbiox&p=D&yr=0&mn=6&dy=0&id=p08376940003 , an idea that is based on the logic supplied by this blog http://stockcharts.com/public/1107832 . basically, i'd be using an overbought / oversold indicator to DCA my way into the fund. historically, i'd be buying about 12 times a year, which would be just about right. who knows if i can stick to the plan, but it makes a kind of buy-low sense to me right at the moment.
In the meantime, I see nothing compelling about SHSAX whatsoever. Like many others, I do own a good bit of PRHSX.

Ted, FBIOX is "pure" biotech fund while prhsx and Shsax are more diversified health care funds which both have about 30% invested in biotech space and the rest spread among big pharma, medical device and research reagents/instruments areas. I personally use SHSAX and PRHSX as buy/hold funds and FBIOX as a trading vehicle.

Reply to @DavidMMP:
The numbers:

******* 1 yr 3 yr 5 yr 10 yr *****YTD
PRHSX 51.4***30.4***27.8***15.3******6.9
SHSAX 44.1***21.8***19.8***13.2 ******3.5
FBIOX 65.6***38.8***27***14.3******13.1
IBB 65.5***34.7***26.5***12.3******8.6

IBB: Industry Exposureas of 01/30/2014
Biotechnology 77.02%
Pharmaceuticals 15.82%
Life Sciences Tools & Services 7.09%
Health Care Equipment & Supplies 0.10%
(PRHSX is closed(WRONG), with the exception of existing holders or access through group plans.)
EDIT: I stand fully corrected per InformalEconomist's note below, PRHSX is open in spite of closed notations at some broker web sites.
If you hold SHSAX, hopefully it is load waived for the 5.75% upfront.
Take care,
Catch

prhsx and Shsax are better alternative to Fbiox if you want to get into hot biotech/health care area but worry about the huge run up of biotechs in the last two years.
Cancer immunology is red hot area in biotech space.

I established a hsa account with BRUFX at the start of 2014. Funded this with a one time transfer from a Tax Deferred IRA account. The Health Saving Account will distribute funds tax free for the purpose of paying health related expenses. As an individual over 55 years of age I was able to contribute (transfer) $4300 in 2014.
I am also setting up individual Roth conversion accounts for TY2014. I will have 5 small Roth accounts ($5-10K) and invest each account in a singular theme. Hopefuly one or more of these themes produce positive returns between Jan 2014 (account setup) and April 2015 (when taxes on the Roth conversion are due).
If the investment theme reaches my conversion period goal of "appreciating 'equal to or greater than' taxes due" (I am in the 15-20% tax bracket) than I will convert the account to permanent Roth status. If one or more themes fail to grow adequately I will recharacterize the accounts back to Self Directed IRA status.
One theme is PM Miners using USAGX / GDX / GDXJ. Another will be Japan-centric. A third will be Global Tech. A fourth will be Health Care related. The fifth will be invested according to a momentum based strategy.

Hi Guys,
Indeed, the equity markets have been double-digit generous to us so far this year. Given the historical December record boosted with the Santa Claus rally, I anticipate that these overly generous rewards will be slightly enhanced at year’s end. Regardless, it will be a memorable investor’s year.
Many respected market forecasters are becoming a bit more skeptical, some even pessimistic, about near-term prospects. Some of that skepticism is grounded in the belief that a few market indicators are shattering all-time high valuations or are crossing remarkable absolute even numbers. That numerical mysticism is sheer nonsense.
Remember that market gurus make successful forecasts slightly less than half the time. Since the markets can only go up or down, a fair coin toss would easily match the historical record of these unfortunate experts who are coerced into the realm of soothsayers.
It is not that these experts are not smart, well informed players; it is just that the Market is so complex with its unknown and non-linear feedback loops that accurate predicting is often compromised. That’s especially so when records and landmark numbers enter the emotional thought process.
These high-water mark numbers that seem to influence investors do not likely influence private business investment decisions. Eventually stock prices reflect business activity and profits. National landmark numbers are meaningless to business folks and entrepreneurs when they are making their investment decisions. So I’m more sanguine about market upcoming profits than the current band of dismal forecasters. I believe in making lemonade out of lemons.
What are the source lemons for my projection? The most fundamental factors that drive economic expansion are population growth rate and productivity growth rate. Demographics demonstrate the population aspects and GDP per capita growth data is a fair measure of productivity gain.
The US census data shows that our annual birth rate per woman hovers around the 2.1 value needed for population sustainability. With the entire world actively seeking to enter the USA, perpetual immigration augments a rising national population growth rate. Typically, that factor is responsible for one-third of our increasing prosperity.
The other accountable two-thirds is contributed by our productivity enhancements. As measured by our GDP per capita growth rate, recent data shows that the USA is delivering a GDP per capita growth rate in the plus 3 % neighborhood. That level is within the historical nominal range. Things aren’t great, but they aren’t so bad either.
Additionally, inflation seems under control, and Janet Yellen will work to keep it at those record lows. One fly in the ointment is that investor optimism is rising. I do not like that factor and consider it only a minor negative because sometimes the mob is on target and displays their “Wisdom of the Crowds”. This just might be one such instance.
In any case, I’ll take the optimistic side of the coin toss. I choose to make lemonade from lemons.
However, as the year ends, I’ll take my mandatory minimum withdrawals from my IRAs. I will make all those withdrawals from the equity parts of my portfolio. It is not that I fear a market meltdown, but my primary consideration is a rebalancing action. That segment of my portfolios has risen to a somewhat troublesome fraction. I remain a conservative, long time horizon investor.
I’m sure all this detail is more than you ever wanted to know. But some of the thoughts here might serve to guide or trigger your year end portfolio adjustments and reallocations. Have a Happy Holiday season everyone.
Best Wishes.

That's a good point about inheritance treatment...I hadn't considered that because I'm young and don't currently have any heirs, but my point was simply that debit or checking features should not generally be desirable for HSAs because, during one's lifetime, HSAs are basically just a kind of super IRA with which one can minimize taxes by avoiding withdrawals and contributing to in lieu of taxable accounts or other kinds of IRAs.
But you are right that when comparing withdrawals from a Roth IRAs vs HSAs specifically, the tax penalty incurred by the owner is equal between the two because there is no tax on withdrawal from either and the size of the tax shelter is equally reduced in both cases which leaves only secondary considerations like the tax burden on heirs to differentiate. So although it is better tax-wise for the owner to:
-contribute to an HSA instead of any other kind of IRA or any taxable account
-withdraw from taxable accounts instead of any kind of HSA or IRA
-withdraw from an HSA or Roth IRA instead of a Traditional IRA
, withdrawing from an HSA instead of a Roth IRA is worse for heirs even though it is neither better nor worse for the owner.
So upon consideration of secondary factors, HSAs are not universally superior to IRAs as I previously thought, but I think the point still remains that debit or checking features to aid in frequent withdrawals would not be a valuable for most prudent HSA usage just as they are not for IRAs.

Reply to @BannedfromBogleheads:
#1. Aren't HSA contributions tax deductible going in?
Also, why would it be more beneficial to "raid your Roth" to pay medical expenses? A spouse can roll over an inherited HSA tax free, but a non-spouse (kids) have to take a full distribution and this distribution is considered income. Conversely, kids can spread out the distributions of an inherited Roth IRA over their lifetime tax free.
If you have kids as beneficairies the Roth account seem like the one not to raid.

Reply to @bee:
Neither BRUFX nor Saturna Brokerage are good custodians for using your HSA to pay medical expenses directly as neither offer debit card or checking features, but that's not a problem if you're making the most of your HSA because it's not to your advantage to be making direct payments from an HSA anyway because reimbursing yourself for medical expenses is also a qualified withdrawal and there is no time limit for doing this; The longer you wait to withdraw the more your investments compound tax free, so:
1. I strongly feel that HSA owners should make it their highest priority to take no distributions until retirement or beyond because HSAs are the best tax shelter around: no tax going in, no tax on returns, and no tax going out...so if you can't afford to pay your medical bills with taxable savings then raid your Roth if you have to but LEAVE THAT HSA ALONE.
2. I'm also of the opinion that, even when interest rates are high, cash portfolio allocations should NOT be located in tax shelters as is sometimes advocated with the argument that one can withdraw from riskier, more tax-efficient investments in taxable accounts and rebalance in the tax shelter. If you know you'll always be able to withdraw from the riskier investments without running out then that means you're not at risk and you don't need a cash allocation, but if you do in fact need a cash allocation then it needs to be where you can spend it without any dubious predictions about the ability to rebalance. Additionally, (not to mention that cash yields are currently extremely low) to minimize tax bill you need to consider which investments maximize all future cash flows with compounding and that's not necessarily going to be the investments which have lower tax efficiency in any single isolated year.
P.S. Yeah BRUFX doesn't allow online transactions, but IMO that's exactly why they have a liquidity edge vs other mutual funds. If you don't need daily liquidity then why would you invest in funds which pay a premium in the market to get it?

Just spoke with a Bruce fund representative...using the Bruce fund requires mail in requests for withdrawals and deposits...no online transactions. There is no "debit card" option for making medical payments as part of your account with Bruce making it a little more complicated paying for medical expenses. Other HSAs offer an "HSA checking" account and a debit card. Finally, HSA funds are always fully invested with Bruce...no cash position.

Reply to @BannedfromBogleheads: Thanks BFB, I was in the process of setting up an account before year's end.
Also, For those that are eligible to fund a HSA account funding is tax deductible. Qualified withdrawals from the HSA are tax free. Also, a one time trustee to trustee transfer can be made from a traditional IRA to a HSA which, once in the HSA account, can be withdrawn tax free when used for qualified medical costs.
kiplinger.com/article/insurance/T027-C001-S003-rules-for-ira-to-hsa-rollovers.html

Also The Bruce Fund (BRUFX) is a fund that's available for direct purchase only (ie not through brokerages) and they charge the same custodial fee for HSAs as they do for IRAs (which is the $15/year that I believe all IRA custodians must pay to the IRS even though most are willing to subsidize it). So if you're interested in their management (which has an excellent track record and is the only microcap balanced fund I'm aware of), their HSA is a relatively good value and they even told me I could pay the custodial fee with outside funds if I wanted.
So unless other custodians start lowering their fees, I personally wouldn't consider any except either Saturna Brokerage or The Bruce Fund. Although given my ringing endorsement I feel I should disclose that I do not have a position in the Bruce Fund, but that might change if bond rates keep rising and if Obamacare somehow allows me to become HSA contribution eligible again.
EDIT: fixed ticker to BRUFX

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.