I did some research. I googled for “high yield savings account” and “ING direct” and “HSBC Direct“. I followed promising links (and ads) from the search results. As of March 19th, here are the offers that I was able to find with minimal digging. All of these accounts are FDIC insured.

• Countrywide Bank offers a variable rate, from 4.00% to 5.40% APY, can link to other bank accounts. $1,000 minimum to open.
• AmTrust Direct offers 5.36% APY, “no monthly service fee or minimum balance fees”, can link to other bank accounts. $1000 minimum. This is a money market account.
• WT Direct offers 5.26% APY, no fees, can link to other bank accounts. No minimum to open, but your interest rate drops if you don’t have a $10,000 balance after 60 days.
• E-Loan offers 5.25% APY, no fees, “industry’s strictest privacy policy”. $5,000 minimum.
• Presidential Online Bank offers 5.25% APY, no fees, ATM access, web interface. $5,000 minimum to open.
• Emigrant Direct offers 5.05% APY, no fees, can link to other bank accounts, web interface. No minimum.
• E*Trade offers 5.05% APY, no fees, an automatic savings plan, can link to other bank accounts. $1 minimum to open.
• HSBC Direct offers 5.05% APY (with a temporary 6.00% APY promotion), no fees, can link to other bank accounts, web interface. $1 minimum to open. The HSBC web site is a busy mess.
• Capitol One offers 5.00% APY, no fees, free checks and ATM card, an automatic savings plan, can link to other bank accounts. $1 minimum to open. This is a money market account.
• Citibank Direct offers 4.65% APY, no fees, $25 sign-up bonus. No minimum.
• ING Direct offers 4.50% APY, no fees, an automatic savings plan, web interface. No minimum.

Given the scads of mutual funds out there, investors might be tempted to turn to the want ads rather than sort through heaps of funds in hopes of finding a good match. More often, befuddled investors depend on fund rankings to bring a cool empirical eye to their search. But those who invest solely based on rankings risk disappointment.

'Using historical top quartiles to predict top quartile performance is a bit like rolling the dice,' said Srikant Dash, an index strategist at Standard & Poor’s Corp. S&P found in a recent study that few funds that ranked among the top quarter or even top half of their peers managed to consistently maintain their performance.

In the past five years, only 13.2 percent of large-cap funds, 9.9 percent of mid-cap funds and 10 percent of small-cap funds were able to remain ranked among the top half of funds for the entire period.

The top 25 percent ranking proved even more daunting a challenge, with only 3 percent of large-cap and 2.5 percent of mid-cap funds staying in that zone for five straight years. Stats for small-cap funds were even more grim: None was able to hold onto a top 25 percent ranking for the entire period.

'The numbers are similar to what would happen if you just pick a fund randomly,'" Dash said.

In the video from TheStreet.com's "Wall Street Confidential" Webcast, Cramer boasts about manipulating the price of a high-flying stock down, and even acknowledges that doing so might have been illegal. The video is making the rounds on YouTube.

'A lot of times when I was short, I would create a level of activity beforehand that would drive the futures. . . . It's a fun game,' Cramer said in the Webcast, which was moderated by TheStreet.com Executive Editor Aaron Task.

Cramer later said that 'no one else in the world would ever admit that, but I don't care.'"

McGuigan was concerned when he read a Morningstar Inc. report this year, showing that the average investor in index funds actually captured just 79 percent of the return that they should have gained (so if the index was up 10 percent, the typical investor gained 7.9 percent).

Indexing is designed to be a buy-and-hold strategy. Yet numerous studies show that investors in all funds tend to earn less than the fund does, because they buy in after a fund has shown big gains and sell out when a fund hits rock bottom. McGuigan was surprised to see that indexers lagged their benchmarks by so much. He figured that a rapid indexer would know better than to jump around.

His conclusion is a simple equation, one that explains the real reason why many investors are better suited to actively managed funds regardless of the cost/turnover benefits of indexing:

Real investor returns = actual investment returns +/- investor behavior.

'The second part of the equation is so important, because investors constantly hurt themselves,' says McGuigan. 'So the important thing is that investors believe in what they are doing. If they believe in passive investing, they need to believe it enough to stick with it; if they believe they can pick better managers, they need to give those managers a chance.'

So the issue is not so much active versus passive - or a mix of the two - as it is: 'Which can you stick with when the going gets rough?'

No matter which type of fund you buy, declines are inevitable. But if you can pick a good performer, active or passive, and stick with it to get the same results that the fund actually delivers on paper, that's when you'll have a portfolio that has a real chance of helping you reach your financial goals.

Today, we'll take a closer look at three such laggards that we think continue to be superior offerings, as their proven long-term concepts and people remain in place and their outlook for future success is positive."

I am 26 and am staring an investment portfolio with $6,000. What do you think about Vanguard's Target Retirement 2045 Fund?"

Affluent investors say they're increasingly dissatisfied with their mutual funds' long-term performance and inconsistent returns.

In fact, only 11 of 38 top fund families managed to create meaningful customer loyalty, according to a new report released Wednesday by Cogent Research LLC.

The Cambridge, Mass.-based market researcher surveyed 4,000 wealthy mutual-fund investors. It specializes in conducting independent studies of markets such as financial services, health and consumer goods.

'The findings show it's difficult for fund companies to produce consistent returns that investors can be pleased with,' Chris Brown, managing director of Cogent, said.

But some do, he added. 'There's a small group of firms that has been able to generate sufficient long-term returns to build strong investor loyalty,' Brown said.

The study showed Vanguard Group with a wide lead over its rivals in terms of investor loyalty. 'Some firms might want to please advisers rather than the end-investor,' Brown said."

See if your holdings have earned their way to your personal "Big Dance." When you find a fund that is "on the bubble" -- meaning it's not an obvious choice to buy again today -- you'll have a "watch list" of funds that may, in time, deserve the boot.

The conference the fund plays in. In hoops, there are "power conferences" -- where a 6th-place team might make the tournament -- and "midmajor conferences," where only the tournament champion goes. In mutual funds, there are asset classes. Your search for a fund should start by deciding the type of assets you want to own.

Conference record. In basketball, it's important to be in the top half of your league. In mutual funds, it's about being consistently in the top half of the fund's peer group, and being in the top one-third over longer time periods.

Quality wins. This is the NCAA's way of saying that you beat good opponents, and a mutual fund's way of showing that it performed well in tough times.

Strength of schedule. In basketball, you want to play tough opponents rather than cupcakes. In mutual funds, it's not a bad idea to favor a fund that has results over a lot of time periods so that you can judge it based on everything from the last quarter to the last decade or more.

Power rankings. In basketball, this is the computer's attempt to suggest that one team is better than another; in mutual funds, it's star ratings, numerical rankings and more."