True, but you don't have to look too far to find they've all had dirt on their hands at one point:
https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bank-of-america-too-crooked-to-fail-232177/
https://nytimes.com/2017/03/30/business/dealbook/new-firms-catching-up-to-banks-in-foreclosure-rankings.html
The question is which is the cleanest now and which is the dirtiest and which will be the cleanest tomorrow and five years from now and which will be the dirtiest? This will weigh on these banks not just from an ethical perspective, but on their future returns. The other question to ask is which ESG mutual fund will be the first to pick up on potential malfeasance? Since this is a MF site and you are obviously unhappy with PRBLX, which ESG fund do you think will do a better job at catching and reacting to this sort of thing? I guess what I'm thinking is that PRBLX is at least trying to do the right thing. The fact that it failed to do so in a timely fashion is a black eye, but I wonder which ESG funds get it right on financial stocks?

“Individuals make decisions every day with their emotions assisting their judgment. It is part of who we are as human beings. Unfortunately making emotional decisions can be a detriment in the investing world. Individual investors who let their emotions guide them have a much harder time investing than people who have found ways to master their emotional decision making. Some investors try to master their emotional involvement by using a rules-based system, others use computers to make the decisions for them, and still others invest in indexes through ETFs or mutual funds. There are many ways to remove the emotional component from investing, but most investors don’t realize that their emotions are the problem. You can read my post about fear and greed investing or investing is not gambling to learn more.”
The link MJG posted is an advertisement for Investment Advisory Group. The writer’s name is Kirk Chisholm. He’s employed by Investment Advisory Group. I’ve noted the qualifications he provided at bottom. No accredited instructions or degrees are listed. No reference to specialized training in either finance or psychology is indicated.
(1) Correlative statistics: The writer cites statistics showing a correlation between poor investment outcomes and frequency of trading (higher trading being associated with poorer performance). I dont think many would doubt that correlation. It’s pretty widely accepted.
(2) Assumptions The writer makes numerous assumptions about the psychology of different investors which (presumably) led to some engaging in higher than average trading. What are the writer’s qualifications re human psychology? It’s a big leap to go from the correlation between trading frequency and performance to the particular psychology which led to that. At that point you’re likely delving into problems like compulsive personalities, low educational attainment, delusional thinking - and quite possibly substance abuse, gambling addiction and dysfunctional families. I don’t know what leads some investors to trade so frequently. I don’t think the author knows either. I’d suggest the he and his firm stick to dispensing investment advice.
(3) Causal relationship - I don’t think he’s demonstrated that convincingly. It is equally possible that those who trade frequently are poor money managers to begin with and would still have found a way to lose money in the markets. Their heightened trading activity might be more a consequence of more serious underlying issues (including financial) rather than the cause of their predicament. So, was the frequent trading the cause of their problem or was it the result of other problems?
Author: Kirk Chisholm is a Wealth Manager and Principal at Innovative Advisory Group (IAG). His roles at IAG are co-chair of the Investment Committee and Head of the Traditional Investment Risk Management Group. His background and areas of focus are portfolio management and investment analysis in both the traditional and non-traditional investment markets.
-
I liked this thread in general. To me it does not appear to be about frequent trading. I suspect Old Skeet was more interested in that 2, 3 or 5% of an investor’s decisions based on strong conviction for / against a particular opportunity. “Doubling down” is a treacherous path to making money which nearly everyone has previously noted. “Cut and run” references selling a bad investment or fund. If you’ve invested for more than 50 years without ever making a bad investment (one you needed to sell) you are indeed fortunate.

I doubled and tripled down on a bunch of financial stocks during the GFC (RDN and AXP mostly), made a lot of money and thought I was smart. Then I tried the same with a couple of energy and mining stocks a few years back. With one (BBL) I lost my guts and sold at pretty much the exact bottom (it's since recovered nicely) the other (TDW) I bravely held on all the way to bankruptcy.
Adding the two experiences together I broke even, more or less. I consider myself lucky to have done no worse and will never try it again.

FYI: Betterment unveiled its automated investing service in 2010. Within a few years, “robo-advisors” were threatening to upend financial services the way that Amazon.com undid retail. Sophisticated algorithms, the promise went, could provide customized portfolios to the masses, at a quarter of the price charged by human advisors.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-top-robo-advisors-an-exclusive-ranking-1532740937?mod=hp_highlight_2

@ Crash: Any thought of a part time job ?
Derf

I

might be open to the idea. My background, though, is not suited for ANYTHING. EVERYWHERE I apply--- literally--- the employer will wonder what the hell I'm doing there, and choose someone else. That's happened time and time and time again, already. And the way things work these days... Well, I'd not put up with it: squeezing the employee for EVERY MOMENT of time. Surveillance of the employee with technology. I'd much rather go with the alternative, which is to come up with the money we'll need through HER job, plus investment income and SS and pension. And the fact that I'm 64 only adds to my predilection for NOT putting up with bullshit, nonsense and lousy bosses. So, how long would I last at the job, eh?

If this is truly true (forget surveillance stuff) and good-faith efforts and not always self-sabotaging vibes ('thanks, we totally get your opposite-of-eager message'), then yeah, absolutely, not worth your time or effort to continue, not one iota. Only real-world super-intense financial pressures would effect a change, and for many people even that is not enough, nothing is, unlike past centuries.

@davidrmoran Goldman Sachs link about the crash right above those Nazi examples and I am not comparing anyone to Hitler. So not quite Godwin. :-) I am merely trying to show what the worst example of corporate behavior can be and asking how long before consumers/investors can forgive and move on if the company changes. I largely forgive these companies for their involvement, although I do think they should make restituion to families if they haven't. Still, neither Allianz nor Deutsche Bank nor IBM in any way really resemble those companies back then in their corporate behavior today. So, in some sense it's the opposite of Godwin. I'm saying they are now OK.
Regarding how to punish, for one, stop treating corporations as "people" and hold executives and boards actually accountible by throwing them in jail and fining them immense sums. Also, no more white collar country club jails for these people either. Hardcore old fashioned jail. Also, fine the companies immense sums and insist they clean house of those commiting the bad behavior with no cushy bonuses for departing execs. Finally, regulators should insist upon proof of structural changes to end the bad behavior. WFC's behavior was in some part due to a bad incentive system. Getting rid of those incentives is legitimately a step in the right direction.
To me what the Federal Reserve did to WFC is a good sign that the company will behave better in the future. I am actually more skeptical than you in assuming that other financial institutions aren't really better behaved than WFC. WFC just got caught and having been caught, they will now behave better than their peers until they prove themselves again, regulators relax and then they will start behaving badly again--a cycle of misconduct.

@davidrmoran
Two strolls down memory lane:
https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-195229/
https://som.yale.edu/blog/the-nazi-corporate-connection-facing-the-ethical-challenges-of-business-head-on
Since unlike our Supreme Court I don't believe corporations are people, there is an interesting question as to how long a company's image should be tarnished for its misdeeds, especially when different people are in charge or different policies are in place than when the company behaved badly. An excerpt from the article on the really bad historical actors a long time ago:

Business played an essential role in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. IG Farben (Bayer's predecessor) supplied the patent for deadly chemicals used to exterminate millions of Jews. Financial institutions like Allianz and Deutsche Bank meticulously transferred Jewish assets to German hands. Technology developed by IBM tracked and managed the "evacuation" of Jews across Europe. The hair of Jews who were gassed and burned to ash was sold in bulk to textile manufacturers.

This paragraph actually understates what Allianz did by the way. It was actually far worse:
https://nytimes.com/1998/05/18/world/insurers-swindled-jews-nazi-files-show.html
Yet I wouldn't necessarily hold that against Allianz funds or Pimco today. The question I think with analyzing companies for socially responsible criteria is what are they doing now and going forward? But maybe you are right in that it's too soon to forgive WFC and they need to prove themselves truly reformed.

As I said, I don't trust the financial sector very much and have *very* little exposure to them for that very reason.

Sorry in advance for playing devil's advocate, but does anyone here who remembers 2008 really think that WFC's behavior is so much worse than any other major bank? Or if you go back further in history, what bank or insurer really has completely clean hands ethically? Back in 2008 WFC was presented as heroic for not getting overinvolved with subprime. Today they're the bad guy. Excuse my cynicism, but I actually think now is the time to own Wells Fargo, even from an ethical perspective. The reason is since they got caught more than once for behaving egregiously they are actively trying to improve their reputation. This sort of pattern of bad behavior by the leading financial institutions in capitalism is cyclical and actually I think an indicator of where we are in the broader economic cycle. Inevitably banks start behaving crappily the futher we get into a bull market as regulators and investors turn a blind eye and the competition for ever expanding profits, revenues and share prices increases. But once the banks get caught--with their proverbial hands in the cookie jars--they are chastened for a while and start behaving better, especially after regulators step in. Then the cycle starts all over again. So Wells Fargo is the latest bad actor to be caught and is now finally chastened and trying to improve. Meanwhile, another shoe will drop at some other financial institution soon and people will hate on that bank instead. Some socially conscious funds of particularly an Islamic bent don't own any banks or money lenders at all. If one is concerned about them behaving badly, that might be the best option. Because inevitably they all usually end up ripping people off in some fashion or another.

Sound exciting and lots of planning (number crunching as well). Do you have a financial planner you trust and work with in AZ? Someone who are fee-based advisor, not asset-based. Perhaps other on the board can chime in. Remember BobC who wrote extensively on this topic. Few discussion on financial planners from the past.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/92389/#Comment_92389

Umm ... What aspect of a portfolio?
I’m reminded of Patrick Henry’s “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided”. That is that I want to be as disconnected from the major indexes as possible. I take roughly 30 seconds most weekdays to pull-up my financial app and compare my portfolio’s daily change with some other barometers. Up / down matters little. What I want (at 20+ years into retirement) is low volatility. Friday was a pretty typical day. My portfolio lost 0.03%. (That’s a bit overstated because it doesn’t include interest/dividends which accrue daily on many holdings.).
Some other baramoters Friday:
TRBCX -1.13%
KCMTX -0.96%
DSENX -0.68%
VFINX -0.66%
TRRIX -0.06%
Split Benchmark* +0.01%
* My combined split benchmark = 50% TRRIX and 50% RPSIX
Readers will note from the benchmark that aspirations for growth are very subdued. Hey - I’m 72 and have already lived longer than I deserved based on earlier lifestyle. Why push the envelope and reach for return?
I use a great (subscription based) app from Apple. Takes one-click and 30 seconds (or less) to view the relative daily volatility. Aside from that one measure, I could care less. Might spot-check YTD (at Lipper) on 5 or 6 funds once every month or so - purely out of curiosity.
Disclaimer: I am not qualified to give investment advice. I make no recommendations to others. One size does not fit all.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/313212/000031321218000073/emsstatsticker72718-20183.htm
497 1 emsstatsticker72718-20183.htm
T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Stock Fund
Supplement to Prospectus Dated March 1, 2018
Effective September 4, 2018, the T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Stock Fund will close to new investors. Accordingly, the prospectus is supplemented as follows.
Under “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” on page 6, the following is added:
Effective at the close of the New York Stock Exchange on Tuesday, September 4, 2018, the fund will close to new investors and new accounts, subject to certain exceptions. Investors who already hold shares of the fund at the close of business on September 4, 2018 may continue to purchase additional shares.
On page 11, the information under “More Information About the Fund’s Principal Investment Strategies and Its Risks” is supplemented as follows:
Subject to certain exceptions, the fund will close to new investors and will no longer accept new accounts after the close of the New York Stock Exchange (normally 4 p.m. ET) on Tuesday, September 4, 2018.
After September 4, 2018, purchases will be permitted for participants in an employer-sponsored retirement plan where the fund already serves as an investment option. Additional purchases are permitted for an investor who already holds fund shares in an account directly with T. Rowe Price on September 4, 2018; however, purchases will be limited to that account and the investor may not open another account in the fund. Additional purchases will generally be permitted if you already hold the fund through a financial intermediary on September 4, 2018; however, you should check with the financial intermediary to confirm your eligibility to continue purchasing shares of the fund.
After September 4, 2018, investors will continue to be able to convert from one share class of the fund to a different share class of the fund, provided the investor meets the eligibility criteria for the new share class. New T. Rowe Price IRAs in the fund may be opened only through a direct rollover from an employer-sponsored retirement plan. If permitted by T. Rowe Price, the fund may also be purchased by new investors in intermediary wrap, asset allocation, and other advisory programs when the fund is an existing investment in the intermediary’s program.
The fund’s closure to new investor accounts does not restrict existing shareholders from redeeming shares of the fund. However, any shareholders who redeem all shares of the fund after September 4, 2018, will not be permitted to re-establish the account and purchase shares until the fund is reopened to new investors. Transferring ownership to another party or changing an account registration may restrict the ability to purchase additional shares after the close of the New York Stock Exchange on September 4, 2018.
The fund reserves the right, when in the judgment of T. Rowe Price it is not adverse to the fund’s interests, to permit certain types of investors to open new accounts in the fund, to impose further restrictions, or to close the fund to any additional investments, all without prior notice.
The date of this supplement is July 26, 2018.
F111-041 7/26/18
Institutional fund version closing:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/852254/000085225418000044/iemstatsticker72718-20184.htm

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/874964/000093041318002333/c91708_497.htm
497 1 c91708_497.htm
THE LAZARD FUNDS, INC.
Lazard US Realty Income Portfolio
Supplement to Current Summary Prospectus and Prospectus
The Board of Directors of The Lazard Funds, Inc. (the "Fund") has approved, subject to shareholder approval, a Plan of Reorganization (the "Plan") with respect to Lazard US Realty Income Portfolio (the "Acquired Portfolio") and Lazard US Realty Equity Portfolio (the "Acquiring Portfolio"), each a series of the Fund. The Plan provides for the transfer of the Acquired Portfolio's assets to the Acquiring Portfolio in a tax-free exchange for shares of the Acquiring Portfolio and the assumption by the Acquiring Portfolio of the Acquired Portfolio's stated liabilities, the distribution of such shares of the Acquiring Portfolio to Acquired Portfolio shareholders and the subsequent termination of the Acquired Portfolio (the "Reorganization").
Shareholders of the Acquired Portfolio as of March 29, 2018 (the "Record Date") will be asked to approve the Plan on behalf of the Acquired Portfolio at an adjourned special meeting of shareholders scheduled to be held on July 27, 2018 (the "Meeting"). Currently, preliminary voting results indicate that sufficient affirmative votes have been received to approve the Plan on behalf of the Acquired Portfolio, although shareholders still may vote, or change previously-submitted votes, through the time of the Meeting so that the preliminary voting results remain subject to change between the date hereof and the date of the Meeting. These preliminary voting results also remain subject to confirmation by Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., the Acquired Portfolio's proxy voting tabulator. If the Plan is approved at the Meeting, the Reorganization currently is anticipated to become effective on or about August 17, 2018 (the "Closing Date").
In anticipation of the Reorganization, effective March 2, 2018 (the "Sales Discontinuance Date"), the Acquired Portfolio was closed to any investments for new accounts, although shareholders of the Acquired Portfolio as of the Sales Discontinuance Date may continue to make additional purchases and to reinvest dividends and capital gains into their existing Acquired Portfolio accounts up until the Closing Date.
A Prospectus/Proxy Statement with respect to the proposed Reorganization was mailed to Acquired Portfolio shareholders as of the Record Date. The Prospectus/Proxy Statement describes the Acquiring Portfolio and other matters relevant to the Reorganization. Acquired Portfolio shareholders may obtain a free copy of the Prospectus/Proxy Statement at www.lazardassetmanagement.com/docs/-m0-/67038/LazardUSRealtyIncomePortfolioProxyStatement.pdf or by calling (800) 823-6300.
Dated: July 25, 2018

Hi Guys,
Year after year for many decades now, study after study have reinforced a very consistent finding: active trading is a loser's game. Here is a Link to one of these research findings:
https://www.umass.edu/preferen/You Must Read This/Barber-Odean 2011.pdf
You need not read the entire article. The summary paragraph paints the predictable dismal outcome for most individual investors:
"This research documents that individual investors (1) underperform standard benchmarks (e.g., a low cost index fund), (2) sell winning investments while holding losing investments (the “disposition effect”), (3) are heavily influenced by limited attention and past return performance in their purchase decisions, (4) engage in naïve reinforcement learning by repeating past behaviors that coincided with pleasure while avoiding past behaviors that generated pain, and (5) tend to hold undiversified stock portfolios. These behaviors deleteriously affect the financial well being of individual investors."
Wow!! All bad outcomes for the investor who trades frequently. There's an easy lesson from these data that is all to frequently ignored. Too, too bad.
Best Wishes

Sorry did not intend any problems. Will refrain from any Questions except financial.
Thanks
circa33

At one time MarketWatch was a pretty decent source for financial information and perspective. It's my feeling that in the last few years it has deteriorated to basically a lot of clickbait crap.

"Angie O’Leary is the head of wealth planning at RBC Wealth Management, U.S."
OMG.
O'Leary: "he rule uses a portfolio assumption of 60% stocks and 40% bonds."
Bengen (actual paper): "portfolios consisting of 50-percent intermediate-term Treasury notes and 50-percent common stocks (an arbitrary asset allocation chosen for purposes of illustration)"
---
O'Leary: "would create a paycheck that lasted for 30 years"
Bengen: "In no past case has it caused a portfolio to be exhausted before 33 years"
(from this Bengen concluded that if all you needed was 30 years, 4% would work)
---
O'Leary: " modern times require a more dynamic approach to the 4% rule"
Bengen (not so modern times, I guess): "Let us consider first the case where there is a change in the client's goals. ..."
---
O'Leary: "Now ..., experts recognize that this simple rule of thumb needs some modernization. "
Just now? The "rule" has been analyzed, critiqued, modified, qualified, etc. since the day it was published. For solid, substantial yet reasonably readable and moderately short "modernization", from six years ago, here's
Vanguard, Revisiting the ‘4% spending rule’    https://www.vanguard.com/pdf/s325.pdf
O'Leary expresses concern that "Historical [nominal] bond returns for this period were close to 5%, well below what can be expected today." Vanguard somewhat dismisses this concern:

Vanguard believes it’s important for investors to consider real-return expectations when constructing portfolios, since today’s low stock dividend yields and U.S. Treasury bond yields are, in part, associated with lower expected inflation today than 20 or 30 years ago. [Vanguard projects a 50/50 portfolio to be in the 3.0%-4.5% real-return range]. Although this level is moderately below the actual average real return of 5.0% for the same portfolio since 1926, it potentially offers support for the continued feasibility of a 4% inflation-adjusted withdrawal program as a starting point.

While I'm not as confident as Vanguard, their point is well taken - just because nominal returns are not expected to be as high as in the past doesn't mean that real returns won't be in the same ballpark.
O'Leary isn't providing information, just bullet points, points which experts are not "now" recognizing, but have been looking at for decades.
Here's Bengen's original paper, published in the Journal of Financial Planning, not written as piece for Marketwatch:
http://www.retailinvestor.org/pdf/Bengen1.pdf

FYI: ( Just a rule of thumb, I'm sure MJG will comment on this subject.)
n 1994, financial adviser William Bengen introduced the concept of the 4% rule, which found that retirees who withdrew 4% of their retirement portfolio balance, and then adjusted that dollar amount for inflation each year thereafter, would create a paycheck that lasted for 30 years.
Now 20 years out from the publication of Bengen’s study, experts recognize that this simple rule of thumb needs some modernization.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-4-rule-desperately-needs-to-be-modernized-2018-07-20/print

A current article in The Wall Street Journal is reporting that "Many bonds around the globe are becoming harder to trade, prompting some investors to shift to other markets and raising concerns about a broad decline in liquidity."
"Liquidity, a measure of the capacity to trade securities without significantly affecting the price, has been a growing concern since the financial crisis. Traders say it has generally weakened across markets including stocks, bonds and commodities as the large banks that once kept these markets running have pulled back in response to limits on their risk-taking.
Recent episodes of extreme market stress in Italy and emerging markets have highlighted just how quickly trading conditions can deteriorate, exacerbating concerns that markets are becoming more vulnerable to a shock as central banks slow the stimulus they have supplied for a decade."

FYI: Money-market fund returns and other cash equivalents haven’t looked this attractive since before the global financial crisis.
That has some investors rediscovering the once popular destination for parking money during times of uncertainty, especially now with equities flirting with record highs and the Federal Reserve committed to raising short-term interest rates even more. No greater authority than BlackRock Inc.’s Larry Fink pointed out during a Bloomberg Television interview that cash equivalents are an attractive place to camp out.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/-old-guys-in-florida--likely-to-ponder-if-cash-is-still-trash-39853.html?print