LINK 2
FUNDS. Mid-cap growth JAENX follows the GARP strategy. Its portfolio includes 26% techs, 24% industrials (reshoring themes), healthcare, growth utilities (renewables, grid improvements). (By @lewisbraham at MFO) (Also, a strange placement near the end of the issue)
EXTRA, FUNDS. With the NAMES-RULE, the SEC has cracked down on misleading fund names. Funds must invest 80% of the assets according to what is in their names, e.g. growth, value, big-data, green, AI, etc. When terms are vague, funds must define them along with applicable criteria in their prospectuses and those will become part of funds’ official investment policy. Fund firms with $1+ billion AUM will have 12 months to comply, smaller firms 18 months. Future flexibility will only be during fund launches when it takes some time to build portfolios, but beyond that, any deviations must be fixed within 90 days.
INCOME. As bond-proxies, UTILITIES (XLU, the worst among 11 S&P sectors) have suffered as rates have risen. But rates are peaking, and utilities should have better prospects ahead, especially growth electric utilities, those involved in renewables and improving grid infrastructure. Mentioned are AEP, CNP, NI. (This previously regular column is now ON/OFF)
ECONOMY. A new plan by the LA Senator CASSIDY and the ME Senator KING to fix SOCIAL SECURITY may work. It will leave the SSA Trust Fund (really, an IOU) alone, but would BORROW $1.5 trillion over 5 years to invest in STOCK index funds. The total US stock market-cap is $43.4 trillion, so this inflow shouldn’t cause much disruption (but don’t underestimate the impact of the inflow of $300 billion/yr. That would be almost double of the US IPOs in a best/hot year like 2021) (Also not mentioned is the increase in the US debt, but what is another $1.5 trillion added to $33 trillion?). This stock investment may cover 75% of the SSA shortfall with the rest coming from COST-CUTTING via increasing the FRA (well, this is the US, not France), raising salary caps, adding means test for higher income earners (so, they pay max into the SSA but may be limited in their SSA benefits). (No mention of how/if this $1.5 trillion would be repaid, but keep in mind that Social Security is a mandatory obligation of the government) (By guest author Allan Sloan)
Dave GOODSELL, Natixis Center for Investor Insights. Most Americans aren’t prepared for RETIREMENT and may be overly optimistic. For many, 2022 was a year when reality hit (with bad stock and bond markets). Financial advisors have been suggesting that fixed-income now has generational opportunities, yet the pain isn’t over for many sectors of fixed-income. Allocation 60-40 makes good sense now. SOCIAL SECURITY may cover only 35-40% of retirement needs, and many Americans would have difficult time covering the rest from their portfolios. LONGEVITY is an underestimated risk, higher than what investors perceive in surveys (#1-volatility, #2-risk of loss).
RETIREMENT. A government SHUTDOWN (federal FY24 starts October 1) won’t disrupt the monthly SSA payments (as that is mandatory spending), but other SSA services would be affected. The announcement of COLA (est +3.2%) would be delayed (without the BLS CPI data). We went through the debt-ceiling fiasco earlier this year, and now this.

”Something there is that doesn’t love a wall robo … “
Having never played around with any of these sophisticated tools, I’m curious how the rankings or relative performance numbers are arrived at? Granted, either a robo or real life advisor should be able to suggest risk adjusted portfolios based on age, time horizon, investor’s situation, etc. Where I’d have more trouble entrusting my allocation to a robo is within the larger macro picture.
- Are these robo’s aware that bonds recently experienced a 30 year bull market? That aberration affected not only bond returns. It also likely distorted other asset performance as well. Are robos capable of distinguishing between what worked over the last 30 years during falling interest rates and what might work over the next 2 or 3 decades?
- Does the robo take into consideration the difference between very low / negative inflation over the preceding 2 or 3 decades and the likely inflation scenario going forward? Can it comprehend and factor in how that monumental sea change might turn return on different assets on their heads? Assets that outperformed over a period of low inflation may not be the best ones in a radically different economic backdrop.
- Are these robos aware of the growing friction with China, Russia and how that may affect EM investments? Do they take into account the rise of populism around the world and growing political instability in many Western nations?
- Would robos have correctly foreseen the tech revolution in say 1975 (excuse the oxymoron) and would they have recommended the best investments over the next quarter century? Can they properly assess the impact AI may / may not have on investments?
- Can a robo correctly identify a bubble in an asset class and warn its clients to steer clear in a timely manner? (By definition, most humans cannot.) Or, might the robo have had you invested in Japan in the mid-90?
The above considerations extend far beyond basic issues of age, time horizon, risk tolerance. And they’re not necessarily resolved by examining charts of various investments over the past 30 years. Those who correctly analyze at least some of these real world questions and make responsible investment choices going forward should have an advantage over robos - as I understand them.
@MikeM has commented in the past that he runs both his own portfolio and one generated by Schwab’s robo adviser. So, his experiences would shed some light on these questions. Please understand my comments are offered as food for thought only. I have no experience using robos and am not a qualified investment advisor. I make no claims in either regard.
Possibly, a more appropriate reference to the same poem I began with (Frost’s Mending Wall) applies to myself here: “He moves in darkness, as it seems to me …” :)

There's a difference between complexity and transparency. Transparency calls for, at a minimum, the availability of information. Complexity impedes transparency (if something is there but hard to find, it's less transparent). But the alternative, not providing that information, is worse.
"Internally cross-linked mumbo-jumbo" may be referring to all the links that one finds in filings such as 485 forms (statutory prospectus/SAI). Frequent visitors to the site get to know that the first link is the document itself, and the other links are legal attachments. Perhaps a navigation guide from the SEC would help.
Following the second link in the 485 filing, one gets to an agreement between T. Rowe Price Associates (the fund adviser, responsible to the fund for all services) and T Rowe Price Investment Management (the subadviser, responsible to TRP Associates for managing the fund portfolio). These are two separate corporations. The document spells out their rights and obligations; it also includes a limit on subadviser fees.
Does anyone care about this? Probably not, except for the bean counters and the lawyers. But transparency demands it be made available. So it given as an attachment that is "cross-linked".
The gist also show up in the statutory prospectus itself. for each TRP fund with this arrangement. For example, on p. 9 of the PRWCX prospectus (from the TRP website), is:

T. Rowe Price [Associates] entered into a subadvisory agreement with Price Investment Management under which Price Investment Management is authorized to trade securities and make discretionary investment and voting decisions with respect to all or a portion of the fund’s portfolio. Price Investment Management is an SEC-registered investment adviser that provides investment management services to individual and institutional investors and sponsors; and serves as adviser and subadviser to registered investment companies, institutional separate accounts, and common trust funds. Price Investment Management is a subsidiary of T. Rowe Price

That tells investors who the players are and what they do without getting into the legal "mumbo-jumbo". But does the average investor care about even this much? The SEC doesn't think so. That's why it offers funds the option of providing stripped down (IMHO fairly useless) summary prospectuses. If this simplified, non-cross-referenced doc isn't there, blame the fund sponsor, not the SEC. (Until a fund goes live, there doesn't seem to be much point in a fund expending time and effort composing a summary prospectus.)
The SEC site even makes it easy to find these documents with a "Summary Prospectuses" search button.
Getting back to the OP ...
The tickers for the fund are PRCFX (investor shares) and PRCHX (I shares). Dates have not changed much between the original prospectus filed (7/17/23) and the current filing (9/22/23). They both give an effective date for the prospectus of October 1, 2023. The original filing gives a probably public offering date of November 28, 2023. This has been delayed in the new filing to November 29, 2023.
These filings for T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation and Income Fund are separate from the Capital Appreciation & Income Fund from a few years ago (with the old tickers TCIFX, etc.). That fund would have included an Advisor share class that is missing from the 2023 version. More important is that the co-manager of that older fund was Paul M. Massaro; the current filing names Farris G. Shuggi co-manager.
Here are the filings for the earlier version of the fund:
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=S000059017&action=getcompany&scd=filings
The Summary Prospectuses button even pulls up a couple of summary prospectuses for the older version.
Capital Appreciation & Income Fund ceased operation in mid 2019.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1689311/999999999719005819/filename1.pdf

Yup. Broken government. Even without a shutdown, it's a shit-show. Been like that for years. Because citizens no longer count. What counts is Big Money. THEY get their bread buttered.

From the news release:
"Vanguard’s track record remains unparalleled — 95% of Vanguard active bond funds
outperformed their peer group averages over the past 10 years ending June 30, 2023¹."
¹ For the ten-year period ended June 30, 2023, 42 of 44 Vanguard active bond funds
outperformed their peer group averages; results will vary for other time periods.
Only funds with a minimum ten-year history were included in the comparisons.

Many years ago, Fidelity was my 401(k) plan administrator. A planning tool, the Financial Engines was made available in their Net Benefit portal. Here is more information on it.

https://www.edelmanfinancialengines.com/about-us/

The users have the ability to input a number of variables into the model and it generates the probability of outcomes. That model works well with index funds but not so much with active managed funds. Nevertheless, I came to appreciate asset allocation as the most direct factor on long term return. @lynnbolin 2021 also mentioned Financial Engines in a recent post.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/166992/#Comment_166992
It appears that both Fidelity and Vanguard use some version of the Financial Engines that can accommodates active funds just as index funds. Our Fidelity planning report provides a full picture of our finance before we engage with Vanguard PAS. You are correct that Vanguard cannot legally advise on external funds. Their plan only advises those $ that you direct them to manage. This is a new experience for us working with advisors but being prepared really help to guide the planning discussion accordingly. Unlike Vanguard customer lines that customers complain about, the advisor phone numbers and Secure Messaging are excellent. Again, thank you for sharing.

Too much of a good thing is bad.
There is a saying that one cannot live on cake. This one European queen who said during a famine, what's the problem, no bread? People can just eat cake. - she was deposed not just from her queendom but this world.
So, for years, we heard that banks, insurance companies and pension funds benefit from higher rates. But the rapid rise in rates in 2022-23 revealed rated problems - underwater HTM portfolios that were hidden by accounting rule, and other problems.
But if rates stabilize at higher levels, they will indeed be good for banks, insurance companies, pension funds and SAVERS.

As a follow-up to their robo-advisor evaluation, M* conducted additional research.
Two hypothetical investor profiles were created.
Only seven of the 20 robo-advisors allow investors to complete risk assessments without registering.
Their sample recommendations varied widely.
Four robo-advisors recommended identical portfolios for both investor profiles.
This was surprising since the investors' time horizons differed by 18 years.
Conclusion
"Robo-advisors have one key purpose: to simplify and automate the investment process.
However, our research underscores the fact that the resulting portfolios often vary.
The upshot is that while robo-investing delivers on its promise to automate the investment process,
investors should still do their own research and make sure they’re comfortable with the recommended
portfolio before signing up with a specific provider."
Not All Robo-Advisors Are Created Equal

Schwab & Wealth Enhancement Group:
Partnering for a Superior Client Experience
https://network.wealthenhancement.com/
From there, follow the full services link to:
https://network.wealthenhancement.com/services
Then to Financial Planning:
https://network.wealthenhancement.com/financial-planning
That has the link to Dynamic Cash Flow Tax Plan- Roth IRA Conversion (the sample spreadsheet)
The key is the "network" part of the URL (working with Schwab), as opposed to using "www".
The spreadsheet illustrates a straightforward strategy. "Prepay" taxes (via conversions paid for out of taxable account) as a way of moving that tax money into sheltered accounts. If it weren't for graduated tax rates, one might want to convert all of an IRA up front. Instead, convert gradually over many years, going up to but not into the next tax bracket.
(Since some states exempt some or all of the conversion amount, the combined fed/state rate on some conversions can be less than your current bracket even if you edge into the next bracket).
A first order approximation for the ultimate target is to convert enough over many years that what one is left with in the T-IRA generates RMDs not greater than one's cash flow needs (after accounting for SS, pensions, and taxable account assets). Notice in the spreadsheet that this couple never depletes their taxable account and that their RMDs are below their cash flow needs.
(Depleting taxable assets would be a good thing, because then assets would all be in tax-advantaged accounts. This couple can't do that without the conversions moving them into a higher (32%) bracket.)
This strategy depends on the assumption that one's tax bracket in retirement will not be much less than one's tax rate for the conversions. (It can be somewhat less because of the tax-sheltering effect of prepaying taxes.) Given today's low tax rates (even the spreadsheet assumes a future increase in rates), that's an assumption I've been willing to make. In the end, what taxes will be 30 years from now is a crap shoot.

Yes, I'm waiting until the eagle sh*ts, then I'll throw some $ into TS. I see Steve Eisman* (CNBC) is asserting that the whole bank sector is "uninvestable." For how long? My time-frame runs for years, not months. I don't expect much that is good will happen in the Market until we are into 2025.
*"Mark Baum" in The Big Short.

I just got off the call with this guy [at Wealth Enhancement Group]. I was generally impressed. ( While he was not calling form his yacht, he was calling from second home in Maine!) They have a model which will calculate Roth Conversions and expected taxes with breakeven points ( Example says 2040!). Assumes 5% return in taxable and 7% in Roth

Is this the example you were shown?
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ed7df046f291c4a9e5546fc/t/63ffc63f2a2d1c36743d9803/1677706815803/Sample+Roth+Conversions+DCFI+-+2023_with+notes+-+JH.pdf

They will do financial plan free of any fees, but of course want to manage your money. The fee is fairly reasonable at 1% for first 1,000,000 up to 0.7% over 5,000,000, so in line with most firms that do portfolio management only, and a bit higher than many mutual funds.

That is certainly in line with the industry:

From: https://www.advisoryhq.com/articles/financial-advisor-fees-wealth-managers-planners-and-fee-only-advisors/
Comparison of types of services and typical fees:
https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/financial-advisor-cost
Fees do depend on what you get. I was just looking at someone's Separately Managed Account (SMA) portfolio with a couple of hundred large cap stocks (with little S&P 500 overlap). Real portfolio, outperformed the S&P 500 net of fees since owned (about 2.5 years), fees closer to 1/2% than to 1% (well under $1M in assets). Would perform tax harvesting except it is in an IRA. Don't know about other services included.

I agree the Vanguard info is pretty comprehensive, but to me it is predictably Vanguard, ie 60/40, 20% International, tax loss harvesting. Not sure that is worth their fees which I think are 0.3% correct ?

As @hank observed, Vanguard builds a glidepath. I noted in the Robo advisor thread that per M* this is unusual for low cost (i.e. robo) advisors. Also note that that 20% international is out of 60% stock, i.e. 1/3 of equity is foreign. Vanguard, being enthusiastic about matching market attributes, observes that 40% of the equity market is abroad.
Vanguard Digital Advisor costs 20 basis points all in, or 15 basis points excluding underlying fund expenses. One adds another 15 basis points (30 basis points excluding underlying expenses) in order to get human attention and financial planning. More services, higher fees.
https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/compare-investment-advice#comparison-chart

Those suggested allocations for VG PAS in 60s & 70s (60-40), early-80s (55-45), late-80s & beyond (50-50) are much higher than those for target-date funds (TDFs), including Vanguard TDFs. Of course, the questionnaire for PAS determined the specifics.
Most TDFs have 50-50 in 60s (retirement age) and then flatten out to 20-80/40-60 over several years. TDFs also have issues. But I am just noticing the huge discrepancy between the VG PAS recommendations and TDFs.

Vanguard has defined five risk levels for asset allocation schedules:
very conservative, conservative, moderate, aggressive, very aggressive.
The asset allocation schedule suggested in my plan is considered aggressive.
For some context, two 2025 target-date fund portfolios (08/31/2023) are listed below.
VTTVX
U.S. Stock: 32.60%
Intl. Stock: 22.00%
U.S. Bond: 28.30%
Intl. Bond: 12.40%
Short-Term TIPS: 4.70%
TRRHX
U.S. Stock: 38.39%
Intl. Stock: 17.58%
U.S. Bond: 26.18%
Intl. Bond: 9.75%
Cash: 4.80%
Other: 2.66%
Convertibles: 0.42%
Preferred Stock: 0.22%
The glide path in my plan differs from target-date fund glide paths.
Equity allocation is 60% until age 80, 55% from ages 80 - 85, and 50% from ages 85 - 100.
I was surprised by the relatively high equity allocation beyond age 80.
Perhaps a more conventional glide path exists for conservative or moderate asset allocation schedules?

@sma3 stated:
For this you get the plan, quarterly reviews, tax planning etc. Their "value dividend growth " portfolio has returned 12% net of fees since 2007, pays 3% and lost only 7% in 2022. They also have a growth portfolio, and buy individual bonds for income. They have on site CFA, CFPs, tax lawyers estate planners etc.
In the "value dividend growth" portfolio 12% net of fees since 2007 figure above provided by the Wealth Enhancement Group, do they compare this portfolio to what index? Is their portfolio earning 13% since 2007 for a little more than 15+ years (ie, 12% net of fee + 1% advisor fee)? I'm curious as it appears they are earning equal to S&P 500 index returns or possible better with lower risk profile.

Assume comes up once again ! Let's say you put your plan to work a few years ago, 3,4 5. Along comes rate increase , now over 5% that's taken place. Would you be willing to stand pat , or clear out some equity & jump into CD's & T-bills or notes ? I know I've lowered equity side by 5 to 7 %.
With that said, I 'assume" ones age would play a big part where one invests.
@Observant1 Thanks for posting I enjoyed your info !

Those suggested allocations for VG PAS in 60s & 70s (60-40), early-80s (55-45), late-80s & beyond (50-50) are much higher than those for target-date funds (TDFs), including Vanguard TDFs. Of course, the questionnaire for PAS determined the specifics.
Most TDFs have 50-50 in 60s (retirement age) and then flatten out to 20-80/40-60 over several years. TDFs also have issues. But I am just noticing the huge discrepancy between the VG PAS recommendations and TDFs.

@Observant1- In the many years that I've been with MFO I've never seen anyone present such complete, detailed and interesting information with respect to a retirement plan that was recommended by a financial firm. Nice job! It should be useful to other MFO members, and initiate some healthy conversations.
Regards- OJ

Thanks, OJ!

@Observant1- In the many years that I've been with MFO I've never seen anyone present such complete, detailed and interesting information with respect to a retirement plan that was recommended by a financial firm. Nice job! It should be useful to other MFO members, and initiate some healthy conversations.
Regards- OJ

I contacted Vanguard a few weeks ago regarding an unrelated issue.
The Vanguard rep suggested a complementary meeting with a Personal Advisor Services (PAS) professional.
A preliminary financial plan was developed and sent to me yesterday.
I won't delve into all the specific details but will provide an overview since this info may be helpful to others.
Age: Early 60s
Goal: Retire in two years
Withdrawal rate: I requested a specific dollar amount which equaled 3.03% of my total portfolio
Asset allocation to age 80: 60% stock/40% bond - completed questionaires and discussed with Vanguard
Asset allocation from age 80 to 85: 55% stock/45% bond
Asset allocation from age 85 to 100: 50% stock/50% bond
The Vanguard Capital Markets Model (VCMM) is used to forecast returns for stocks, bonds,
and short-term reserves as well as inflation rates.
Monte Carlo simulations are run to project outcomes to age 100.

If FR/BL are so bullish, why have PRFRX and FFRHX been in redemption for probably 1 1/2 years?
Just read in Wednesday's WSJ that individual investors have pulled $13 billion from FR/BL mutual funds and ETF's this year. Are they the "smart money" or the "dumb money"?
Asking for a friend.

There is nothing more bullish than a bond category that is steadily rising amid heavy fund outflows. Early 2014 in junk munis come to mind. Once inflows become heavy and consistent the party is nearing an end. One of the most bullish things about bank loans earlier in the year and which I alluded in June was the steady and persistent outflows. In fact outflows had been the story for years on end. Most recently the outflows have reversed into small inflows. Hopefully @yogibearbull can shed more light on recent flows. Overall I have never been much of a fan of the bank loan category (except for mid to late 2016) because they could never compete with junk corporates performance wise. Obviously this year another rare exception.
Edit: The 10 year in the overnight market is trading at 4.44%. Yikes!

If FR/BL are so bullish, why have PRFRX and FFRHX been in redemption for probably 1 1/2 years?
Just read in Wednesday's WSJ that individual investors have pulled $13 billion from FR/BL mutual funds and ETF's this year. Are they the "smart money" or the "dumb money"?
Asking for a friend.