Hard to know what to say here. I don't find these arguments especially compelling.
I mean, yes, we know AI is here and it's going to take over the world. I don't see AI customization creating 150mm separate portfolios for 150mm separate retail investors, but maybe I'm missing the author's point.
Financial advisors are already using "really, really, really smart" software to make allocations for clients.
Now, whether or not all fund companies go AI, is another matter...is TROW or Fidelity, for example, going to largely do away with its human analysts in 10 years or so?

FYI: In the next few years, the entire rationale for investing via funds will dissolve. Advances in technology have transformed industry cost structures. Absent the need to pool assets for volume discounts, advisers and relationship managers can skip the one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter vehicles. Instead, financial advisers will use software to truly customize portfolios, resulting in a more engaged and loyal client base.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=1mdQXPjrJ5e9jwTp9KfgDA&q=Death+Of+The+Fund+&+What+Comes+Next+&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Death+Of+The+Fund+&+What+Comes+Next+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30.3480.8036..9172...0.0..1.164.1760.14j5......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0..33i299j33i160.Ors8USFYOpk

@Bobpa: My portfolio was built over many years of investing. From an all equity income fund perspective I have two sleeves that are geared towards equity income genertion with these funds being found in the growth & income area of my portfolio.
The first sleeve is my domestic equity g&i sleeve and holds the following funds with their ttm yield in (y%). The funds held in this sleeve are ANCFX (1.74%) ... FDSAX (3.03%) ... INUTX (3.46%) ... and SVAAX (3.93%). This sleeve as a whole generates a yield of 3.26%. Include fund capital gain distributions and the income generated is much greater and has averaged above 5%. The three year total return on this sleeve is 8.7%.
The second sleeve is my global equity g&i sleeve and holds the following funds with thier ttm yield in (y). The funds held in this sleeve are CWGIX (2.33%) ... DEQAX (2.55%) ... DWGAX (2.28%) ... and, EADIX (3.95%). This sleeve as a whole generates a yield of 2.77%. Include fund capital gains distributions and the income generation is much greater and has averaged above 5%. The three year total return on this sleeve is 7.1%
I have other sleeves that are also geared towards income generation within my portfolio; but, these are the two sleeves that consists of all equity mutual funds.
In doing a Google search on the subject I came up with the below linked article.
https://investorplace.com/2018/02/10-best-dividend-funds-to-buy-now/
Old_Skeet

"Case in point" this is not. The S&P indexes, as I've written before, are the exception, not the rule.
I wrote about (and linked to a column about) the S&P Index Committee where at the end of the dot com boom, it made a misplaced bet on "new economy" stocks. Even the S&P Index Committee acknowledges that its so called indexes are actively managed, by entitling a piece "Inside the S&P 500: An Active Committee".
In a traditional sense (and the one used in the S&P writing) an index is supposed to measure the market, i.e. provide "an accurate picture of the stock market". Yet that paper seems to offer as its rationale for making rule-breaking changes that an objective is to stabilize the market. Maybe that's a different objective from beating the market, but it's still an objective different from measuring the market. Either way, these "indexes" are by intent not providing accurate pictures of the stock market.
The argument that the committee acts to stabilize the market is a curious one to make. It undercuts the thesis that we don't have to worry about too many people investing in indexes (yet) because they don't impact price discovery in a significant way.
In the Barron's piece, Rob Arnott says that discretionary changes to indexes typically underperform the market. M*'s Ben Johnson is quoted as saying "This is what you sign[] up for" when you invest in an index. But you don't have to sign up for discretionary changes. You can pick an index that is rule-based.

FYI: Index funds are supposed to be immune to the hustle and bustle of buying high and selling low that is usually thought of as the typical active managers’ missteps. That’s not quite true, though.
Case in point: S&P Dow Jones Indices booted PG&E (ticker: PCG) stock from a couple of its indexes last week, just days following the California utility’s announcement that it would file for bankruptcy protection at the end of the month caused the stock to sink to $6. However, PG&E stock jumped more than 70% on Jan. 24, when the utility was found not liable for the Tubbs fire in October 2017.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/pg-e-stock-proves-your-index-fund-isnt-that-passive-51548680401?refsec=funds
M* PCG Ownership: (Click On Ownership)
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnys/pcg/quote.html

@tmadell: Dr. Madell, thank you for writting such a fine newsletter. I would encourge you to publish a newsletter model asset allocation (conserative, moderate and agressive) along with perhaps one for income generation with their anticipated returns. I'm thinking some investors might find this of interest. At one time I ran a 70/20/10 (stock/bond/cash) allocation while I was in the building phase of my portfolio. Holding some cash offered me the opportunity to buy pullbacks and/or engage some spiffs (special investment positions) form time-to-time. Then as I approached retirement I began to reduce my stock allocation and began to hold more bonds and cash. Recently, I have switched towads an all weather (20% cash/40% bonds/40% stock) asset allocation model. I'm not quite there yet but well on my way. I'm thinking that this all weather model will provide me ample cash, ample income and ample growth to offset inflation plus a little more. By my math I'm thinking my all weather model should generate an average annual return of somewhere between 4.5% to 6%, on average, possibly a little more, at times. With these anticipated returns I should be able to withdraw up to 4% annually and still maintain and perhaps even grow my principal. Currently, my withdrawal philosophy is to take no more than one half of what my five year average rolling returns have been. In this way, I have over the past five years, since I retired, been able to grow my principal while providing a reliable and steady income stream. Currently, my portfolio yields about 3.4% plus any capital gain distributions and when combined have averaged better than a 5% income stream.
Perhaps, my above comment concerning income generation might provide a topic to write about in an upcoming issue.
Thanks again ... Dr. Madell ... for publishing such a fine newsletter. I have enjoyed reading it.
Old_Skeet

Re: Is our entire stock market essentially dependent on the FED?
Sometimes it feels that way. But only if you’re very short sighted. The Fed can sometimes precipitate or delay the onset of recession (and the accompanying market losses) through monetary policy. But, over a decade or longer their influence from setting overnight lending rates is much less. Who knows why stocks do what they do day-to-day? Expectations of future Fed policy enter the picture, but IMHO, are but one ingredient.
Some well known market observers have been making the case that the enormous monetary stimulus created after the 2007-09 recession by central banks around the globe has caused an unsustainable asset bubble which must deflate one of these days. They cite not only excessively low interest rates (0 in some countries) over that period, but also the massive bond buying campaign our Federal Reserve engaged in. The Federal Reserve is now in the process of “unwinding” stimulus by selling their bonds in the open market. That process has been ongoing since late 2017. This “unwinding” is the part of the equation often overlooked in discussions of Fed policy.
This explains the Fed’s bond buying / selling process and rationale behind it:
“If the Fed buys bonds in the open market, it increases the money supply in the economy by swapping out bonds in exchange for cash to the general public. Conversely, if the Fed sells bonds, it decreases the money supply by removing cash from the economy in exchange for bonds. Therefore, OMO has a direct effect on money supply. OMO also affects interest rates because if the Fed buys bonds, prices are pushed higher and interest rates decrease; if the Fed sells bonds, it pushes prices down and rates increase.” https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/monetary-policy-recession.asp
Added: Since posting I have become aware of an article in Friday’s WSJ suggesting that the Fed is considering halting their bond selling earlier than planned. No doubt, some of Friday’s market rally was related to the story.
WSJ: "Federal Reserve officials are close to deciding they will maintain a larger portfolio of Treasury securities, putting an end to its portfolio wind-down closer into sight."
You may need to get around a paywall or find a summery of story elsewhere to read beyond the headline. https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-officials-weigh-earlier-than-expected-end-to-bond-portfolio-runoff-11548412201

FYI: The Dow Theory is still flashing a “sell” signal. Before this indicator can turn bullish again, the rally that has taken the Dow Jones Industrial Average almost straight up since its Dec. 24 low must end.
That’s why bullishly predisposed Dow Theorists should be hoping for a market pullback.
The Dow Theory is the oldest stock-market timing system in widespread use today. It was created by William Peter Hamilton, the editor of the Wall Street Journal in the first decades of the 20th Century. Its popularity is reason alone to pay close attention, since a buy signal presumably would unleash a wave of new buying in the stock market.
The Dow Theory is also worth following because its long-term track record is enviable. This has been confirmed not only by my Hulbert Financial Digest tracking of Dow Theory newsletters such as TheDowTheory.com (edited by Jack Schannep) and Dow Theory Forecasts (edited by Richard Moroney), but also by academic studies.
Though individual Dow Theorists disagree on the specifics of how to apply the Dow Theory in any particular situation, there is a broad consensus on what it takes to generate a buy signal:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-needs-to-give-back-some-gains-before-stocks-see-another-big-leg-up-2019-01-25/print

https://247wallst.com/commodities-metals/2019/01/24/as-world-and-stock-markets-remain-very-dangerous-4-top-gold-stocks-to-buy-now/
By Lee Jackson January 24, 2019 8:25 am EST
Print
Email
Very quietly, gold and the gold miners consistently have pushed higher. Though naysayers constantly bemoan the fact that the precious metal offers no earnings potential, it does offer a safe store of value and always has.
The SPDR Gold Shares ETF (NYSE: GLD) is up over 7% over the past four months, after being hammered for almost half of last year. For sure the massive fourth-quarter sell-off sparked some of the buying, but a cauldron of political issues at home, combined with trade conflicts and geopolitical hot-spots abroad, have kept investors nervous, and with good reason.

“What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.”
Or in this case, stink as much. One can slap a Merrill Edge name on Banc of America, it's still a bank brokerage, conceived by a bank, launched by a bank, and (re)branded by a bank, multiple times.
NCNB Securities (the NCNB is for North Carolina National Bank) was created in 1986. It was rebranded NationsBanc Securities (when NCNB rebranded itself NationsBank), then NationsBanc Discount Brokerage, then NationsBanc Investments. After NationsBank Merged with Bank of America, it took on the name Banc of America Investment Services.
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4662254
"On my ME tax forms, and likely on yours, it always says Merrill Lynch, ... That was all I meant".
You meant that a brokerage (now called Merrill Edge), attached to a bank since its creation in 1986 "was not ever supposed to be a 'brokerage attached to a bank'" because it was renamed after a formerly independent brokerage?
You conflated two different entities, Merrill Lynch and Merrill Edge. I suggest leaving it at that, especially since efforts to explain this away seem to make matters worse.
Consider your assertion that this "Merrill Lynch Pierce et alia ... goes back way far". This is both irrelevant and misleading. Irrelevant because it wouldn't matter how long Merrill Lynch was an independent brokerage, whether for a day or a century.
Misleading if not erroneous, because (check your own citation here), in your grandfather's 1950s, the brokerage was known as Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Beane. Since then, it has been known as Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith. A fact that I doubtless have known since university when a classmate of mine mentioned it to me.
Regarding documents from ME, my account statements say "MLPF&S". "S" as in "Smith." While I don't know what was on your grandfather's statements, it was certainly something different.

meh, of course I meant Merrill Lynch Pierce et alia, which goes back way far, as you doubtless know and which was as noted above agreed-acquired in famous Sept '08 and completed the next year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrill_Lynch
That was the bfd, one of them, at the time, and BoA made much about it to existing customers.
On my ME tax forms, and likely on yours, it always says Merrill Lynch, the same as it did for my grandfather in the 1950s. That was all I meant.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/709364/000094937719000008/trf-rsm497.htm
497 1 trf-rsm497.htm
The Royce Fund
Supplement to the Investment, Service, and Institutional Class Shares Prospectus Dated May 1, 2018
Royce Special Equity Multi-Cap Fund
The Royce Fund’s Board of Trustees approved a plan of liquidation for Royce Special Equity Multi-Cap Fund, to be effective on February 25, 2019. The Fund is being liquidated primarily because it has not maintained assets at a sufficient level for it to be viable. As of December 17, 2018, the Fund was no longer offering its shares for purchase.
January 23, 2019
RSM-ISI-CLOSE
The Royce Fund
Supplement to the Consultant and R Class Shares Prospectus Dated May 1, 2018
Royce Special Equity Multi-Cap Fund
The Royce Fund’s Board of Trustees approved a plan of liquidation for Royce Special Equity Multi-Cap Fund, to be effective on February 25, 2019. The Fund is being liquidated primarily because it has not maintained assets at a sufficient level for it to be viable. As of December 17, 2018, the Fund was no longer offering its shares for purchase.
January 23, 2019
RSM-CR-CLOSE

FYI: When I tell people that Warren Buffett follows the 5-Hour Rule and spends 80% of his time reading and thinking, they have an immediate and predictable reaction: “Well, he can do that because he’s Warren Buffett, one of the richest people in the world. I could never do that.”
While this response may help people feel better about themselves, it certainly won’t make them smarter.
Because the reality is: Buffett has spent most of his time reading and thinking since he was in grade school. Having more money or managing a large company doesn’t magically give you free time.
Having free time is never the default. People don’t just fall into huge blocks of free time unless they retire. Rather, free time is the result of strategy. It’s the result of looking at time differently.
Regards,
Ted
https://medium.com/accelerated-intelligence/warren-buffett-really-successful-people-say-no-to-almost-everything-ab78832ffebc

@msf: I did look at VBIAX originally, knowing it could be purchased as admiral class. Since I already had 4 Vanguard Funds VDIGX, VPCCX, VIG, VOO, which account for about 25% of portfolio and the American fund similar in return with strong team, opted to go that route. VOO AND VDIGX are my two largest holdings by the way.

Vanguards balanced fund which is closed to new investors

Vanguard closed the Investor share class of its index funds to most retail investors because it lowered the min of the Admiral class shares for these funds to $3K.
Check out VBIAX. It's open at Fidelity (with a TF, as always there), and you can even get in for less - just $2500.

Conservative 30-50% balanced fund HBLAX, similar to VWINX, but avaiable NTF outside Vanguard.

@slick,
Why did you choose it over say JABAX?
(I am now aiming at DSEEX and PONAX 50/50 but always interested elsewhere.)

For a retirement account and if you are looking for around a 50/50 allocation, one part of Wellington to one part of Wellesley is nice.

Whether @hank intended it this way or not, I'll take his post to convey the message that while Shakespeare penned a marvelous piece of rhetoric in which praise for Caesar was "buried" in language that ostensibly condemned him, the cited article is neither brilliantly wordsmithed nor does it employ a rhetorical device as implied by its headline.
What it buries are inconvenient facts. Such as index funds costing as much as 0.50% around 1980 (the start of one of the time frames used). And the oft repeated fact that one cannot invest directly in an index.
A more important fact, IMHO, that it ignores is that the rise in the use of index funds (and index ETFs) coincides with their use in wrap accounts. Those accounts charge the same 1% that the article is criticizing.

Some of the finest lines in the English language:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar.
The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
Full text: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56968/speech-friends-romans-countrymen-lend-me-your-ears