Just checked out @MJG’s earlier linked study. https://www.betterment.com/resources/high-frequency-monitoring/. It was conducted by Betterment Investing and purports to show a relationship between frequency of logging in to the Betterment account website and success as an investor (The “superstar” investors logged in less often.)
About Betterment : https://www.investopedia.com/updates/betterment-review/
Some caveats here.
First, Betterment commenced operations in 2010. That’s one year into the current ten-year bull market in equities. Those who stayed the course and remained invested in the most aggressive portfolios would be expected to have outperformed. However, that’s a very short time frame on which to base conclusions.
Second, It appears there’s a high probability many of those logins to Betterment’s site were related to changing investment goals or transferring funds. That’s much different than just checking your returns using M* or a portfolio app. In the case of Betterment logins may well signal some type of investment action initiated by the the client (exchange, purchase, sale, withdrawal, etc.) Whereas the simple act of accessing a portfolio tracker does not signal any action - just looking.
Third, Betterment markets to investors several different risk adjusted portfolios, charging between .25% and .50% annually to manage accounts.
Fourth, Betterment automatically rebalances portfolios. While rebalancing actions would in-fact constitute “trades” (among different asset classes), they would not not show up in the account login statistics Betterment is using to bolster its overall conclusions. Therefore, the extent of trading within individual accounts would be distorted towards the low side if only logins were counted.
Fifth, as a broker skimming a set percentage off investors’ assets, Betterment has a vested interest in encouraging clients to remain aggressively invested at all times (increasing its AUM more over time than would otherwise be the case).
Still, It’s an interesting study and the only one I’ve seen which even attempts to demonstrate a direct correlation between investor “looking” and net investment returns (flawed though it may be).

@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.

I look at and take action from time to time on those assets in individual stocks, MFs, and ETFS that I manage myself. However, my retirement portfolio I touch only after consulting with my TIAA advisor, usually once per year. I could look at the latter daily, but don't; the other positions I monitor M-F because it's one of my hobbies. I'm aware of the contradictions and absurdities of my situation. If you asked me if I was a long-term investor, I'd say yes, but that I check on Asian markets and futures early every day. I've been doing this for more than 25 years, so I guess it is for the long term.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that if a person is not disciplined enough to 'stick to their plan' or withstand the normal ups/downs of the markets, then absolutely if they check their portfolios frequently and see they're down 1, 2, 3 percent, they'll probably panic and sell out of positions versus letting TIME do its thing. Of course, that level of patience and discipline is not something one easily learns and I suspect many 'retail' investors are more inclined to panic first, sell, and buy back soonafter, thus churning their accounts needlessly. You can be down 3% one day and up 4% the next day at the moment, remember.
During the GFC I was in my mid-30s and holding an extremely healthy 'long-long-long' term portfolio. I think during that entire time I made 5-6 trades to trim (but not eliminate) positions and reallocate into stuff that went on-sale. I think I only sold 2 mutual funds outright b/c there was some overlap elsewhere.
But even us who can be patient and disciplined can make goofy decisions. In my father's account that I was managing, I sold out of a bunch of bank preferreds near the bottom in early '09 for a modest cap loss -- in retrospect I should have left well enough alone, but at the time I did not trust anything in the banking sector ... and still don't, actually.
More recently I took a small position in MIC just before it tanked 30% on a div cut and management weirdness. I still hold it, and it's chugging along okay enough .. and as long as it keeps paying its dividend, I'll let it accrue and reinvest until I have a compelling reason to dump it.
Sometimes the best action is no action.

“Frequent looking encourages frequent action.”

@MJG - Would you care to support that statement with some dicumentation?
A child could see through your screen here. You address a thread about “looking”. You link a study about

frequent trading. Than you conclude that: looking = trading ... - and expect us to accept that.
That makes about as much sense as claiming that by looking at an attractive woman I’m more inclined to sexually assault women.

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.

My recent mantra for portfolio review is changing from "Core and Explore" to "Core and Income". Core is low cost, well diversified and simple. Income is high quality, diversified, and uncorrelated to the market (my core). Explore is a small percentage of an overall portfolio that may or may not pan out as an investment idea.
Buffet's core is 90% S&P 500 Index / 10% ST Bonds...no explore here. The 90% of his Core is for growth and 10% for income during market downturns. Your income needs maybe greater than 10%, especially if your portfolio is small and market downturns last multiple years.
It's a math problem.
Say you need $1K of income each year:
10% of 10K is $1K, but if the market downturn last 3-5 years you need $3K-$5K or 30%-50% held as income because this portfolio is so small.
10% of $100K is $10K...you have the luxury of increasing you income up to $3K ($3K X 3 years) is less than the $10K you have set aside which is also still less than 10%.
10% of $1,000,000 is $100K...this would provide $30K for 3 years...$20K for 5 years...without having to touch your core.
Your income needs over a 3-5 year period should drive your income portfolio percentage.
So, working backwards if you need $20K of income and your portfolio is $500k Using Buffets 90/10 portfolio as a guideline you would have to tweak it to 88/12:
$20K x 3 years = $60K/$500k = 12% of portfolio (88/12)
$20K X 5 years = $100K/$500? = 20% of portfolio (80/20)
Second point, we explore too much...it's exciting, but not always profitable or practical.
Do you consider MAPOX / PRWCX your core (55% of your portfolio)
Do you consider PTIAX as income (Buffet's ST Bond) your at 4%.
Ask yourself, how do these other funds fit into a "Core & Income" portfolio?
Worry about "Explore" later.
Age difference between you and your spouse:
If TRP offerings simplify things for you, look at their Retirement Funds. Very inexpensive, very diversified. Very simple. PRWCX would compare well with a TRP retirement date of 2040 so I also can see this being your core, but at 36% its hardily "at bat" much. Maybe Pair PRWCX with 2 retirement different dated funds that reflect the age difference between you and your wife's ages. This would provide you with 3 core funds. When your 90 & your wife is 70, these retirement date funds will have transitioned with age as well.
Finally,
Manager risk is real. Institution risk is real.
Some here would spread this core out among managers and among institutions.

When we move in a year's time, we will have HIGHER monthly expenses than we do now. I'll be on Medicare. Wife needs to be working, still 46 yrs old a year from now. She has exceedingly great evaluations from her current job. We're expecting it won't be a problem for her to find something, most likely doing the same thing. She'll get a stellar recommendation from our doctor-friend out there in AZ. Maybe she could even work at the same hospital as doctor-friend. (Janitor, making $15/hour right now.)
Holdings: MAPOX 18.9%
PRWCX 36%
PTIAX 4.02%
RPIHX 14%
PRSNX 8.79%
PRIDX 8.1%
PRDSX 6.08%
VSCIX 4.11% (wife's 403b)
KISS It. Keep it simple, Stupid. Shall I "raid" and empty-out MAPOX with its quarterly divs, and redistribute it into my bond funds? I deliberately chose bond funds that pay monthly. to meet monthly expenses. RPIHX is TRP Junk Bonds, global. Not long ago, it replaced PREMX, EM bonds.
I want to keep the lineup around 50/50 stocks/bonds. Morningstar X-Ray tells me I'm at 55 stocks and 37 bonds right now. I suppose that includes bonds held in MAPOX and PRWCX....... The rent and electric bill (A/C) will surely be our highest expenses. I bet the A/C and other appliances will cost us about $500/month through most of the year.
If I unloaded MAPOX, then I'd have one less fund to worry about, and one less separate fund family in the mix. I would be ALL in TRP, then. Oops, except for PTIAX, and I do intend to keep and grow that one. Very good divs, though lower than during ZIRP days.
AZ is not the best State for taxes re: retirees, but it's not awful.
http://im.mstar.com/im/newhomepage/Miller_State_by_State.pdf
Then there's food. Internet (common use room, not in indiv. apartments) and gym might be provided, depending on the apartment complex we choose. Booze. Eating out. Entertainment. Taxes. Gas. Insurance. Wife will ostensibly be able to get health ins. at her job. I do expect to buy a medi-gap policy to supplement Medicare. And my SS check will be smaller, paying for Medicare. My pension grows a tiny bit each year. Up to $700.00 right now per month. We have no revolving debt. We're collecting reward points and intend to take the offered cash, rather than to choose from the fancy menu of options offered by the credit card outfit. Our 2nd car will be paid-off before we go.
The 403b can be rolled over. Maybe into the new job's 403b or to an IRA.
This is a long post, but what thoughts might you have for me? I'm eager to hear.

That previous thread suggests the opposite:
TD Ameritrade Latest Brokerage Refusing To Lead In Cutting ETF Commissions
http://srt.morningstar.com/newsp/cmsAcontent.html?t=LMVTX&resourceId=570104&src=Morningstar&date=10-11-2012

"Marsico funds are not doing well since Tom Marsico left Janus."
That would be the entire lifetime of Marsico funds :-)
Actually they did do well for some time. After ten years (end of 2007), MGRIX had averaged 9.18% and MFOCX had averaged 9.64%. In comparison, VIGRX had averaged 5.12% and its LCG benchmark had averaged 5.21%. (The other Marsico funds are younger.)
Marsico Funds prospectus, Feb 2008 (w/2007 figures): https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1047112/000094822108000010/marsico_485bpos-020108.htm
Vanguard Index Funds prospectus, April 2008 (w/2007 figures): https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/36405/000093247108001124/indexfunds485bfiling4292008.txt
The family had lots of problems after that, including debt and staff (management/analyst) turnover. From M* Oct 2012:

As Marsico Capital Management struggled with poor performance, outflows, and its own debt-laden balance sheet, Flexible Capital's Doug Rao used the fund's wide-ranging strategy to good effect. ... Unfortunately,... In July 2012 Rao left the firm and the fund. It's now comanaged by Munish Malhotra, who has a short mixed record at other Marsico funds he's helped run, and Jordan Laycob, who hasn't led a fund before. Furthermore, there has been a lot of turnover among the firm's analysts and the fund's fees are high.

http://srt.morningstar.com/newsp/cmsAcontent.html?t=LMVTX&resourceId=570104&src=Morningstar&date=10-11-2012

All good questions. I know for myself what are the levels of egregiousness, or I think and say I do, but they would not be others', perhaps. I left Parnassus over WFC, and Herro (Oakmark) as well, when he denounced global warming a year or two ago. And now I don't know what to think summers will be like globally in 2 and 5 and 7 years, much less 10-20-30 years and beyond.

FYI: (The Linkster holds a position in TRBCX.)
True to its name, $57 billion T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth (TRBCX) focuses on blue chip stocks. More often than not, the fund gets blue-ribbon results. That makes it a standout among T. Rowe Price funds.
And in the last five years going into Thursday, the fund has outperformed 96% of its large-cap growth rivals industrywide tracked by Morningstar Inc. So far this year, it's 18.93% gain tops 85% of its peers as well as the S&P 500's 7.58% increase. That's also one of the best showings among T. Rowe Price funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/t-rowe-price-fund-wins-with-blue-chip-stocks/
TRBCX Is Ranked #1 In The (LCG) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/t-rowe-price-blue-chip-growth-fund/trbcx

Yes - “challenging ride”. I’m not speculating on the sector anymore (other than a small position in a real assets fund (PRAFX). But I once did. Crude bottomed at around $26 in early 2016. It’s now back above $70 (varies slightly by grade). So that’s been a nice recovery and puts the price within reach of the $100+ where it topped out around 2014. Nat gas (a byproduct of crude drilling) hasn’t budged since early 2016. Stubbornly holding below $3. That’s a constant curiosity to me. How do you spell GLUT?
From an investing principal standpoint, I believe in maintaining a small exposure (5-15%) to the area of natural resources, of which oil is a part. However, from a pocketbook standpoint, it hasn’t paid off over the past decade. These kinds of cycles appear to play out not in years - but over decades,
Funds? PRNEX (T. Rowe Price New Era) has always maintained a heavy exposure to the oil sector and is a well managed, reasonable ER fund).

Thanks @Sven...great additional information on your personal journey with this manager.
Upside Capture has struggled while his downside capture, while not great short term is better long term:

Hard to find funds that do both of these consistently well.
2016 Study:
Ability to Capture Up Market Gains and Avoid Down Market Losses: The Upside and Downside Capture Ratios
The Upside and Downside Capture Ratios

WF is the 3rd largest holding in both DODGX (don’t own) and DODBX (do own). In the latter (a balanced fund) WF accounts for 2.5% of holdings. WF is up 12% over the past year. I respect the decision of a manager to unload a company that has exhibited such poor ethical standards as WF. In some of the cases cited the reason for selling doesn’t appear to be based as much on ethical standards as the fact that a criminal investigation + civil lawsuits presents a whole new series of unknowns - detracting from the company’s desirability as an investment.
I won’t criticize D&C for continuing to hold the fund. The question that’s often asked (and never fully answered): When one starts excluding from their investment portfolios stocks of companies with whom they have basic moral / ethical disagreements, where does it stop?
Is marketing to the public destructive weapons better suited for warfare any less objectionable than peddling unwanted insurance or misleading a home buyer at closing? In the second instance, money is lost. But in the first, the consequence is often loss of life. Is marketing a highly addictive often abused medication any less objectionable? How about exporting high paying U.S. jobs to low-wage third world nations? Should you rid from your portfolio those corporations known to have cheated on taxes in the past or to have deprived workers / retirees of previously earned pension benefits? Finally, what do you do when the manager of your highly successful high-octane mutual fund voices support for (and contributes to) a candidate or office holder whom you detest?

@bee,
Not trying to be nitpick here. Please let me clarify what I said earlier. Prior to forming SFGIX, Andrew Foster was the lead manager of several Asia-centric funds at Matthews Asia Funds since 1998. This places his track record back to 20 years, not 10 years. His stellar record is exemplified in Matthews Asia Growth & Income fund, MACSX from 2003-2011 (8 years), the Dividend fund, MAPIX for 6 years and the India fund, MINDX for 5 years.
David Snowball has written a detailed profile on Foster's approach and I couldn't come close to write a such as thoughtful analysis. So here is the link.
mutualfundobserver.com/2013/03/seafarer-overseas-growth-income-sfgix/
I started to invest with MACSX in 2000 when I noticed the fund is holding up much better than VWO during the height of tech bubble from 2000-2002. It taught me a lesson that those "tortoise" funds are more likely to be successful for their investors because they limit the downside loss. When the annual returns are compounded over time and through several market cycles, the total return can be fully captured. Many investors who move in and out of the mutual funds tend to have much lower returns than the market returns.
Coincidentally, I also like MAPIX (Bob Horrocks), FMIJX (Alex English), and PRWCX (David Giroux).

An investment 10 years ago in VGENX has been a challenging ride. I really would like to get excited by this sector. A better 10 year play has been FSCHX which uses OIl & Gas as its feed stock or Utilities such as GASFX and FSUTX which transport and covert these resources into electricity.
10 years chart comparing these funds:

I guess if your goal is to chase everyone away except those who agree with you, you have made a lot of progress. I've noticed that a lot of posters who I have enjoyed reading in the past are no longer here. So, congratulations are in order!

I agree with you, @little5bee. Used to be a good site, but now it is nothing but personal attacks and political snipes. Nothing has been done to clean it up. So be it.
Please delete my user account here.

M* has a long current discussion of SFGIX:
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/384620/3946110.aspx#PageIndex=1
A poster there pointed out it is 50/50 EM/developed markets.

@Sven. SFGIX hasn't been around for 10 years. Inception date looks like 2/15/2012...so closer to 6 years. I'll agree that it has out performed the index (a fund such as VWO), but SFGIX is not an all equity fund (closer to 70/15/15 over its lifetime).
70% EM
15 % of his fund is in LT and IT Treasuries
15% of his fund is classified as "Ex - US Develop"
I compared his fund to a "2 fund combo of PRMSX & PREMX" (70/30). The trade off here is SFGIX opts for US Treasuries where PREMX is most EM Corporates.
Similar results...so nothing special here.
But, over shorter time frames he does a good job of managing downside risk.
I Like MAPIX, FMIJX, PRWCX for the same reason.
Fund managers that manage downside risk and deploy into opportunities are hard to find.

recent egregiousness:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/27/a-black-woman-says-wells-fargo-didnt-want-to-cash-her-check-shes-suing-for-discrimination
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3375122-wells-fargo-wealth-management-sales-goals-reported-focus-probe-wsj
man