HI JoJo26,
Apparently I misunderstood your position, at least in terms of emphasis. We are in substantial agreement.
In investing there is an issue of too much information; some tendency towards paralysis by analysis. There is a famous study of horse-race handicappers that demonstrated that debilitating characteristic.
The handicappers were given tons of horse performance data. Initially they were tasked to handicap a race using only 5 bits of data for each horse that they selected. The challenge was repeated with 10, 20, and 40 pieces of individually selected data. The handicappers winner accuracy score did not improve with increasing data, but their confidence levels falsely did.
Some decision making experts believe that we can not process too much info when forming a decision. I'm sure the number varies with each person and for differing circumstances, but these experts have concluded that an information overload takes control at about the 7 piece level. I suspect that finding is highly controversial. I find that observation uncomfortable since I am a member of the more is better cohort.
Thanks for your post and your patience.
Best Wishes.

The S&P 500 made its first new high at 2130 on May 21, 2015. It took 14 months and a pullback to 1829 (about 15% off its 2130 high) before the S&P 500 moved once again moved above 2130 in July of 2016. Today, a full 17 months later, it stands at 2126. This is 50 points below its must recent new high of 2187 (or about 2.5% below its most recent new high).
Here the 2 yr chart:

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000563495&play=1

@Ted Ha! just coming here to post this one, ya beat me by the proverbial nose.

In the second quarter, that group of seven saw $34 billion in outflows. The tally is further evidence that investors, frustrated with high fees and mediocre performance of actively managed funds, are increasingly casting them off for low-cost passive investments. In the 12 months ended Sept. 30, active funds had redemptions of $295 billion while passive took in $454 billion ...

12 months, almost $300B--- that's some serious coin.

FYI: Seven top asset managers this week reported a total of $50 billion in third-quarter net redemptions, most of it from active funds, company filings show. The biggest losers: Franklin Resources Inc. with $22.1 billion, AllianceBernstein with $15.3 billion and Waddell & Reed Financial Inc. at $4.9 billion.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-28/asset-managers-bleed-50-billion-as-industry-crisis-deepens

I've made this point before. Trailing 1-, 3-, 5-, pick a number-year returns are absolutely worthless. Investors fixate on them way too much and lose sight of the bigger picture - it's why we get in and out of the market and good managers at precisely the wrong times.

bee said, "Is TROW a good buy or is PRWCX about to correct?"
@bee Wouldn't touch your question with a 10 foot pole - make that 15' :)
Here's a link back to TRP about the $194M write-off they took back in June after botching a proxy vote on Dell. https://www3.troweprice.com/usis/corporate/en/press/t--rowe-price-to-compensate-clients-for-dell-voting-error.html This received a lot of press (mostly favorable) back in June and was broadly lauded as testament to the firm's integrity and shareholder commitment. (I don't recall any discussion here.) But I'd imagine it impacted their share price. The WSJ appears to have more on this - but I have trouble reading it without a subscription, so didn't link them.
PRWCX, BTW, isn't having a particularly good year after several great ones. Manager has become very cautious on the market and is no doubt dealing with bloat - though it's now closed to new investors. If one wanted to have some fun with play money (assuming he/she held a favorable opinion of the firm) he might invest 50/50 in both the company and PRWCX and than rebalance periodically.
The future of T. Rowe? It's tough out there. They're small-fry compared to Vanguard, Blackrock and a few other giants. There's been a shift from actively managed funds to low cost passive funds and ETFs going on for many years now and I see no signs of it abating. Over the past year, if my reading of Barrons serves me well, Price experienced net outflows - though not as severe as Oppenheimer and some other active managers. I'd expect continued shrinkage or consolidation among companies in their segment of the market.
---
PS: Asset managers are to an extent subject to the whims of the markets. In a sharply declining equity market AUMs fall - reducing profits. This interplay between investors' and advisors' outlooks for equity markets and the re-pricing of asset managers like Price is far too complex for my feeble mind to understand. But it's not inconceivable that (future) market expectations are impacting TROW's valuation. (PRWCX would be expected to hold up better during a sharp correction than TROW.)

Interesting... the stock price of TROW is trading at its lowest price in over a year. In fact, you have to go back to its 4 year low (Sept 2012) to match today's stock price. The stock is up 36% over the last ten years which included the 2009 great-cession.

Over the past 10 years TROW has more often out performed PRWCX, but that is not the case over the past year and half. (TROW in Yellow). Is TROW a good buy or is PRWCX about to correct?

Here's the most recent three performance of the two:

FYI: Investors are constantly reminded to not base future investments on past returns, but the fact that most still do could provide a boost for the markets, according to Jeffrey Kleintop, chief global investment strategist at Charles Schwab & Co.
With the volatile summer of 2011 having rolled off the five-year trailing performance calculations, Mr. Kleintop is expecting investors to feel better about putting more money to work in the markets.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161027/FREE/161029918?template=printart

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Giant money manager T. Rowe Price Group Inc. reported better earnings and mutual fund performance during the third quarter. Yet clients still pulled some money from the firm’s actively managed stock funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=T.+Rowe+Price+Profit+Rises+18%+wsj

Hi Guys,
I sure don't pay as much attention to near term market trends, either stock or bond, as many MFO board participants do. That's my bad. There's both a plus and a minus aspect to my lazy behavior.
I often entirely miss the nuances and other market signals that you guys see. Perhaps that's happening when interpreting the bond data chart that DanHardy referenced. I'm not too exercised by it because of the scant statistical data that supports the argument. There's not much there.
Equity market reactions to interest rate changes is very complex. Depending on a wide variety of specific market and economic conditions near the time of the interest rate change, the equity marketplace has reacted in wildly different ways. Here is a Link to a TIAA study that explores this issue:
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/C25594_Impact_rising_interest_rates.pdf
From a statistical perspective, nothing is firmly established. One expert's guesstimate just about equals another expert's projection. We seem to want to read more into most data than really exists. In that sense, I'm in Hank's ballpark.
Here is another Link that examines equity market behavior after a Fed interest rate change on a case-by-case basis:
http://www.seeitmarket.com/what-history-says-about-fed-rate-hike-cycles-and-stocks-15005/2/
Again, the equity market reactions are very divergent and situation dependent. As always, we get to choose our own poison. In my case, I am lightening up on equities, but that is age related and not influenced by the initial reference's main chart.
I hope you find these other Links useful in your decision making process.
Best Wishes.

@laurenduvall - can't seem to access the DFA estimates and their website says "Inc."... any chance you have a link with a PDF?
Dimensional Funds (DFA)
https://my.dimensional.com/tools/materials/50298/

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1618737/000089418916012529/oaktree-emerging_497e.htm
497 1 oaktree-emerging_497e.htm SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Oaktree Funds
Oaktree Emerging Markets Equity Fund
Supplement dated October 26, 2016 to the Prospectus dated February 29, 2016 (as amended April 11, 2016) and Statement of Additional Information dated February 29, 2016
The Oaktree Emerging Markets Equity Fund (the “Fund”) was liquidated on October 26, 2016. Accordingly, all references and information relating to the Fund in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information are hereby deleted.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

EM bonds:
FNMIX...... 10 year performance: +7.85%
PREMX: +6.87%.
Small-cap Value: TRP (PRSVX:) +6.92%
PRDGX (TRP LC Div. Growth:) +7.3%
Balanced: PRWCX: +8.16%
MAPOX: +6.81%
Global Bonds: PRSNX: (5 years) +4.94%. Too young for a 10-year number. By the way, MAINX will be 5 years old, soon. I no longer own it. But it looks good.

John, I got into the Schwab-robo in April, 2015. duranal sounds like he or she did a nice comparison to help him choose. Me, I already had my IRA at Schwab so I wasn't going to open another account when it was so easy to click some buttons in my existing account to make it happen. Couple comments off the top of my head:
- the Schwab questionnaire that is meant to look at your age and risk tolerance in order to place you at the "appropriate" equity weighting was annoying. I wanted this to be a 60% equity weighted portfolio, but after answering the questions it had me less than 50%. The local Schwab financial adviser I work with didn't like the system either, so we decided to just fudge the answers until we got the mix I wanted. I opened my account the 1st week the Intelligent portfolio was introduced, so maybe they changed that aspect.
- I don't really mind the cash element. A lot of articles I read at the start didn't like the idea, but I saw it as a buffer that could play out better than bonds over the next few years. My cash portion is 10%.
- the portfolio is weighted heavier than I would have expected international and EM. That did not fair well mid-way through 2015 and I questioned the move when returns faltered. Since then returns have been good to very good in my opinion. My portfolio is up 9.84% YTD and about 5.7% over 1 year.
- I also liked the idea of investing in a diversified portfolio where someone else is watching diversification, balancing and reinvesting the dividends. With it, there is never the erg to buy the new hot fund or move things around at just the wrong time (which I was pretty good at).
- I didn't turn my entire IRA into the robo. I did 1/2. I still like the challenge of building my own portfolio and watching the results. If anything, the robo process has taught me build it, watch it but don't tinker. I believe everything I've read now about investors shooting themselves in the foot trying to out think the system is true. Most of us lose money doing this.
Good luck with your decision.

FYI: It doesn’t seem like much to ask for—a 5 percent return. But the odds of making even that on traditional investments in the next 10 years are slim, according to a new report from investment advisory firm Research Affiliates.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2016-10-26/the-next-10-years-will-be-ugly-for-your-401-k

FYI: Jeffrey Gundlach, chief executive of DoubleLine Capital, believes investors and financial advisers should not get too comfortable with the recent pattern of Federal Reserve monetary policy.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161025/FREE/161029934?template=printart

"Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index's low costs overcome concerns about country weightings," writes Oey in her latest analyst report.

I'm not sure I follow that line of reasoning. Is she saying that, if the cost of an index (or, for that matter, any MF) is low enough, you need not be concerned by a portfolio's very overweighted/skewed allocation? Because the low cost "overcomes" any concerns one might have? How does that work?

I don't follow it either, and here's an example of how that reasoning might "work" in practice, in dollars and cents, comparing, for the sake of argument, VEIEX to BEXFX over the past five full calendar years.
VEIEX's E.R. is lower by 1.12% a year, but it trailed BEXFX in total return (including E.R., of course) by 4.31% in 2015, 3.05% in 2014, 19.9% in 2013, 4.34% in 2012, and 1.58% in 2011 -- so not a single year represented when its lower E.R. made a difference in relative performance. (Data from M* performance pages.)

In the vein of "a fresh look" at MLPs, I was doing some semi-purposeful browsing around this past weekend and came upon a change in June re. how FSDIX will be allocated, viz. the addition of MLPs to the dvd-paying stock sleave (up to 10%, oh yes). Fidelity is thinking of it as a strategy "enhancement":
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/analysis/316145887

Joanna Bewick on upcoming enhancements to the fund:
"In June 2016, a new out-of-benchmark subportfolio providing dedicated exposure to MLPs – master limited partnerships – will be created within the fund's dividend-paying equities allocation. This as of yet unfunded subportfolio will allow Ford and me to opportunistically allocate as much as 10% of fund assets to MLPs.
"An MLP combines the benefits of a limited partnership – a business structure wherein taxes apply only to unitholder distributions and not to corporate-level profits – with the liquidity of a publicly traded company. We think MLPs are a potentially rich source of investment yield as well as predictable and stable cash distributions. Most often, MLPs are backed by energy companies, with typically modest organic revenue growth that can increase alongside inflation; thus we believe MLPs also offer potential for capital appreciation.
"In our view, the addition of the MLP subportfolio can help improve the fund's risk-adjusted returns by providing key diversification benefits. Further, this change may offer the fund a diversifying source of alpha in keeping with its mandate to deliver non-bond income along with capital-appreciation potential.
"Nathan Strik, a 10-year energy veteran with 15-years of industry experience, has been appointed portfolio manager for the new MLP subportfolio.
"We believe these changes should improve our asset allocation flexibility and allow us to take greater advantage of the investment expertise of Fidelity in positioning the fund to better meet our shareholders' expectations.
"For more than 10 years, the fund has offered a compelling option for non-bond, income-seeking investors, in our view. Our goal with the addition of this new MLP subportfolio is to help make the fund an even more compelling investment option for the next 10 years – and beyond."

I hope this isn't redundant; I don't recall anyone on the Board posting about it.

I compared Schwab and Betterment and found the following:

• Schwab charges no additional fees while Betterment charges 0.15% (for $100k+) but:
  
• The average expense ratio of the ETFs in Schwab's aggressive portfolio varies between 0.22% and 0.27%, while Betterment's varies between a much lower 0.10% and 0.13% (both rotate between ETFs with different expense ratios to do tax loss harvesting, thus the variable expense ratio).
  
• All in, this means Betterment is actually only between 0.005% and 0.03% more expensive than Schwab, but:
  
• Schwab earns money on your cash (6% minimum allocation, even in aggressive portfolios), Schwab earns money by investing in its own ETFs (e.g, SCHX) and Schwab earns money by investing in ETFs that use their platform to trade (e.g., PRF).
  

In the end, to me it was worth a few extra basis points a year to make sure the robot investing my money was programmed by human without any conflicts of interest (final bullet point above) and I went with Betterment.
Disclaimers: I did the above math a few months ago, probably did it wrong, and you should do it yourself!
Hope this helps.