Schwab index funds are cheaper than VG.

Expense ratios are just one part of the equation.
On the cost side there are tax costs. When you buy an OEF share class of a Vanguard fund you benefit from the fund's ability to dump any cap gains via the fund's ETF share class.
Vanguard 2018 YE distributions (no cap gains for index funds, except institutional funds that have no ETF class shares)
Schwab 2018 YE distributions (see p. 3)
On the revenue side, there's security lending. "Consistent with Vanguard’s client-owned structure, Vanguard returns all net lending revenues—after subtracting program costs, agent fees (on non-U.S. securities), and any broker rebates—to the funds."
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGSL.pdf
As it turns out, Schwab has a similar policy. But unlike Vanguard, with Schwab would you be confident of that without checking?
https://www.schwabfunds.com/public/file/P-7549969
The point is that there is much more going on than is reflected in ERs. Relatively speaking a basis point one way or the other is just noise. How much tracking accuracy will the fund trade off for better pricing? DFA does this so extensively that it says its funds are actively managed, albeit indexed. Full replication vs. sampling; quality of sampling methodology. And so on.

Hi sir @_davidrmoran.. Good post... Imagine if they cut everything across the board (reduce indegent Healthcare /ssi/Medicare infrastructure spendings/nonessntial staff workers in govt cut back/military budget spending, /taxeveryone 1%higher (and 5%raisetax for wealthy individuals) - - we will reach deficits goals in no time. .. The problem are no one would give in.. These views are too radicals

And from today, repeating the above total figure, lest anyone think Krugman is (again) a 'what, me worry?' about debt; also the ramifications of not doing the right things with the debt moneys:
While we're all (rightly) focused on the constitutional crisis, CBO just projected a fiscal 2019 deficit of $984 billion — just shy of a trillion. No need to panic about solvency; but we should marvel both at GOP hypocrisy and how little all this debt bought, 1/
All through the Obama years, Republicans gave fire-and-brimstone speeches denouncing the evils of budget deficits — and blackmailed Obama into fiscal austerity in the face of high unemployment. Then they blew up the deficit as soon as they were in power, 2/
The deficit was $660 billion in fiscal 2017 (which ended on Sept. 30 and didn't reflect the Trump tax cut). So we've seen a $320 billion surge, despite a growing economy that should have brought the deficit down. That's a lot of fiscal stimulus! 3/
Imagine what might have been accomplished if we'd been willing to spend an extra $300 billion a year on infrastructure. Instead, it was mainly taxcuts for businesses and the wealthy, which were supposed to supercharge growth. 4/
In reality it's unclear at this point whether the taxcut did anything for growth; it certainly didn't lead to the promised surge in investment. 5/
A best guess is that the taxcut was a bit of a stimulus, but with low bang for the buck; and that its effects were offset, or more than offset, by Trump's trade war. So despite completely abandoning their pretended principles, Rs haven't gotten much. 6/
In particular, the idea that a booming economy would rescue Trump from his troubles on other fronts now looks farfetched. Moral: if you're going to be a complete hypocrite, at least try to do it right. 7/

This from 27y ago is pretty droll, about inequality (which is fundamentally related to debt and to taxation, as everyone knows who read this week's headlines about ultrarich low low low tax rates, or even those who did not):
https://www.bradford-delong.com/2019/10/income-and-wealth-distribution-or-watching-professional-republicans-sell-their-souls-back-in-1992-hoisted-from-the-archive.html

+1 (or DSEEX and PIMIX)

Schwab index funds are cheaper than VG.
Managed funds:
It's so easy to find better funds than VG+D&C.
PRWCX is better than DODBX and most/all other allocation funds.
PIMIX isn't as good in the last 1-2 years but beat DODIX by a lot for 5-10 years. VG doesn't have Multisetcor funds. Don't fool by DODIX, it's also a light MS fund.
SPY is better than DODGX. USMV is better than both.
MFAPX easily beat DODFX for performance and risk attributes
Pimco bonds funds are better than VG bond funds
QQQ is better than POGRX.
Probably, Wellesley is the best VG fund and hard to beat for risk/reward unless you use 2 funds such as USMV+PIMIX.
Basically, the magic of VG is gone and I was always able to find better funds than D&C.

How long can a bad fund look good? Consider HSGFX
Inception July 2000
“During the 2000-02 bear market the Hussman’s fund posted phenomenal performance by sidestepping most of the carnage and posting gains.”
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2014/02/curious-case-john-hussman-understanding-biases-process/

was curious what you would advocate or were advocating, was saying 'do go on'
am always curious, when you are brief
(I myself support way higher wealth taxes, loophole closures, and also DoD and select subsidy cuts, just for starters)
yes, correct about interest being part of debt
also it is good that shiller is timeless, so influential is he; wonder why he specifically history-qualified his explanation as he did
and from thehill.com just now, quite as you say:
The difference between federal spending and revenue has only ever exceeded $1 trillion four times, in the period immediately following the global financial crisis.

We're all different, but this is exactly what most mutual fund investment return data shows to be why 'investor return' does not even come even close to 'fund actual performance'.

3) ...by looking at 1-3-12-36 months good risk/reward and then select the best ones with 1-3 momentum. That lead to holding some funds for months and some for weeks and the exceptions, like PIMIX, for years. Each of my funds must do well if not, it will be replaced. I call it my NBA team, I'm going to the playoff each year but winning the title isn't guaranteed. I have my core players and supporting player but even the biggest stars are not immune from sitting out.

Compared 5 10 yrs data vnq kicking this fund butt... 5,%preload and 1+%annual fees not really standout either

FYI: Now that companies can handle almost every aspect of their business virtually, real estate investors might be relieved to know there’s still one business that needs plenty of physical space—computer data centers to store all that virtual information. Steve Shigekawa, manager of the Neuberger Berman Real Estate fund, has been onto this trend for a long time.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/american-tower-and-4-other-tech-forward-real-estate-stocks-51570613402?refsec=funds
M* Snapshot NREAX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/nreax/quote
Lipper Snapshot NREAX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/nreax
NREAX Is Ranked #14 In The (RE) Fund Category By U.A. News & Wrld Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/real-estate/neuberger-berman-real-estate-fund/nreax

POGRX lags QQQ for years now(http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart?t=pogrx&region=usa&culture=en_US&dataParams={"zoomKey":9,"version":"US","showNav":true,"defaultShowName":"name","mainSettingId":"main","navSettingId":"nav","benchmarkSettingId":"benchmark","sliderBgSettingId":"sliderBg","volumeSettingId":"volume","defaultBenchmark":false,"id":"FOUSA05B59|FEUSA00003","type":"FO|FE","region":"USA","name":"XNAS:POGRX|XNAS:QQQ","baseCurrency":"USD","defaultBenchmarks":["",""],"chartType":"growth","startDay":"10/09/2009","endDay":"10/08/2019","chartWidth":955,"SMA":[]})

@Crash
>> That gov't deficit is already beyond ridiculous.
Don't forget that this chiefly is money we owe ourselves, and matters when it crowds out investment, which is not happening yet, though of course it might eventually.

That was the entire post I responded to. Just so that we're clear on "drivebys".
The Shiller quote was timeless. It was a conceptual statement. I can't tell why you say it doesn't apply fully today. Is that because:

• Today everyone is taxed the same and is owed the same amount, so that unlike the world of the 1930s, debt and taxes now cancel each other out? or
• Profligate spending today is less likely to crowd out private investment than in the 1930s? or
• Adding to today's large deficits would be for better reasons today than in the 1930s?

Interesting that you say that debt/GDP is key, when Krugman says that it is the interest payments (not the raw debt) that matters. He couches it in more dynamic (i.e. rate) terms, referring to deficit, not debt:
"[Krugman] then argues that... if the rate of interest on government debt exceeds the rate of growth, either the debt to GDP ratio spirals out of control or the government is forced to tighten fiscal policy." (From your wonkish cite).
In case you'd like that direct from the horse's mouth: "But this kind of debt spiral can only happen if the interest rate on the debt is higher than the economy’s growth rate." He goes on to say that "debt doesn’t spiral. On the contrary, it tends to fall as a share of GDP unless the government runs large primary deficits." (Emphasis added)
That's because a large primary deficit significantly increases interest payments even when interest rates aren't higher than GDP growth. How large do you think is too large? We're now at $1T deficits (admittedly fiscal, not primary) and still growing (AP, Oct 7, 2019):

The government ran a budget deficit of just under $1 trillion in the just-closed fiscal year, the Congressional Budget Office said Monday.
The $984 billion deficit tally for 2019 came in more than $200 billion more than last year’s, despite very low unemployment and continuing economic growth. ...
CBO noted that deficits have been growing faster than the size of the economy for four years in a row, ending 2019 at 4.7 percent of gross domestic product.

" interest rates are still very low by historical standards" (from Krugman's opinion piece in the NYTimes that you quoted above). This begs the obvious question: what happens when the debt rolls over?

The article has solutions(see below) which I don't think are good ones:
1) When a fund lags, you can't predict it will do well in the next 5-10, it can be an underperformer for years to come.
2) Financial adviser? I can write 3 pages of why not
3) What I have done for years is to invest in only 7-8 funds max (in the last several years 4-5) by looking at 1-3-12-36 months good risk/reward and then select the best ones with 1-3 momentum. That lead to holding some funds for months and some for weeks and the exceptions, like PIMIX, for years. Each of my funds must do well if not, it will be replaced. I call it my NBA team, I'm going to the playoff each year but winning the title isn't guaranteed. I have my core players and supporting player but even the biggest stars are not immune from sitting out.
============================
From the article below
What can we do?
1) Have a predetermined investment process with a disciplined approach to buying, assessing and selling investments. To discourage myopic focus on a particular investment, build a portfolio of diverse strategies that perform in different ways and in different market conditions.
2) Be willing to accept periods of underperformance. During tough times, take your eyes off performance with a qualitative assessment. Understand a manager’s investment strategy and process: How do they make investments? Are they staying true to their strategy? Are market conditions impacting their strategy?
3) Work with a financial advisor who can help to maintain discipline, patience and a long-term focus.

@msf, you should go on in addition to driveby.
The Shiller quote was about the 1930s; note his actual tenses --- not that it does not partly apply today. See below.
This is not a 'What, me worry?' situation. Why I wrote 'chiefly'. Perhaps I should have made it 'defensibly' --- it depends on what we are spending it on.
(Krugman is no MMT-Kelton fan; kinda odd Shiller did not mention him in such an article.)
Debt/GDP is key. A primer:
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-debt-to-gdp-ratio-1978993
Thanks to the tax cuts (giveaways to the rich) of the "president", we are now up to around 120%; see @Catch22's link, over to the right, six rows down. Don't know that anyone believes that is any kind of ideal or optimal situation. Huge huge bailouts for farmers, few complaining.
The grinders below may help those who really fret the seemingly alarming US debt clock (see upper-left part of the link), and feel like @Crash that the 'deficit is already beyond ridiculous'.
Detail
lay backgrounder:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-federal-debt/2019/04/26/28d8e78c-66d4-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html
modulated take, by guess who; from 8mos ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/opinion/democrats-federal-deficit.html
The case for worrying about debt is stronger now, given low unemployment. But interest rates are still very low by historical standards — less than 1 percent after adjusting for inflation. This is so low that we needn’t fear that debt will snowball, with interest payments blowing up the deficit. It also suggests that we’re suffering from chronic weakness in private investment demand (which, by the way, the 2017 tax cut doesn’t seem [this is conclusively proved] to have boosted at all).
So in the past few months a number of prominent economists — including the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and top economists from the Obama administration — have published analyses saying that even now, with unemployment quite low, debt is much less of a problem than previously thought.
It’s still a bad idea to run up debt for no good reason — say, to provide tax breaks that corporations just use to buy back their own stock, which is, of course, what the G.O.P. did. But borrowing at ultralow interest rates to pay for investments in the future — infrastructure, of course, but also things like nutrition and health care for the young, who are the workers of tomorrow — is very defensible. [bf emph mine]
way more wonkish:
https://criticalfinance.org/2019/03/06/kelton-and-krugman-on-is-lm-and-mmt/
backward-looking:
https://www.bradford-delong.com/2019/06/the-intergenerational-burden-of-the-debt-nick-rowe-tempts-fate-weblogging-hoisted-from-the-archives.html

Robert Shiller:

“we owe it to ourselves.” That [is] a half-truth.
That claim would [be] accurate only in an extreme, theoretical case: if everyone had identical government bond holdings and paid identical taxes to cover the interest and principal that they were paying to themselves. In such a hypothetical situation, debt and taxes would cancel each other and the level of government debt would be meaningless. But we are never going to be in that situation in the real world.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/business/modern-monetary-theory-shiller.html

@Crash
A form of easing is already in place. Numerous articles over the past several weeks, but this one will do for a broad example.
This fits into the topic category, although likely deserves its own subject.
Don't know about the $ going down, as others may be buying dollars to invest in the best turd pile of the global bunch at this time..........just my humble, non-collegiate opinion.
REPO MARKET SUPPORT or are things getting twitchy elsewhere?

The Fed's Powell just pledged to expand the Fed. Reserve balance sheet. That sounds (alarmingly) like a return to market stimulus via gov't notes and bonds? I'm bond-heavy, already. Systematically adding with auto-reinvest instructions to my funds. PTIAX PRSNX RPSIX. That gov't deficit is already beyond ridiculous. Uncle Jerome would be very plainly diluting the value of the dollar, still further. I can see $10 for a pack of butter at the supermarket. I did NOT just now specify a POUND of butter, which was customary until recently. We'll pay more to get less as every day goes by, as I've often said. How much butter will be in the package, then? 13.5 ounces? 13 ounces....???? And how many dollars will it take to get one Filipino peso? Currently, it's 50 pesos to the dollar. There will be a yooge cost attached to the FUBAR decisions which have been made.

FYI: It’s only natural for someone invested in a poorly performing active equity mutual fund to wonder if it’s time to make a change. Should an investor sell a fund if it trails its benchmark for a year? Three years? Five years?
Turns out, active equity mutual funds that beat their benchmark over a 15-year period experience a whopping nine years of cumulative underperformance on average! Conversely, and perhaps even more surprising, funds that ultimately underperform their benchmark over the same 15-year period cumulatively outperform over 11 of those years on average.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2019/10/07/how-long-can-a-good-fund-look-bad

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, and Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analysis tools, including Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.
You can read more here.