FYI: WSJ paywall is down for today. So I thought you would enjoy reading his last six Intelligent Investor articles.
Regards,
Ted
https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2018/07/27/no-one-needs-paper-piles-sec-should-get-smart-about-broker-disclosure/

FYI: Betterment unveiled its automated investing service in 2010. Within a few years, “robo-advisors” were threatening to upend financial services the way that Amazon.com undid retail. Sophisticated algorithms, the promise went, could provide customized portfolios to the masses, at a quarter of the price charged by human advisors.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-top-robo-advisors-an-exclusive-ranking-1532740937?mod=hp_highlight_2

Hi Hank,
You claim that their study is flawed, but don't directly identify the flaws.
@MJG - You’re somewhat correct. I posed five caveats re the Betterment study. Since the third addressed their business model, I’ll omit it here. Here are the other four caveats which you may consider to be “flaws” in the Betterment study:
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.
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).
My first reference, which you did not address, was a study conducted in the 1990s by university professors.
MJG - I think the following excerpt you posted (from a 35-page chapter) pretty much sums up what the U of M professors were getting at.
"Our most dramatic empirical evidence is provided by the 20 percent of households that trade most often. With average monthly turnover of in excess of 20 percent, these households turn their common stock portfolios over more than twice annually. The gross returns earned by these high-turnover households are unremarkable, and their net returns are anemic."

I agree with those findings, except I’d put it the other way around. Frequent trading is often the symptom of an uninformed and undisciplined investor. Likely these people have the same failings when it comes to saving in general, managing debt and maintaining a household budget. But do note that the thread is not about frequent trading (touching). It’s about checking one’s portfolio (looking). I know of no other aspect of human existence where ignorance is considered bliss, where not knowing is preferable to knowing, where remaining unaware is preferable to observing. Not in medicine, not in engineering, not in caring for our loved ones.

Hi Hank,
Thanks again for reading and replying to my post that referenced the Betterment study. You claim that their study is flawed, but don't directly identify the flaws. I don't deal with Betterment and make no assessment of their business model or the services that they provide.
I offered the Betterment study as a second reference to this discussion. My first reference, which you did not address, was a study conducted in the 1990s by university professors. It was extensive and made the same basic conclusions that Betterment offered. Over a rather long timeframe individual investor performance has not changed very much according to both studies.
The referenced papers are rather lengthy. So here is a segment of the conclusions from that first referenced study:
"Our most dramatic empirical evidence is provided by the 20 percent of households that trade most often. With average monthly turnover of in ex- cess of 20 percent, these households turn their common stock portfolios over more than twice annually. The gross returns earned by these high-turnover households are unremarkable, and their net returns are anemic."
The numerical data presented in the study support that conclusion. The numbers need not be repeated here. But their last statement in the report is a terrific summary: "Those who trade the most are hurt the most". Enough said!
Best Wishes

Related Story...interesting geo-political dynamics when it comes to the production and trade of resources:

For too long, Russia has enjoyed near-monopoly status as the main supplier of natural gas to our European allies, and wielded that power as a means of political coercion.
Simply stated, the United States wants to help our partners increase their energy security by increasing the diversity, not only of their supply, but of their suppliers as well.

energy-secretary-perry-true-energy-independence-is-finally-within-our-grasp
Forbes Article:

The U.S. may continue to lead the world in natural gas production for a few more years, but the level of proved natural gas reserves implies that our lead could be short-lived.
The Middle East's proved natural gas reserves at the end of 2017 were 2.8 quadrillion cubic feet, nearly ten times U.S. proved reserves of 309 trillion cubic feet. For perspective, U.S. proved reserves are only 4.5% of the global total.
Russia has more proved natural gas reserves than any other country with 1.23 quadrillion cubic feet, followed by Iran with 1.17 quadrillion cubic feet. Total proved natural gas reserves at the end of 2017 were enough to satisfy 2017 global production rates for 52.6 years.

the-u-s-is-still-the-global-natural-gas-king

Hello, Being an active retail investor I tabulate my portfolio's value on most market days. In this way I get a feel for what's moving and what's not. In addition, I update my market barometer weekly as I use it as an aid to help determine the better times to buy. Generally, I hold my positions for a good number of years with a few that I move in an out of as I feel warranted to tweak my equity allocation.
I can understand a passive investor looking at their stuff monthly or quarterly. But, investing is something that I enjoy and during my working years we opened our business most everyday except on holidays and weekends. With this, I open my investment shop most days except holidays and during the summer months where generally I take a gander weekly (reduced hours) but not as often as I do during the investing season (4th & 1st quarters). These are the two quarters that my portfolio has the stronger returns and where I generally make most of my money. However, I have found that stocks often go soft during the summer months and sometimes if the stars are aligned to my fancy, I'll do some buying as I did back in June (around the edges of course).
With investing what may be right for one might not be right for others. Do what you feel is best for yourself and discard a lot of what the talking heads preach. My late father taught me if you have not picked up on a trend by the time it's printed in the papers ... Well, son, you are to late getting to the party as the big money has already been made. This still pretty much still rings true today. This is why I watch my stuff closely looking for trends to put new money to work. And, at times letting some stuff go in the process. Although, the turnover ratio on some of my funds is pretty high and Morningstar estimates overall my mutual fund managers (on average) turn their positions every 24 months ... my average turnover computes to years.
By the way, turnover is the measure of how often an investor (or trader) buys and sells.

Now you’ve lost me @Ben. :)
I took your original statement to mean you might look 10 times during one week and not sell. But during a different week you might look only once, but decide to sell at that time.
ie: The number of “looks” in a given week does not necessarily need to correspond with when a buy/sell decision is eventually made. Made perfect sense to me.

wow, you hit the godwin rule so early!
there has been truly new news since this, no?
plus this from not so long ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/business/wells-fargo-federal-reserve.html
I pose the question to you of how to punish any institutions ever, any of whom can say It's all different now, bad actors gone, we are good to go, we have changed, we saw the light, yada yada
Warren said only two months ago that WFC was good to go, one bad action only
I believe I have read recent news about bad actions wrt the wealth management group, but I try not to keep up w WFC.
What counts for culture, inertia, proof of change, hard and costly remediations, firings and punishments, yeah, good question these days.

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).

+1

@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'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 reason for dumping PRBLX years ago was because WFC clearly had major issues with the 'G'(overnance) in the Parnassus ESG investing framework, yet the fund kept the #1 holding for years as the various scandals piled up. Although I could care less about ESG ratings frankly[1] ... and gods know I own enough 'sin' stocks anyway. Rather, I like the composition of PRBLX and think it's a great blended fund that marches to its own drummer[2]... but it needed to dump WFC to live up to its self-proclaimed ESG mandate, imo. (or change their mandate)
I'm recently back in PRBLX for my Roth IRA, btw.
[1] It's why I bought VMVFX early on. I could care less about 'minimum volatility' in the name but upon closer inspection the fund is a nifty world stock fund that has (to me) a great allocation and fits nicely into what I wanted in my portfolio.
[2] It's also why I like PRGTX. It's a tech fund but it holds few if any of the 'usual suspects' in the space (ie, the FANGS, etc.) and does its own thing.

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

FYI: (This is a follow-up article.)
Vanguard Group has once again upped its game in the ongoing war on fees. The fund giant recently announced that it will offer commission-free nearly 1,800 ETFs on its brokerage platform, including those from rival firms BlackRock (BLK), Schwab (SCHW) and State Street (STT).
What this means for investors is that they will not be paying any trading commissions on nearly the whole ETF universe, which is around 2,000 funds. The only exceptions are inverse and levered ETFs, which require more hands-on expertise and can be used for speculative purposes.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/etfs/no-fee-etf-vanguard-price-war/

FYI The Linkster suggest you take the advice of Barry Ritholtz. "Vote on the first Tuesday in November, go to church on Sunday, but always bring a cool unemotional detachment to investing on Monday."
Regards,
Ted
http://ritholtz.com/2018/07/religion-and-politics/