The bond market will close two hours early (2PM EST) on Dec 29th. Just in case you're looking to dump Treasuries as rates continue to rise. (That's a lighthearted statement, not a prediction.)
Less often practiced, but potentially useful, is tax-gain harvesting. It can be advantageous to generate cap gains and ordinary income in different years. In that way, one can take advantage of lower cap gains rates (e.g. 0% bracket) without getting pushed out by the presence of ordinary income.
Instead of recognizing some gains and some income (e.g. from Roth conversions) each year, one can recognize more gains (fill the 0% bracket) in year 1, and do more conversions in year 2 to compensate. Just watch for all the gotchas - pushing into the next ordinary income tax bracket, exceeding ACA subsidy limits, IRMAA, SS taxation brackets, etc.
It's not unusual to find advice about aggregating tax deductions (property taxes, charitable contributions, etc.) into every other year. It's less common to see similar advice about harvesting cap gains this way. (I believe Kitces' discussion about the interplay between cap gains and ordinary income does have such a suggestion.)
Hypothetical example (MFJ), using same rates/brackets for 2024 as 2023. By keeping all the cap gains in the first year and all the conversions (extra ordinary income) in the second year, nearly all the cap gains get taxed at 0%, vs. 15% in the second year. Even with the "penalty" for lumping ordinary income into year 2 (some is taxed at 22%) one may come out ahead.
This is very income and bracket specific.

			2023			2024
Other ordinary income:	 $70,000		 $70,000
Roth conversion:	 $     0		 $60,000
Less std deduction:	($27,700)		($27,700)
Taxable ord income:	 $42,300		 $102,300
Cap gains:		 $50,000		 $      0
Ordinary income tax:	10% x $22,000+		10% x $22,000+
12% x $20,300  		12% x $67,450 +
22% x (102300-89450)
=$4,876		 =$13,121
Cap gains tax:		15% x                    
($92,300 - $89,250)  
=$457.50		 =$  0          
---------             ---------
Total tax:		  $5,123.50		  $13,121
With evenly split income/conversions
2023			2024
Other ordinary income:	 $70,000		 $70,000
Roth conversion:	 $30,000		 $30,000
Less std deduction:	($27,700)		($27,700)
Taxable ord income:	 $72,300		 $72,300
Cap gains:		 $25,000		 $25,000
Ordinary income tax:	10% x $22,000+		10% x $22,000+
12% x $50,300  		12% x $50,300
=$8,236		  =$8,236
Cap gains tax:		15% x			15% x
($97,300 - $89,250)	($97,300 - $89,250)  
=$1,207.50		 =$1,207.50          
---------             ---------
Total tax:		  $9,443.50		  $9,443.50 

for many funds, the documents only go back to 2007 even if the fund is much older (example: Ariel Fund).

That's not entirely correct. You may not be able to find them, but generally the SEC has fund docs going back to 1994 or 1995, including Ariel Fund docs. Back then it was the Ariel Growth Fund.
Here's the folder with Ariel fund family filings. In any given folder, you'll want to open the NNNN-YY-NNNN-index.html file.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/798365
The only 1994 files are the annual and semi-annual reports in machine-readable format.
The 1995 prospectus for the Ariel (Growth) Fund and the Ariel Appreciation Fund (including the Oct 1, 1995 supplement reopening the Growth fund) is here:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/798365/0000950131-95-002729.txt
There's also the 1995 prospectus for the Ariel Premier Bond Fund (including the Nov 6, 1995 supplement allowing investors to buy into institutional class shares when they buy in at the ground floor):
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/798365/0000950131-95-002376.txt
What appears to be the earliest human-readable annual report (Sept 30, 1995) is here:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/798365/0000950131-95-003393.txt
Happy rummaging.

Thanks!!

9/25/23 3m T-Bill Auction was at a discounted price of 98.652694.
So, finally some changes after the 2nd decimal place. Looks like the short end of the yield-curve is anchored/stable and the long end is pivoting about the short end.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/annceresult/press/preanre/2023/R_20230925_1.pdf

Have robos gotten their clients out of the cap weighted S&P 500 - or at least reduced exposure this year?
Hopefully not early this year. YTD (through Sept 22, data from M*),
VOO (S&P 500): 13.89% (23rd percentile LCblend)
IVOO (S&P 400): 3.92% (48th percentile, MCblend)
DFAS:                  2.91% (50th percentile; SCblend)
Hindsight is 20/20. Nevertheless this illustrates why trading in and out of sectors based on short term expectations may not pay off. If your question is whether robo advisors make changes more frequently than annually, I believe the answer is yes, perhaps too frequently, depending on the company and the types of investments used. (I'm surmising based on limited information.)
(I'm not seeing any recent moves in a Vanguard managed account that uses only index funds; it was already slightly overweighted toward mid/small cap.)
It doesn't matter whether an account is robo or human advised. The advisors are largely backed by their institution's models. Within the constraints of preferences expressed by individual investors (e.g. Sven expressed a preference to avoid EM), the advisors follow those models.
Take a manager like Will Danoff. Here are the top ten investments of FCNTX (as of July 31):
Meta 11.8% (way overweight relative to S&P 500),
BRK 9% (way overweight),
MSFT 6.5% (similar to S&P 500),
AMZN 5.8% (overweight),
AAPL 4.8% (underweight),
NVDA 4.12% (overweight),
UNH 3.89% (overweight),
GOOGL 2.63% (slight overweight),
GOOG 2.25% (slight overweight),
LLY 2.21% (overweight)
These are all in the S&P 500 top 12. Of the S&P 500's top 10, only TSLA is not in FCNTX. #10 in the S&P 500, XOM, is #15 for FCNTX.

I did find a SEC filing back from April 28, 2006 (which is as far back as I can go).
The SEC filing does list the Fidelity Utilities Growth Fund, minus the "Select."
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320351/000088019506000036/main.htm
There was a name change back in April 2009 based on the filing below:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320351/000071889109000008/main.htm
Here is a copy of that section:
On January 16, 2009, Utilities Portfolio changed its name from Utilities Growth Portfolio to Utilities Portfolio
Incidentally, Zacks still states the fund name is Fidelity Select Utilities Growth Portfolio:
https://www.zacks.com/funds/mutual-fund/quote/FSUTX

If I had a robo I’d be yanking its strings today, asking what the 10 year going over 4.5% means and whether there’s a particularly good investment to try and profit from this. I guess the worst it might do is to suggest, “Take safe shelter immediately!” - :)

@Sven, age-based funds within 529s operationally work like TDFs for retirement; their glide-paths are to the college age of 18 (vs retirement date of the TDFs). One can mix age-based funds with traditional allocation funds within 529s to achieve a variety of custom glide-paths. But I don't know of a 529 that formally includes a robo-advisor fund within it.
@hank, most performance comparisons of robo-advisors with other funds (TDFs, allocation/hybrid) are for moderate-allocation (around 60-40). There are also variations for MA - MA Aggressive, MA, MA Conservative.
IMO, robo-advisors are nothing more than hyped-up allocation funds that are liked by the younger generation. If one is willing to spend a little time, one can achieve a similar effect with traditional allocation funds (static-allocations; Income, conservative-allocation, moderate-allocation, aggressive-allocation) or TDFs (glide-path allocation). A lot of PR has gone into promoting robo-advisors as something novel when it is just some old wine in new bottles.

Simple question. Have robos gotten their clients out of the cap weighted S&P 500 - or at least reduced exposure this year? Hard to find market observers who think that’s currently reasonably valued.
If I had a robo I’d expect quarterly updates. If they could help in making tactical mid-course corrections every quarter or two they’d earn their pay. Annual course corrections would be better than nothing. But if all they can do is recommend longer term multi-year allocation models suitable for age and situation, then there are many sources of information to assist an experienced investor is charting and staying the course.

Robo investing does work given time and patience. For example, many state sponsored 529 plans employ low cost broadly diversified index funds. The state adds a smaller layer of fees as the administrator. Overall fees are still very good. Automatic shifting allocation from stocks to bonds (eventually money market fund) is available today. If started early enough, the parents have 18 years to invest for their child’s college education. We are very fortunate to use the 529 plan to put our kids through college.

Thanks @msf. Spot on. Although I didn’t look at the prospectus, the Franklin promotional work-up contains a multi color bar chart showing the allocations. And, yes, they combine the convertible bond & equity linked notes on a single line, but do reference both as you already stated. I missed it.
https://www.franklintempleton.com/investments/options/exchange-traded-funds/products/36262/SINGLCLASS/franklin-income-focus-etf/INCM
Apparently the new ETF is run by the same team that has run the 5-star Franklin Income Fund (FKIQX). Strategies look very similar to me. But I did note that FKIQX tanked badly in 2008 - in sympathy with what some lower tier junk bond funds did. Gives one pause. I’ll pass for now.

The Week in Charts (09/24/23)
The most important charts and themes in markets, including...
00:00 Intro
00:37 Webinar Next Week (9/26 @ 1pm EST)
01:06 Are Higher Rates Here to Stay (FOMC Meeting)
08:52 Good Times, Bad Times (Bonds)
17:02 Rising Rates: Good or Bad for Corporations?
22:24 Another Debt Milestone (National Debt)
26:29 A Minor Pullback (Equity Markets)
28:49 Would Stock Picking Be Easy if You Knew the Future?
31:34 Instacart IPO
36:40 "Soft Landing"
41:38 Slowdown in Homebuilding
44:02 Commercial Real Estate Reset
46:41 Real Estate Boom & Bust in China
48:24 India's Incredible Progress
Video
Blog

I've not used any financial adviser, WEG or other, personally. My situation is simple enough to handle myself; just maximize after-tax value subject to risk tolerance.
Don't dig too deeply into the spreadsheet. It goes beyond obvious simplifications (such as uniform 5% and 7% rates of return and no changes in tax brackets between 2027 and 2042) to the point that conclusions may be suspect.
For example: By assumption, the taxable account is spinning off no income other than sales from gain. If it were otherwise, that income would be used to offset some of the annual surplus/(shortfall). Okay, that's just another simplification.
But it also means that no divs are being reinvested in the taxable account. Consequently the cost basis of the taxable account is decreasing each year as assets are sold off. Meanwhile, despite these selloffs, the total value of the taxable account is increasing (see "Non-qualified Inv. Accts.")
Therefore, the ratio cost basis (going down) : total value (going up) is decreasing.
Yet each year, the spreadsheet says that this ratio is fixed at 75%. It says that the cap gain on each asset is the same 25% of proceeds. This is impossible with a homogeneous portfolio (assumed, just as 5% uniform growth is assumed).
Thus the spreadsheet understates the taxes owned due to cap gains (declining cost basis means greater gain and higher taxes).
There's a more concerning issue. We see equity assets (or other assets generating cap gains) being sold for short term cash flow needs. That's not the way I manage my portfolio.
Of course the spreadsheet is just "for illustration purposes only".

@msf, Vanguard often written things in simple language. Many may interpret Vanguard being a plain old indexer and that is simply untrue (have equally number actively managed funds).
As you posted the comparison between different PAS plans: Digital Advisor ($3K minimum), Personal Advisor ($50K minimum), Personal Advisor Select ($500K minimum), and Wealth Management ($5M minimum). All plans have active funds options.
We chose Personal Advisor Select since we want need additional advice on personal financial planning and personal trust service. A dedicated advisor seems to work very effectively for us.
As I stated earlier, Vanguard's proposal is far from being a cookie-cutter plan filled with index funds. It is built based on our risk tolerance, withdraw need with respect to time and from which tax-deferred accounts. The advisor constructed the proposal to include actively managed short and intermediate term investment grade bond funds (not just a total bond market index fund) and a total international bond index fund (we have little exposure to this asset class), plus others I mentioned above. Our advisor is well aware of the inverted yield curve and our bonds spread between short and intermediate term duration; no long duration bonds. In addition, we requested to shift more of bonds to my accounts and more stocks to my wife since they will be withdraw 5 years later.
In the end, I believe the clients have the equal responsibility to work with their advisors in order to put together a solid asset allocation plan so to meet their future needs.
Thank you for your "Dynamic Cash Flow" example, I am putting together a spreadsheet for our Roth conversion plan. Even though we have taken advantage of Roth 401(K) when it was available. Still we have sizable traditional IRAs to convert and the tax saving is substantial in our case.

M* Rekenthaler mentioned exposure to international as one of the main drags on target-date retirement funds in a column this past summer.

Just thought I'd try to show what a dragging portfolio Vanguard's recommended retired fund has been the last year or so. (If readable.)

VTINX Target Income Composition 01/01/2023        Ticker   % portfolio
Vanguard Total Bond Market II                      VTBIX    37.00%
Vanguard Total Stock Market Institutional          VSMPX     18.00%
Vanguard Short-Term Inflation-Protected            VTAPX     16.30%
Vanguard Total International Bond II Index Fund	    VTILX    16.20%
Vanguard Total International Stock Investor Shares  VGTSX    12.50%
VTINX Portfolio                                              100.00%

Thanks for update. I too am far overweight energy as it is such a small amount of the SP it is clearly a value play.
I am still trying to decide when to buy long bonds. Many of the professional bond folks, even those who think we are in a prolonged bond bear market ( ie Jim Grant) are looking at that 50% haircut on 30 year Treasuries and thinking it has to have a pop.

Ugly week and month for bonds. I just stay on the horse through it all. I'm better off now than when I first bought my delicious, wonderful junk bonds. But you're talking about IG and gummint stuff, eh? As I said elsewhere, I'm not expecting much except dividends, until into 2025. If the Fed decides to help out sooner, then great.

@msf
Have you used the Schwab WEG group for anything?
The example in the spreadsheet shows without the conversions their tax rate is 22% but in retirement with RMDS rises to 28% and eventually to 33%
With the conversion they start out at 24 to 25% but keep it around 28%
It is surprising that they only save $80,000 in lifetime taxes and it takes until 2041 for them to break even on taxes paid. They come out ahead estate wise by $500,000 and their heirs get the Roth tax free.
So you are essentially paying your heirs tax bill for them.

Thanks for update. I too am far overweight energy as it is such a small amount of the SP it is clearly a value play.
I am still trying to decide when to buy long bonds. Many of the professional bond folks, even those who think we are in a prolonged bond bear market ( ie Jim Grant) are looking at that 50% haircut on 30 year Treasuries and thinking it has to have a pop.

Very useful discussion but I think the key is how they programmed their robos.
If their models only look at historical data since the beginning of the Bond Bull Market, they may vastly under preform since the era of "free money" is over and bonds have almost had three years of negative returns in a row, a situation without historical precedence.
Relying on the 60/40 portfolio with bond index funds and SP500 indexes here seems pretty risky to me, especially when you can get over 5% in 2 year treasuries. The stock/bond correlation is quite positive.
Hopefully Vanguard is thinking out side of their "indexing Box". I always am concerned when you look at their decades long insistence that clients need significant international exposure. At some point that will be called for, but it has not worked for a long time.

@Sven - very nice writeup specifically addressing some questions asked here.
Curious that your advisor said VPMCX wasn't available. From the fund prospectus:

The Fund is closed to new accounts for investors not enrolled in Vanguard Flagship Services® or Vanguard Personal Advisor Services®. Clients of these services may open new Fund accounts, investing up to $25,000 per Fund account per year as described below, in individual, joint, and/or personal trust registrations.

My somewhat limited experience (all vicarious) with advisory services suggests that each provider slices and dices their offerings into so many different packages that it's difficult to tell one from another. Even the names confuse matters.
Your service, that you're calling "Vanguard PAS Select", is formally called "Vanguard Personal Advisor Select", though it was previously called "Vanguard Personal Advisor Services". In 2019, Vanguard launched its pure robo version, Vanguard Digital Advisor. Then in 2022, Vanguard launched a hybrid version of that, called "Vanguard Personal Advisor". As of now, there is no specific offering called Vanguard Personal Advisor Services (which is what comes to my mind with "PAS").
Here are the brochures and other disclosures in gory detail. I'm just beginning to compare and contrast them now. They seem to have buried within them all of the info in this thread plus more, but obviously much harder to extract than reading here.
Personal Advisor Select: https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/vpabroc.pdf
Digital Advisor (robo) / Personal Advisor (hybrid):
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/vanguard-digital-advice-brochure.pdf
Here's Vanguard's advisory services comparison page:
https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/compare-investment-advice#comparison-chart
Disregarding trust services (available in Select), there seem to be three differentiators between the services. (Could be many more, I'm just starting a deeper dive.)
1. Human financial advice/service - none for digital, team for Personal Advisor, dedicated individual for Select. Even this isn't clear, because the disclosure for Personal Advisor says that you get a dedicated individual once you reach $500K (the min for Select).
2. Management discretion - Digital and Personal are nondiscretionary (VG makes all decisions); Select is nondiscretionary (you must approve financial plan before VG executes it).
3. Price structure - Digital and Personal have gross fees (0.20%/0.25% and 0.35%/0.40% respectively for index/active portfolios) that are reduced by the Vanguard portion of ERs of the underlying holdings. Select charges 0.30% annually, with no reduction for the cost of underlying funds. (Over $5M AUM Select portfolios get a reduced fee.)
Sven mentioned that his managed portfolio has no cash. That's likely typical but not mandatory. Select says that on Oct 21, it will begin assessing its advisory fee on the "recommended allocations to cash equivalents in the discretionary advice offer." Until then, cash investment allocations are "free".
That cash is different from "spending cash". Select (and only Select) offers a "spending fund" (a MMF) for cash flows in and out of the managed portfolio. You can set upper and lower thresholds. Vanguard will move money in and out of the managed portfolio to keep within those thresholds. In the withdrawal phase, that's essentially your checking account.
As I continue to dig into the disclosures, I'll make corrections if needed to the above.

Nice poignant quip from the afore mentioned Forsyth column:
“With a nod to our Deadhead central bank chief, what a long, strange trip it’s been—and a bad trip for those who own the 1.25% Treasury bonds due on May 15, 2050, which closed on Thursday at a price of 48.186, more than half off their original price just over three years ago.”