”Something there is that doesn’t love a wall robo … “
Having never played around with any of these sophisticated tools, I’m curious how the rankings or relative performance numbers are arrived at? Granted, either a robo or real life advisor should be able to suggest risk adjusted portfolios based on age, time horizon, investor’s situation, etc. Where I’d have more trouble entrusting my allocation to a robo is within the larger macro picture.
- Are these robo’s aware that bonds recently experienced a 30 year bull market? That aberration affected not only bond returns. It also likely distorted other asset performance as well. Are robos capable of distinguishing between what worked over the last 30 years during falling interest rates and what might work over the next 2 or 3 decades?
- Does the robo take into consideration the difference between very low / negative inflation over the preceding 2 or 3 decades and the likely inflation scenario going forward? Can it comprehend and factor in how that monumental sea change might turn return on different assets on their heads? Assets that outperformed over a period of low inflation may not be the best ones in a radically different economic backdrop.
- Are these robos aware of the growing friction with China, Russia and how that may affect EM investments? Do they take into account the rise of populism around the world and growing political instability in many Western nations?
- Would robos have correctly foreseen the tech revolution in say 1975 (excuse the oxymoron) and would they have recommended the best investments over the next quarter century? Can they properly assess the impact AI may / may not have on investments?
- Can a robo correctly identify a bubble in an asset class and warn its clients to steer clear in a timely manner? (By definition, most humans cannot.) Or, might the robo have had you invested in Japan in the mid-90?
The above considerations extend far beyond basic issues of age, time horizon, risk tolerance. And they’re not necessarily resolved by examining charts of various investments over the past 30 years. Those who correctly analyze at least some of these real world questions and make responsible investment choices going forward should have an advantage over robos - as I understand them.
@MikeM has commented in the past that he runs both his own portfolio and one generated by Schwab’s robo adviser. So, his experiences would shed some light on these questions. Please understand my comments are offered as food for thought only. I have no experience using robos and am not a qualified investment advisor. I make no claims in either regard.
Possibly, a more appropriate reference to the same poem I began with (Frost’s Mending Wall) applies to myself here: “He moves in darkness, as it seems to me …” :)

There's a difference between complexity and transparency. Transparency calls for, at a minimum, the availability of information. Complexity impedes transparency (if something is there but hard to find, it's less transparent). But the alternative, not providing that information, is worse.
"Internally cross-linked mumbo-jumbo" may be referring to all the links that one finds in filings such as 485 forms (statutory prospectus/SAI). Frequent visitors to the site get to know that the first link is the document itself, and the other links are legal attachments. Perhaps a navigation guide from the SEC would help.
Following the second link in the 485 filing, one gets to an agreement between T. Rowe Price Associates (the fund adviser, responsible to the fund for all services) and T Rowe Price Investment Management (the subadviser, responsible to TRP Associates for managing the fund portfolio). These are two separate corporations. The document spells out their rights and obligations; it also includes a limit on subadviser fees.
Does anyone care about this? Probably not, except for the bean counters and the lawyers. But transparency demands it be made available. So it given as an attachment that is "cross-linked".
The gist also show up in the statutory prospectus itself. for each TRP fund with this arrangement. For example, on p. 9 of the PRWCX prospectus (from the TRP website), is:

T. Rowe Price [Associates] entered into a subadvisory agreement with Price Investment Management under which Price Investment Management is authorized to trade securities and make discretionary investment and voting decisions with respect to all or a portion of the fund’s portfolio. Price Investment Management is an SEC-registered investment adviser that provides investment management services to individual and institutional investors and sponsors; and serves as adviser and subadviser to registered investment companies, institutional separate accounts, and common trust funds. Price Investment Management is a subsidiary of T. Rowe Price

That tells investors who the players are and what they do without getting into the legal "mumbo-jumbo". But does the average investor care about even this much? The SEC doesn't think so. That's why it offers funds the option of providing stripped down (IMHO fairly useless) summary prospectuses. If this simplified, non-cross-referenced doc isn't there, blame the fund sponsor, not the SEC. (Until a fund goes live, there doesn't seem to be much point in a fund expending time and effort composing a summary prospectus.)
The SEC site even makes it easy to find these documents with a "Summary Prospectuses" search button.
Getting back to the OP ...
The tickers for the fund are PRCFX (investor shares) and PRCHX (I shares). Dates have not changed much between the original prospectus filed (7/17/23) and the current filing (9/22/23). They both give an effective date for the prospectus of October 1, 2023. The original filing gives a probably public offering date of November 28, 2023. This has been delayed in the new filing to November 29, 2023.
These filings for T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation and Income Fund are separate from the Capital Appreciation & Income Fund from a few years ago (with the old tickers TCIFX, etc.). That fund would have included an Advisor share class that is missing from the 2023 version. More important is that the co-manager of that older fund was Paul M. Massaro; the current filing names Farris G. Shuggi co-manager.
Here are the filings for the earlier version of the fund:
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=S000059017&action=getcompany&scd=filings
The Summary Prospectuses button even pulls up a couple of summary prospectuses for the older version.
Capital Appreciation & Income Fund ceased operation in mid 2019.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1689311/999999999719005819/filename1.pdf

From the news release:
"Vanguard’s track record remains unparalleled — 95% of Vanguard active bond funds
outperformed their peer group averages over the past 10 years ending June 30, 2023¹."
¹ For the ten-year period ended June 30, 2023, 42 of 44 Vanguard active bond funds
outperformed their peer group averages; results will vary for other time periods.
Only funds with a minimum ten-year history were included in the comparisons.

FPPFX generated bottom decile 10-year and 15-year trailing returns in the large-cap growth category¹.
It currently has only $58.6 Mil in assets.
¹ FPPFX was previously categorized as mid-cap growth or large-cap blend according to M*.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/924727/000110465923103126/tm2326678d1_497.htm
FPA U.S. Core Equity Fund
(Ticker: FPPFX)
A series of FPA Funds Trust (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated September 22, 2023 to the
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”),
each dated June 30, 2023, as amended July 28, 2023.
The Board of Trustees of the Trust has approved a Plan of Liquidation for the FPA U.S. Core Equity Fund (the “Fund”). The Plan of Liquidation authorizes the termination, liquidation and dissolution of the Fund. In order to perform such liquidation, effective September 29, 2023 the Fund is closed to all new investment.
The Fund will be liquidated on or about October 31, 2023 (the “Liquidation Date”), and shareholders may redeem their shares until the Liquidation Date. On or promptly after the Liquidation Date, the Fund will make a liquidating distribution to its remaining shareholders equal to each shareholder’s proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund, in complete redemption and cancellation of the Fund’s shares held by the shareholder, and the Fund will be dissolved. Any liquidation proceeds paid to a shareholder should generally be treated as received in exchange for shares and will therefore generally give rise to a capital gain or loss depending on the shareholder’s tax basis. Shareholders (including but not limited to shareholders holding shares through tax-deferred accounts) should contact their tax advisers to discuss the income tax consequences of the liquidation. Under certain circumstances, liquidation proceeds may be subject to withholding taxes.
In anticipation of the liquidation of the Fund, First Pacific Advisors, LP, the Fund’s advisor, may manage the Fund in a manner intended to facilitate its orderly liquidation, such as by raising cash or making investments in other highly liquid assets. As a result, during this time, all or a portion of the Fund may not be invested in a manner consistent with its stated investment strategies, which may prevent the Fund from achieving its investment objective.
Please contact the Fund at (800) 982-4372, except from Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands, where you may call collect (310) 473-0225, if you have any questions or need assistance.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

@msf
Yep that is the same spreadsheet I saw. How did you get a copy?
I got a bunch of Morningstar reports on their portfolios and am going over them. Will report back as soon as I have finished.
So far for the 65% Equity income oriented portfolio I see that it lost 9% 10/21-9/22.
More later

I don't expect much that is good will happen in the Market until we are into 2025.
*"Mark Baum" in The Big Short.

So there's a chance the biotech ETF I bought at the end of 2021 might come back to life . . . some day? ROFL.
Looks like the CD in my IRA will come in handy when it pays off in October.
Plenty of cash in the taxable to shop with, if I wasn't frolicking in the spondulicks the MM is throwing off.

[snip]
As @Sven noted, Vanguard PAS can incorporate outside investments in its planning. It is one of several robo/hybrid advisors that do this (including the top five in M*'s ranking). See thread on Robo Advisor Evaluation.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/61501/robo-advisor-evaluation
From the M* report: "Having access to this [external asset] information can help robo-advisor programs provide more accurate advice on savings, asset allocations, and progress toward investment goals."

The dollar values for outside investments were incorporated into the portfolio
but these investments were treated as cash in the current asset mix*.
Consequently, unnecessary and counter-productive trades (with tax consequences)
were suggested to align my Vanguard accounts with the targeted asset allocation.
My understanding is that Vanguard PAS can not provide advice for outside accounts.
I'm certain there are legal reasons for this stance.
I'm ok with not getting advice for outside accounts but believe it would be much better
if these investments¹ were factored into the current asset mix in the beginning.
When we forecast goals that include accounts outside the portfolio (including
Vanguard accounts): They’re based solely on the account balance information
and contribution rates provided to us. For accounts held outside the portfolio,
we’ll assume the asset allocation is the same as our recommended allocation.
Thus, the hypothetical projections and your results will vary. You might consider
adjusting the asset mix of accounts outside the portfolio to our recommended
mix. This recommendation assumes the objectives of those accounts are the
same as your portfolio accounts.
* Edit: Outside investments were assumed to be allocated according to the plan (60/40 in this case)
when goals were forecast. However, outside investments were entirely ignored in the current asset mix.
This would result in unnecessary and senseless trading to align my portfolio with the target asset allocation.
¹ A list of all outside investments was provided.

Yes, I'm waiting until the eagle sh*ts, then I'll throw some $ into TS. I see Steve Eisman* (CNBC) is asserting that the whole bank sector is "uninvestable." For how long? My time-frame runs for years, not months. I don't expect much that is good will happen in the Market until we are into 2025.
*"Mark Baum" in The Big Short.

I just got off the call with this guy [at Wealth Enhancement Group]. I was generally impressed. ( While he was not calling form his yacht, he was calling from second home in Maine!) They have a model which will calculate Roth Conversions and expected taxes with breakeven points ( Example says 2040!). Assumes 5% return in taxable and 7% in Roth

Is this the example you were shown?
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ed7df046f291c4a9e5546fc/t/63ffc63f2a2d1c36743d9803/1677706815803/Sample+Roth+Conversions+DCFI+-+2023_with+notes+-+JH.pdf

They will do financial plan free of any fees, but of course want to manage your money. The fee is fairly reasonable at 1% for first 1,000,000 up to 0.7% over 5,000,000, so in line with most firms that do portfolio management only, and a bit higher than many mutual funds.

That is certainly in line with the industry:

From: https://www.advisoryhq.com/articles/financial-advisor-fees-wealth-managers-planners-and-fee-only-advisors/
Comparison of types of services and typical fees:
https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/financial-advisor-cost
Fees do depend on what you get. I was just looking at someone's Separately Managed Account (SMA) portfolio with a couple of hundred large cap stocks (with little S&P 500 overlap). Real portfolio, outperformed the S&P 500 net of fees since owned (about 2.5 years), fees closer to 1/2% than to 1% (well under $1M in assets). Would perform tax harvesting except it is in an IRA. Don't know about other services included.

I agree the Vanguard info is pretty comprehensive, but to me it is predictably Vanguard, ie 60/40, 20% International, tax loss harvesting. Not sure that is worth their fees which I think are 0.3% correct ?

As @hank observed, Vanguard builds a glidepath. I noted in the Robo advisor thread that per M* this is unusual for low cost (i.e. robo) advisors. Also note that that 20% international is out of 60% stock, i.e. 1/3 of equity is foreign. Vanguard, being enthusiastic about matching market attributes, observes that 40% of the equity market is abroad.
Vanguard Digital Advisor costs 20 basis points all in, or 15 basis points excluding underlying fund expenses. One adds another 15 basis points (30 basis points excluding underlying expenses) in order to get human attention and financial planning. More services, higher fees.
https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/compare-investment-advice#comparison-chart

Those suggested allocations for VG PAS in 60s & 70s (60-40), early-80s (55-45), late-80s & beyond (50-50) are much higher than those for target-date funds (TDFs), including Vanguard TDFs. Of course, the questionnaire for PAS determined the specifics.
Most TDFs have 50-50 in 60s (retirement age) and then flatten out to 20-80/40-60 over several years. TDFs also have issues. But I am just noticing the huge discrepancy between the VG PAS recommendations and TDFs.

Vanguard has defined five risk levels for asset allocation schedules:
very conservative, conservative, moderate, aggressive, very aggressive.
The asset allocation schedule suggested in my plan is considered aggressive.
For some context, two 2025 target-date fund portfolios (08/31/2023) are listed below.
VTTVX
U.S. Stock: 32.60%
Intl. Stock: 22.00%
U.S. Bond: 28.30%
Intl. Bond: 12.40%
Short-Term TIPS: 4.70%
TRRHX
U.S. Stock: 38.39%
Intl. Stock: 17.58%
U.S. Bond: 26.18%
Intl. Bond: 9.75%
Cash: 4.80%
Other: 2.66%
Convertibles: 0.42%
Preferred Stock: 0.22%
The glide path in my plan differs from target-date fund glide paths.
Equity allocation is 60% until age 80, 55% from ages 80 - 85, and 50% from ages 85 - 100.
I was surprised by the relatively high equity allocation beyond age 80.
Perhaps a more conventional glide path exists for conservative or moderate asset allocation schedules?

Preset allocation funds including target date funds do work and meet the target, but it takes patience. Yes, we set aside cash and cash equivalents for emergency.
Our personal experience is to send our kids to college using the 529 fund exclusively. These plans can be set to change allocation automatically ( or manually) according to the child age and withdrawal date. Through 2000, 2008 and 2022 drawdowns, we stay the course and came out okay and manage to pay the college bills.

@sma3 stated:
For this you get the plan, quarterly reviews, tax planning etc. Their "value dividend growth " portfolio has returned 12% net of fees since 2007, pays 3% and lost only 7% in 2022. They also have a growth portfolio, and buy individual bonds for income. They have on site CFA, CFPs, tax lawyers estate planners etc.
In the "value dividend growth" portfolio 12% net of fees since 2007 figure above provided by the Wealth Enhancement Group, do they compare this portfolio to what index? Is their portfolio earning 13% since 2007 for a little more than 15+ years (ie, 12% net of fee + 1% advisor fee)? I'm curious as it appears they are earning equal to S&P 500 index returns or possible better with lower risk profile.

@Derf
Funny you should ask. After asking my Schwab rep if he had some way to help me calculate Roth conversions amounts, he suggested talking to the "Wealth Enhancement Group" for a no commitment plan. WEG guy says they are the 6th largest independent advisory firm in the country with over 70 Billion in assets
I just got off the call with this guy. I was generally impressed. ( While he was not calling form his yacht, he was calling from second home in Maine!) They have a model which will calculate Roth Conversions and expected taxes with breakeven points ( Example says 2040!). Assumes 5% return in taxable and 7% in Roth
They will do financial plan free of any fees, but of course want to manage your money. The fee is fairly reasonable at 1% for first 1,000,000 up to 0.7% over 5,000,000, so in line with most firms that do portfolio management only, and a bit higher than many mutual funds.
For this you get the plan, quarterly reviews, tax planning etc. Their "value dividend growth " portfolio has returned 12% net of fees since 2007, pays 3% and lost only 7% in 2022. They also have a growth portfolio, and buy individual bonds for income. They have on site CFA, CFPs, tax lawyers estate planners etc.
I agree the Vanguard info is pretty comprehensive, but to me it is predictably Vanguard, ie 60/40, 20% International, tax loss harvesting. Not sure that is worth their fees which I think are 0.3% correct ?

Assume comes up once again ! Let's say you put your plan to work a few years ago, 3,4 5. Along comes rate increase , now over 5% that's taken place. Would you be willing to stand pat , or clear out some equity & jump into CD's & T-bills or notes ? I know I've lowered equity side by 5 to 7 %.
With that said, I 'assume" ones age would play a big part where one invests.
@Observant1 Thanks for posting I enjoyed your info !

Critics say that many funds may move to more generic names or the rule may limit fund managers' flexibility.
To the extent that this rule change has any effect, I would tend to agree with the critics on the former (move toward generic names). But upon cursory examination (I haven't looked at the full rule yet), it doesn't look like the rule has teeth.
The PR says that "The [new rule] will include enhanced prospectus disclosure requirements for terminology used in fund names, including a requirement that any terms used in the fund’s name that suggest an investment focus must be consistent with those terms’ plain English meaning or established industry use."
Consider Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust. For much of its existence, it was classified as a growth fund, e.g.

The fund's name and Miller's stated goal strongly indicate that LMVTX is a value fund, although Morningstar classifies it as a large-cap growth fund. In fact, one of its top holdings is Google .

Fortune, Jan 27,2006.
Bill Miller argued that he was a value investor, and the Legg Mason prospectus described this:

The fund invests primarily in equity securities that, in the adviser's opinion, offer the potential for capital growth. The adviser follows a value discipline in selecting securities, and therefore seeks to purchase securities at large discounts to the adviser's assessment of their intrinsic value. Intrinsic value, according to the adviser, is the value of the company measured, to different extents depending on the type of company, on factors such as, but not limited to, the discounted value of its projected future free cash flows, the company's ability to earn returns on capital in excess of its cost of capital, private market values of similar companies and the costs to replicate the business. Qualitative factors, such as an assessment of the company's products, competitive positioning, strategy, industry economics and dynamics, regulatory frameworks and more, may also be considered. Securities may be undervalued due to, among other things, uncertainty arising from the limited availability of accurate information, economic growth and change, changes in competitive conditions, technological change, investor overreaction to negative news or events, and changes in government policy or geopolitical dynamics.

Prospectus, July 2006
More succinctly, from The Street (2001):

Unlike most value managers who tend to ignore pricey stocks in the technology and telecom sectors, Miller has a broader and less rigid view. Instead of relying on traditional metrics like a stock's price to earnings multiple, he looks at a company's free cash flow.

Miller was a relative value investor, though with a distinctive way of valuing companies. As such, and especially with the detailed definition of intrinsic value in the prospectus, I suspect that his fund would have passed the new SEC rule. IOW, a pretty toothless rule.

The difference between the individual recommendation and glide paths of various TDFs is likely due to the low (3.03%) withdrawal rate requested. That's quite low compared with the "rule of thumb" 4% or the base case of 4.7% used in this Vanguard paper (analyzing the relationship between health, spending, and asset allocation).
With a lower withdrawal rate, one can be (somewhat) more aggressive in asset allocation. That's assuming that "optimizing" a portfolio means making the most money available subject to it not running out.
Alternatively, one could optimize by investing more conservatively, improving odds of success from very near certainty to very, very near certainty. (That's somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but a real response to the question of whether it would be better to be more conservative if one doesn't need the extra money.)
As @Sven noted, Vanguard PAS can incorporate outside investments in its planning. It is one of several robo/hybrid advisors that do this (including the top five in M*'s ranking). See thread on Robo Advisor Evaluation.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/61501/robo-advisor-evaluation
From the M* report: "Having access to this [external asset] information can help robo-advisor programs provide more accurate advice on savings, asset allocations, and progress toward investment goals."

Those suggested allocations for VG PAS in 60s & 70s (60-40), early-80s (55-45), late-80s & beyond (50-50) are much higher than those for target-date funds (TDFs), including Vanguard TDFs. Of course, the questionnaire for PAS determined the specifics.
Most TDFs have 50-50 in 60s (retirement age) and then flatten out to 20-80/40-60 over several years. TDFs also have issues. But I am just noticing the huge discrepancy between the VG PAS recommendations and TDFs.

Yeah. Per stockcharts or Fidelity, FXAIX, VOO, and IVV trade lead places irregularly over 10-5-3-1-0.5y, also the last few months. SPY is always last, slightly.