I despise "Bank of 34 States" (You can't call yourself "Bank of America" until you are located in all 50 states).

The last thing anyone should strive for is maintaining various account balances with "Bof34" as a strategy to multiply credit card rewards.
I have a lot of respect for most of what @msf shares here..."Bof34" is not one of them.

@BenWP Interesting about the 2% cash back VISA at Schwab being dropped. Fidelity had a simple 2% cash back card offer through AmEx. I think it was in 2014 or 2015, they negotiated a deal with VISA for the same offer, and upon implementation dropped AmEx.

The Schwab card wasn't exactly dropped; it remained a VISA card, but most of the terms were changed.
Its affiliation with Schwab was dropped. Instead of dealing with FIA Card Services (a subsidiary of BofA), you now deal with BofA. Instead of it being a straight 2% rebate, it's a BofA Cash Rewards card (1%, 2% on supermarkets and warehouse clubs, and 3% on gas). The higher rebates only apply to the first $2500 per quarter.
While all that may sound worse than the Fidelity card (or Citibank's Double Cash), it added one benefit and retained one legacy benefit from the Schwab card. If you've got various combined balances with BofA/Merrill (including Merrill Edge), the rebates will be multiplied by 1.25, 1.5, or 1.75.
For foreign travel, the card retains the Schwab VISA 0% foreign transaction fee. ("Real" BofA Cash Rewards cards carry a 3% fee.)

I've been with Schwab since 1997 and love it. I had a brief dalliance with VG a few years ago with part of my portfolio, but did not care for them. Among other reasons, you can call Schwab 24/7, not so with VG.
Schwab people on the phone are probably the most polite people you will ever talk to. In the 20 years I've been with them, the only time I've been to one of their offices was last fall. I was encouraged by the local rep to come in so I did, but aside from a good conversation it was a waste of time. Everything I need to do is available on the website, or is a quick phone call away with a very nice person (who speaks English).
Their website and its portfolio tools are pretty good. They have a huge selection of NL funds (they don't have everything, nor does anyone else). ETFs are now $4.95 per trade (not really relevant to me, I'm not a trader).

Mind game...
Everyone moves into all index funds, presumably spread out over the whole market. Funds that hold all of the components of an index would skyrocket with their valuations dependent only on how much money was allocated to that index. But the relative value of each stock to the other would remain the same forever, until the SP500 for example delisted a company. Then it's price would drop to close to zero unless it was immediately added to another index
Indexes that rely on a "random" sample of larger universes would jockey to pick the best sampling process because if their returns were better they would get more money. If were truly random then we would really have a "random walk".
But if a company's value was only determined by what index it was in, then there would be no incentive for mangers to improve the bottom line as the stock price would only be determined by popularity of it's index. Large companies wold have access to almost unlimited amounts of capital small companies almost none. More of the smaller ones would go private further exacerbating the situation.
MFO would go dark.

Thank you for answering my second question, msf. I think that we would consider VFINX an example of a well managed S&P 500 Index fund, but its 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year trailing total returns fall short of those of the S&P 500 Index, according to Morningstar: http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=VFINX&region=usa&culture=en-US
Thus, it fails to meet the same criterion that SPIVA sets for active funds.

FYI: Investors wouldn’t have a way to capture value in the stock market if it were entirely held by passively managed funds, according to Jack Bogle, the founder of Vanguard Group.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-06/bogle-says-if-everybody-indexed-markets-would-fail-under-chaos

Hi Tony,
Thanks for your participation and question.
A likely explanation for the unimpressive performance of actively managed domestic large cap funds is that a high percentage of their holdings tend to duplicate the Index that matches their style. They are far too passive at deviating with original investment ideas. Therefore their performance is often slightly below their Index results because of cost drag.
Over many measurement time periods, the active management shortfalls are often slightly less than their cost drag because they do have some selection talent that helps to reduce their cost penalty. A few manage to fully overcome that operational cost penalty.
Over time the percentage that manage this feat changes, but it typically is a percentage that is less than 25% , and that's a generous estimate most timeframes. That percentage decreases as the timeframe expands. Active fund management typically doesn't deliver the goods.
Best Wishes

Over the last 15 years, how many *passively* managed domestic large cap funds beat their index? If they are truly tracking their index, don't they all fail each year by at least the amount of their expense ratio?

Recent Bond Commentary from USAA's John Spear:

Source:
https://communities.usaa.com/t5/blogs/blogarticleprintpage/blog-id/market-commentary/article-id/227

FYI: After turning in their worst quarterly performance in years, bond funds were supposed to keep struggling as the calendar flipped to 2017. Managers were busy early this year making sure expectations were properly low for bond funds, even after billions of dollars left them in November and again in December.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/92c50e91608a43c594dd18ad5f096d37/surprise-despite-dire-forecasts-bond-funds-are-doing-fine

IMHO this is good news, since it means we can expect less bloat, less of a headache for managers having to deal with hot money, and more good funds reopening.
The object is to do well over time, not each and every year. In this article, they looked at how many funds outperformed (defined as being in the top 25%) annually over the past year, and a year ago, and two years ago, etc. Surprise, surprise, no funds outperform every year. From this they concluded that that funds don't outperform for more than three years or so. Wrong.
I ran a similar screen - except instead of using years ending Jan 31, I used years ending Dec. 31. Similar (and useless) results. After 2 years (2016 and 2015) I found 1026 share classes (vs. the 1098 that the article reported using Jan 31 ending dates). After three years I came up with 455 share classes, that amounted to about 183 different funds.
After six years of this (2016-2011), I got 41 share classes amounting to a tad over a dozen funds. Over eight calendar years (as opposed to years ending Jan 31), I found 18 share classes (9 funds). That's nine more funds than the article reported for years ending Jan 31. FWIW: UTAHX, RSGYX, GMCDX, LLDYX, NCSPX, PFORX, PISIX, PIFZX, and VMPYX.
But it's an absurd exercise. Backing up to five years (since there's data on five year performance), there are only 72 share classes that outperformed each of the past five calendar years (34 funds). Yet obviously 1/4 of the funds that have existed for five years have outperformed their peers (defined at being in the top 25%). Over 1700 funds.
Even if we add in the requirements that the funds must also have performed in the top 25% over the past three and one years, we still get around 600 funds. Roughly 20 times the number of funds that this article suggests.
This is why one should be skeptical of anyone saying that a fund consistently outperforms. Just as one should be skeptical of articles using consistency (over relatively small periods like a year at a time) as a metric for long term performance.
How many index funds outperformed 75% of their peers year in, year out, for five, six, seven years? Hint: The only index fund that managed this feat for even five years is VSCSX.

I am a Schwab enthusiast--banking, brokerage and retirement accounts all there. Some of my favorite things about Schwab:
1. Awesome customer service
2. An extensive list of NTF/load-waived funds, including T. Rowe funds now.
3. Minimum fund investments as low as $100
4. Cheap equity trades: $4.95
5. Seamless transfers between banking/brokerage
6. Intuitive website
I also have (and like) Vanguard, but Schwab is still my favorite.

FYI: Nearly $100 billion was pulled from funds that beat their benchmark.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-unloved-is-active-management-even-outperformance-is-being-snubbed-2017-05-04/print

Many brokerages have improved significantly in the past decade or so. These days it seems to be (with a few exceptions) a choice between adequate, good, and really good. I put Schwab in that latter category.
Though I don't use Schwab much, I have been with them for many years - I even have an old "No annual fee - free for life" IRA there. (When's the last time you saw an IRA account with an annual fee?)
As others have said, they've got good execution, don't bother you (maybe that's because I don't have enough invested with them), a good selection of NTF funds. They seem pretty fast in making newly load-waived funds available NTF.
For me, the biggest plus, outside of the high quality service, is the rebate ATM card that expatsp mentioned. What wasn't mentioned was that not only does Schwab rebate the ATM fees, but it also eats the 1% foreign exchange fee imposed by the network (VISA/MC) when you use the card abroad.
A small plus is that Schwab bank is a real bank. That matters in a few situations where other financial institutions only allow EFT linking to a real bank. (Sometimes you can't link a third party to a Fidelity account, since Fidelity doesn't run a bank.) Be aware though that virtually no Schwab branches are Schwab bank branches. I don't know if this list is accurate, but it shows just 11 bank branches:
https://www.branchspot.com/charles-schwab-bank/
The biggest minus for me is that Schwab doesn't seem to have a backdoor like Fidelity where you can buy shares of a TF without paying a large fee (here, $76) per purchase.
Finally, since Vanguard Brokerage Services was mentioned - it's true that they offer fewer funds, but they seem to sometimes offer institutional class shares with lower mins than Schwab or Fidelity. Notably PIMCo ($25K vs. $100K at Schwab/Fidelity.)

@bee @doh! I just had to plot 50-50 in portfolio. My name is Idiotus Maximus.
So anyways, the point is why ying-yang when you can just zen?
Vanguard Tax Managed Balanced is what I would go with. I just think right now bond funds should have active.

We have an account at Schwab and 5 accounts at TD Ameritrade. Both companies are good and I would not reject the idea of being moved to TDA, especially if you don't have to initiate transfers. The latter can be a hassle, so I'd avoid them. Service, choice of NTF funds, order execution, paper statements (yes, I insist on them), almost no cold calls; I really have had no complaints. TDA has been very good with the RMD on a small roll-over IRA in my wife's name. Ample warning, the amount figured out, and easy to transfer the amount into the brokerage account. Other than a couple of accounts I hold directly with 3 MFs, I have no experience with other platforms. Personal note: I like Chuck better than Ted Ricketts.

I have used Schwab for three decades and have been pretty well satisfied. I also use Fido and Vanguard.
I think their customer service is better than Vanguard, at least there are fewer restrictions on accounts at Schwab so less maneuvering. Fido is pretty good too but we have less money there.
the account executives at Schwab leave you alone unless you ask for help. When asked they are knowledgeable and professional and it is nice to talk to the same person. Having said that there is a lot of turnover. I have been thru three in ten years.
Statements are better than Vanguard which consolidates all the accounts in one statement, including retirement non retirement etc
The only problem I have ever had with execution ( I mostly use market orders and MFs) was a mutual fund changed the NAV two days later after I sold it. Both Schwab and Vanguard said it was not their responsibility. The Mutual fund refused to answer. I went to the SEC and they were interested but as it was only a few bucks I decided I had better things to do. I posted on this earlier so you can reference it if you want
My major complaint about Vanguard is the limited selection of funds. Schwab and Fido have much better lists, and usually have A shares without a load and lots of funds with huge minimums available for a song. I haven't compared Fido and Schwab but I think they are close.
Schwab wants $75 a mutual fund buy vs $35 at Fido. ( Vanguard Flagship is only $8), but when I asked, in the guise of a "500 free stock trades for two years from Fido" my Schwab rep immediately said they would drop the $75 to $30. If you have a large account I would ask before you move.
The website is a little irritating as you get this drop down menu that hangs there unless you move off of it. I find Fido's clearer and easier to maneuver around. Both beat Vanguard hands down.. There you have to click thru three screens to find the cost basis and can hardly ever find daily return. I guess they want investors who only are in it for the long term, not daily.
All in all I think Fido is a little better ( cheaper, cleaner web) but it is slight.
One thing to keep in mind if you are truly paranoid like I am, Schwab as a public company has to disclose it's quarterly results, so if it were ever to get over leveraged or make an insanely bad acquisition, you would know.
At Fido, you are at the mercy of the Johnsons. While Abigail seems like a nice gal, with her cute bob haircut and horn rims, you are not picking her up in a bar( well if you live in Boston and get a chance, go for it) . You are giving her your hard earned money and it makes me a little nervous you really can't tell and will never be able to tell what is going on behind the scenes.
I have the same general concern about Vanguard with all their propaganda about the "funds" owning the company. Maybe, but try to find out who really makes decisions there and what they get paid. Notice shareholders do not get much say.
Hope this helps. Bottom line... don't put your eggs all in one basket, unless you really do meet Abby in a bar and she seems to like you.. but get it in writing.

@Sven - you CNBC link has a problem. What's displayed is correct, but the embedded link has an extra "http//". In these posts you don't need to embed a link, just type the URL and the server will take care of the rest for you. Such as:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/30/is-your-bond-fund-invested-in-puerto-rico.html
Technically PR isn't allowed to go through bankruptcy. It's using Title III of PROMESA. That looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but isn't a duck.
http://www.businessinsider.com/puerto-rico-seeking-title-iii-bankruptcy-for-public-debt-2017-5
Oppenheimer Rochester funds have always played fast and loose, well before PR had problems with its bonds.
Six of its funds settled a class action lawsuit for this. "The [six suits, combined here] all alleged that Oppenheimer said it would invest the majority of the money in the funds in investment-grade municipal bonds, but actually invested much of it in low-rated junk bonds and derivatives."
https://www.law360.com/articles/468793/oppenheimer-reaches-90m-deal-in-municipal-bond-case
OPCAX is the target of a separate ongoing class action law suit for its investments in the same time frame (2006-2008).
https://oppenheimercalmunilitigation.com/Home/FAQ
Many PR bonds were already in default. I received letters last year on PR bonds I own saying that they would be missing payments. So any action, even "bankruptcy", that would improve the likelihood of future payments in any amount would be expected to increase the value of these bonds immediately.
Improved prices would decrease YTW, even though the next coupon date had not arrived. Similarly, as bond prices rose, the NAV of funds holding them would rise immediately, and thus the SEC yield of the funds would fall. YTW and SEC yield are functions of price as well as payment amounts.

This is as plausible as any prediction backed up by technicals. It is certainly a contrary outlook compared to most today. I for one hope he is right, but I won't bet the farm on it. I do agree that all the talk about screaming high valuation may be overdone, that S&P 500 component values for the most part are fair to somewhat overvalued using several less traditional measures. But again that may not mean anything. A good read, nonetheless.

@VintageFreak said,

Besides VFINX + EDV probably equals Vanguard Balanced Index right?
PS - Is there a tool that can take ying-yang chart above, combine and draw a zen line showing how the portfolio value moved? I think that would be really useful, no?

I like to use Portfolio Visualizer and it's link to Back Test Asset Allocation:
https://portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio
Historical performance comparisons can be made of mutual funds, etf, stocks individually or as a percentage of an asset allocation. This site also provides a wealth of data including MaxDD (check out the "i" symbol next to the MaxDD data for length of MaxDD...very cool)
In the chart below I charted VBINX (60/40) allocation as "Portfolio 1", 60% VFINX and 40% EDV as "Portfolio 2", and I added VWELX (a managed 60/40 fund) as "Portfolio 3". Here's the result:

VBINX and VWELX performed comparatively similar with VWELX getting the edge. The (VFINX/EDV) portfolio had the greatest drawdown (during the 2009 period), but was also the least correlated to the market at 0.48.
Taking VBINX and VWELX back to 1993 shows the success of Wellington's management team verses VBINX. Here's this chart: