Fidelity still has a $50,000 minimum.

(...And the limit order DID go through on PSTL at the open today. Price: $14.65.)

Don't let names of services confuse you. PAS at Vanguard and PAS at Fidelity are two different animals. PAS at Vanguard is a hybrid robo advisor, similar to Fidelity's GO (assuming AUM of at least $25K). Fidelity defines the service this way:

A hybrid robo advisor typically refers to a robo advisor that includes access to investment adviser representatives, whether via telephone or in person. In the case of Fidelity Go®, we combine our digital offering with access to 1-on-1 financial planning and coaching via telephone for clients that invest at least $25,000 in a Fidelity Go account.

https://www.fidelity.com/managed-accounts/fidelity-go/overview
The cost of Fidelity GO is 35 basis points/year. But the account uses Fidelity Flex funds, which have ERs of 0.00%. Vanguard's PAS uses Vanguard funds. So the all-in costs of these two services should be similar.
Fidelity's older PAS service uses proprietary and third party funds. It is model based but not robo-based. The last time I looked at it many years ago, it tended to throw a gazillion funds into a portfolio, perhaps because it could, perhaps because that gave the impression that it was doing something. In any case, this is not the same type of service as Fidelity GO or Vanguard PAS.
https://www.fidelity.com/managed-accounts/overview
https://www.fidelity.com/wealth-management/investment-management-services
FIdelity has so many fee schedules that it's hard to find the one you're looking at. Their fees are different for Fidelity-preferred portfolios, "blended" (no preference) portfolios, and index fund portfolios. Regardless, PAS services do cost much more than hybrid robo services, whether at Fidelity or elsewhere.

FWIW
I looked into Fidelity's service. I am sure Lynn knows more about it than I found in an hour or so of searching around, and I would be interested in his experience.
Using what appears to be their fee schedule, Fido is much more expensive than Vanguard. They charge 1.25 % on the first $500,000. on a $6,000,000 account even with the declining fees, the total works out to 0.46% vs Vanguards flat 0.3%. To get pricing similar to Vanguard's it looks like you need to have $10 million in total investable assets or net worth.
There is little discussion of how they pick investments, as it is all managed in house by their advisors. A quick look down the line of folks offered up to help does not indicate they are anything special. Without a personal recommendation from someone you trust with experience at Fidelity, you are probably just as well off with a robot!
It does not appear that either place offers financial planning or asset allocation advice without committing to investment management.

I didn't see any mention of the word fiduciary in the parts of the article about PAS.

Our advisors offer:
Relationships built on a fiduciary duty to always act in your best interests.

https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/personal-hybrid-robo-advisor
However, one doesn't need to see the word "fiduciary" in an article about PAS. All discretionary accounts, not just those at Vanguard, carry with them a fiduciary duty:

It has always been the case in discretionary account relationships that a broker owes the customer a fiduciary duty. [fn 57: "See SEC v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (2002)."]

https://www.sec.gov/comments/4-606/4606-2899.pdf

The benefit of a discretionary account is that it enables individuals ... who lack the time, capacity, or know-how to supervise investment decisions, to delegate authority to a broker who will make decisions in their best interests without prior approval. If such individuals cannot rely on a broker to exercise that discretion for their benefit, then the account loses its added value.

SEC v. Zandford, 53 U.S. 813 at 823. Emphasis added. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/535/813/
FWIW, one wouldn't be able to infer this universal duty of discretionary account managers from mass media writings that equivocate, e.g.:

A discretionary investment account is not a blank check. In most cases, your advisor will still have either an ethical or fiduciary duty to make decisions in your best interest, and they will also be bound by whatever investment strategy you agreed on.

https://smartasset.com/investing/discretionary-vs-non-discretionary-investment-accounts
Try finding "ethical" in a brokerage agreement.

A program isn't a fiduciary. The RIAs (Registered Investment Advisors) are fiduciaries.
So, a RIA handling PAS (or other financial stuff) will be a fiduciary. The RIAs need Series 65, or Series 7 + 66, exam(s).
A call center employee (needing only minimal training) or broker or insurance agent handling PAS won't be. Brokers only need Series 7 exam. Insurance agents need relevant insurance exam(s).
The financial industry is trying to fuzzy things up by also creating Regulation Best-Interest (Reg BI) for the non-RIAs, something in between the requirements/standards for brokers and RIAs. It isn't just practical or possible for everybody to qualify for RIAs overnight.

@hank: I’ve never built a Treasury ladder and I am loathe to let PLW do it for me. It went to the top of M*’s class by losing 3.76% in 2021, 19.97% in 2022, and 0.99% YTD. It must be a tough racket, that Treasury stuff. How much did the middling or lousy funds lose during those periods?

LOL - Not a wreckemendation . I spent a few hours 1 night looking for weird bond ETFs. You can track just about any bond index. I started with a small buy of the 10-20 Treasury index.. Could only stand the heat a week. Really volitile. I’ve never built a ladder either - but have fallen off a few.
‘22 was a rough year for bonds. So the numbers @BenWP cited don’t surprise me. I looked at 3 “tamer” bond or fixed income funds for comparison. Each sported a -11% return in 2022: DODIX, RPSIX, PRGMX.
BTW - I’ve saved 5-6 various bond ETFs to my watchlist if anyone needs a suggestion. The Bloomberg 10-Year Target Index (XTEN) looks about as aggressive as I’d want to be. Unlike Mr. Bond, I’d suggest it be “shaken” (traded often) rather than “stirred” (held in hand).

Hi @SMA3,
Taxes are complex and the tax preparer knows the taxes best. With companies like Fidelity and Vanguard, I suspect that an investor will be dealing mostly with an external tax accountant. My experiences are that the tax accountant will not be familiar with the implications of Medicare on taxes. This is an area where I find an investor will benefit from financial literacy and double check on advice given. I have not dealt with independent financial planners that may be a one stop shop?
Regarding financial convictions and disclosures, an employee was convicted in 2019 of theft:
"The total amount of the funds that the defendant stole exceeded $2.1 million. To Vanguard’s credit, all individual accounts were made whole after the defendant’s crimes were detected."
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/former-vanguard-employee-sentenced-four-years-fraud-scheme
The disclosures from the SEC are mostly minor:
https://files.adviserinfo.sec.gov/IAPD/content/viewform/adv/Sections/iapd_AdvDrpSection.aspx?ORG_PK=105958&FLNG_PK=005984D6000801D203A190C104921F01056C8CC0#Regulatory
Lynn

Here's the timeline, so far as I can reconstruct it from the SEC record. Chip will tweak the article to clean up the 2009/2010 confusion.
On November 10, 1988, Fasciano Fund launches.
On March 23, 2001, the Neuberger Berman Fasciano Fund acquired 100% of the assets and liabilities of the Fasciano Fund (as a cost of $94,278.79).

Beside the scenes: On March 20, 2008, Judith Vale And Robert D'Alelio are appointed as the managers for Neuberger Berman Fasciano. On March 26, 2008, the Board of Trustees approved the merger of Neuberger Berman Fasciano Fund into Neuberger Berman Genesis Fund. In June 2008, Mr. Fasciano launches Fasciano Associates in Chicago and bides his time.

On August 15, 2008, Neuberger Berman Genesis acquired all of the net assets of Neuberger Berman Fasciano Fund.
On December 30, 2009, Aston/Fasciano Small Cap Fund launches.
On December 30, 2010, Aston/Fasciano liquidates, following Mr. Fasciano’s October decision to do so.

Many may not be following these details. But using the formula in Treasury LINK provided by @msf, I was able to verify the data for the recent 52-wk Auction.
In the recent 52-week Auction example in the OP, TR = 5.392% (calculated) and i = 5.351%, d = 363 (Treasury data).
So, 1 + 0.01*TR = (1 + 0.05351/2)*[1 + 0.05351*(363 - 365/2)/365],
or, TR = 5.3925%, and that is close enough to 5.392%.
LINK2

I wrote "Looking Ahead With Vanguard" last month describing their Personal Advisory Services and concerns that I have about customer service.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2023/08/looking-ahead-with-vanguard/
As part of this process, I had several phone calls and appointments with Vanguard. My first phone call took Vanguard representatives around 45 minutes to answer which was disheartening. A second phone call took about fifteen minutes. One lesson learned is to call earlier in the day rather than at the end of the day when they probably have a surge in calls, especially on a Friday.
Once I went with their Advisory Services, I received a couple phone calls from the Advisor and when I returned his call, it was answered immediately by the Team of Advisors if not the Advisor. I now have access to schedule appointments with the Advisor, and additional web tools that I will explore.
I made a request through the Advisor and received a follow up email from Technical Support. When I called that number, it was answered immediately.
I especially like the quote by someone on the Bogleheads website, "I will never understand the willingness of some of my fellow Bogleheads to put all their life savings in just one basket, i.e., brokerage firm. It seems like a sucker bet. So, yes, I still favor Vanguard as well as Fidelity, Schwab, and…"
I have reduced brokerage firms and continue to consolidate accounts through Roth Conversions. At this point, I am satisfied with my choices at Vanguard. I will monitor the performance of advisory services at Fidelity and Vanguard.

I was groggy. I'll fix the dates at the end. Aston/Fasciano (which became AMG Aston Fasciano was in operation for about 12 months. MF was underwriting operations to the tune of about 150K per year and didn't see that changing within a reasonable time frame.
Fasciano Associates, today, doesn't have a website and I couldn't find a Form ADV for it. Mike has a LinkedIn but has never posted. The regulatory filings place the HQ at his home in Lake Forest. From that, I'm assuming he's now a "private investor" which sort of looks like being retired.
David

Thanks so much for the extensive work on Vanguard. It is interesting that they really do not lower their fees the more money you have ( the first $5 million pays the same 0.03% as $5000 ) but I wonder what that gets you. It certainly would make using MFO superfluous, as it looks like they take complete control over all your assets, at least for larger accounts.
The CFA, tax planning and income projections might be very helpful, but is there a way to get the planning without committing to their assuming control of all the investments?
Anybody know why down at the bottom of the list there are felony and misdemeanor convictions on Vanguard's track record ( but none at Fidelity, which has a higher star rating)?
https://investor.com/rias/vanguard-advisers-106715

Unfortunately, bond ladders also have a duration. A 10-yr bond ladder may have a duration around 4-5 years.
So, the ETF PLW has duration 10.80 (M* Portfolio tab below) and SD 9.07 (M* Risk tab) - plenty volatile!
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/xnas/plw/portfolio
But if you had a private/DIY ladder, you would let each bond in the ladder mature at par, so the duration effect will be only if you have to liquidate ladder prematurely, not otherwise.
Just because a fund uses the term "ladder" doesn't mean that it will act as private/DIY ladder. Some DIY stuff you really have to do yourself and cannot farm it out to funds.

I have never invested directly in a treasury fund because this category has a high correlation to rates and rates are unpredictable short term. PLW did poorly YTD. See a YTD chart of VGIT(inter Gov/treasury) + DODIX(good generic higher rated bond fund) + PLW(has a longer duration > 10 years). (https://schrts.co/AEsZUCwD)
You can see that DODIX has the best performance + the lowest volatility. PLW has the worse performance + the highest volatility of 7.5+%.(peak to trough).

@msf, thanks for Treasury and CFR links. I will go over them.
Interesting that calculations are different for < 6 months (an approximation) and 6-12 months (exact calculations).
There are 4 examples presented in the Treasury link. The first two (#1, #2) use 360-day year for price and discount rate calculations, the other two (#3, #4) use 365/366 days for coupon-equivalent yield.
In examples #3 and #4, the first full 6-month period is defined as 365/2 =182.5 or 366/2 = 183. So, it is possible that Treasury just defaults to 360-day year convention in the approximation used for less than 6 months rather than using "odd" 182.5 or 183 days.
I was also solving quadratic equation for interest rate in my notes (and shown in this BB LINK), but I didn't present those details elsewhere as the results weren't matching anyway with the Treasury calculations. But I see that Treasury is using 2 unequal compounding periods while I was using 2 identical periods for compounding (and the same as you did in your plain English bond example.
Lot of food for thought.

According to several web sources, Treasury simply uses this formula for Coupon-Equivalent Yield of T-Bills,
Coupon-Equivalent Yield = 100*[(Par Value - Purchase Price)/Purchase Price]* 360/d, where d = days to maturity.

Which just goes to show that you can't believe everything you read on the web. (In all fairness, the second post in the Bogleheads thread correctly says that 365 days are used and references the same Treasury sources I'm relying on below. Except it misses an added complication for T-bills maturing in more than six months.)
According to the Treasury (the authoritative source), the above formula is not what is used for Coupon Equivalent Yield of T-bills. It is almost correct for T-bills maturing in six months or less, except that the correct formula uses 365 or 366 day years. For T-bills with longer maturities (still under a year), a quadratic equation must be solved.
Some people may not be clear about what Coupon Equivalent Yield represents.

The Coupon Equivalent, also called the Bond Equivalent, or the Investment Yield, is the bill's yield based on the purchase price, discount, and a 365- or 366-day year. The Coupon Equivalent can be used to compare the yield on a discount bill to the yield on a nominal coupon security that pays semiannual interest with the same maturity date.

https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_bill_rates&field_tdr_date_value_month=202209
In plain English, if you have a bond with a 4% coupon purchased at par ($100), then every six months it pays $2. To compute the annualized rate of return one assumes that the coupons are reinvested at the original rate. So after one year, one would have:
$100 x (1 + 2%) x (1 + 2%) = $100 x 1.0404 = $104.04. That's an annual yield of 4.04%.
T-bills don't have coupons, but if they did, this particular T-bill would pay coupons at an annual rate of 5.351%. That is, a six month coupon would pay half of that, or 2.6755%.
When one applies the same compounding as above (though reducing the second coupon by 2 days simple interest), one finds that the government figures are correct:

Rate (i)		5.351%
Price per $100		$94.883778
Days in 2024 (y)	366
1/2 year coupon		2.6755%		(1/2 X 5.351%)
Total days to maturity	364
2nd half frac of year	0.494535519	(364 - 366/2) / 366
2nd half coupon		2.6463%		(0.494... x 5.351%)

Compounding the coupons as before (except the second coupon isn't for a complete half year):
(1 + 2.6755%) x (1 + 2.6463%) = 105.3926%.
As in the OP, 5.392% is the actual total return. It is higher than the six month (coupon equivalent) yield, because coupons compound.
This is important. New issue T-bills have APYs greater than their coupon equivalent yields.
If a new six month T-bill has a 5.0% "coupon equivalent yield" it will pay 2.5% (half of 5%) after six months by definition. That would compound to 5.06¼% APY if reinvested at the same rate for another six months. That beats a six month CD with a 5.0% APY, paying just 2.47% at its six month maturity.
Treasury page with coupon equivalent yield formulae, examples
Treasury Regulation (Code of Federal Regulations) rules on calculating T-bill discount rates.
Note that the 360 day calendar is used when calculating the bank discount rate, but a 365 or 366 day calendar is used when calculating the "true discount" rate.

August 12,2023 Episode:

Investing can be simple and accessible to the average person, says financial thought leader and economist Burton Malkiel. Malkiel, author of the investment classic “A Random Walk Down Wall Street,” has 50 years of research to back up his claim.

@rforno : Not a shocker here. Thursday purchased cd at BMO for apy 5.15% 13 month cd. 3-4-6 month cds paying less than 1% .01 &.05 apy !!!! I really got a GREAT Deal.

more data
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1690047183909752832.html