Buffaloski Boris - Taking this year as an example, markets are volatile and not monolithic. I don't know if I've ever seen a market move only up or only down for 12 months, which are the two scenarios Michael Kitces mentions in that article. I'd also point out that VTI and BND can be bought for $0/trade and a $0 bid-ask spread (all buying and selling happens at the same price for those large ETFs). So there's a possibility more frequent trading could avoid costs, and capture volatility - too bad Mr Kitces wrote it off.
I don’t think he wrote off more frequent trading at all. His point of view seems to be that if you’re going to rebalance, use threshold “bands” and whenever the thresholds are crossed, you trade whether it be weekly, monthly, or every few years. So long as you could program it to minimize the hassle factor, it looks like an interesting strategy.
He covers this for a couple paragraphs, ending with:
"In other words, in the short-to-intermediate term, either bull or bear market situations can produce scenarios where one investment has significant relative outperformance or underperformance that extends for months or even a year or few at a time, and rebalancing too frequently curtails the positive momentum and adds too quickly into the negative. And of course, highly frequent rebalancing can also grind down the long-term benefits of rebalancing simply due to the transaction costs."
So I'm directly refuting those few paragraphs, by pointing out that for VTI and BND, transactions costs can literally be zero (both bid-ask spread and $0/trade). Now that many brokerages charge $0/trade for buying ETFs, I think the author's 2016 assumption that costs erode returns would need to be measured again.
It's possible he's right that momentum is more significant than rebalancing during volatility, but I don't think either one wins 100% of the time. So it would be interesting to see a measurement - maybe showing rebalancing daily or weekly to exaggerate the effects.