Poor Kosinski. Dead by suicide at 58.
His suicide note read: "I am going to put myself to sleep now for a bit longer than usual. Call it Eternity."Painted Bird is a remarkable book, as is Being There. Fascinating man, but not everyone's cup of tea

Thanks for the insight. Sad fate for talented writer. This isn’t the first time Forsyth has quoted Kosinski’s Chauncey Gardner in his column. Seems to have a fascination with him. But, it’s amazing sometimes how real life imitates art!

“Hats-off” to Charles Lynn Bolin for his exceptional article: ”Asset Allocation and Withdrawal Strategies in Retirement” in the January issue of The Observer. In early December, returning home from a short trip to Florida, I hastily tossed up a thread - ”New Report: All Stock Portfolio Beats Stock and Bond Mix Over Time (Originally From Bloomberg)” while awaiting a connection at Chicago’s O’Hare. Time was short. I had no idea the thread would garner so many insightful comments from board members - let alone become the genesis for a future article in The Observer.
Charle’s article is so comprehensive and rich in documentation that any attempt to summarize or characterize it by me seems futile. He begins by linking to the thread, followed by a listing of a dozen or so different aspects of the study’s premise as identified by discussion participants. This is followed by literally reams of historical data. In essence, he’s trying to identify the “right balance” among risk, time span, relative asset performance over different time periods, withdrawal strategies, etc.
While stocks have beaten other investments over the past 130 years, Charles notes that most of us have a somewhat shorter investment horizon. And he identifies some potentially more reasonable risk-averse approaches: ”To illustrate the benefits of having a balanced portfolio, from 1999 until 2020, the conservative Vanguard Wellesley (VWINX) and moderate Vanguard Wellington (VWELX) have beaten the S&P 500. This illustrates the importance of starting and ending points – sequence of return risk. A high allocation of stocks in 1999 could have impacted savings for the remainder of retirement.”
Finally, Charles outlines his own investment allocation and approach, which includes modifying his equity exposure (within a set range) from time to time based on his read of market conditions.

Thanks for the comments. For about the first 15 years of retirement, I focused on total returns to help determine the withdrawal amounts from my investment portfolio . This method turned out to be somewhat complicated and stressful due to significant sequence-of-returns variations in the annual returns. The chart above suggests that basing withdrawals from a prudently developed dividend stock portfolio may well be a sustainable way to guide withdrawal decisions that can somewhat reduce annual volatility. And, as @WABAC says, the simplicity of the approach has appeal. My portfolio is 70% invested in stocks. That complicates things a little bit because part of my dividend income comes from investments that are not stocks -- almost all bonds and money market investments in my case. Part of that income should be retained in the portfolio each year to compensate for any CPI increase during the year. In my case, this can easily be done at the end of the year when my once a year distribution is determined and made. The CPI for the year just ending can be multiplied by the 30% non-stock portion of the beginning of the year portfolio balance. That amount can then deducted from the total annual dividend income received to determine a suggested withdrawal amount for the year just ending. That is essentially the procedure I am currently using......

\\\ Other times stocks will lag bonds, for decades.
>> When was that, and why was it? The 'decades' part.
Answered my own question, sort of, if not exactly the 'decades' quantity.
I knew that for the period Jan 2000 - Jan 2010 SP500 was flat, but what I did not know, or had forgot, was that DODIX (say) did as well as it did, doubling. Better than BND and BSV.
FPACX almost tripled.

Poor Kosinski. Dead by suicide at 58.
His suicide note read: "I am going to put myself to sleep now for a bit longer than usual. Call it Eternity."
Painted Bird is a remarkable book, as is Being There. Fascinating man, but not everyone's cup of tea

It all depends on when you need the money, and how much. People who retired in 2000 expecting to live on the returns of the SP500 were in trouble for a long time.
Most projections, like American Associations of Individual Investors claim 3 to 5 years of cash/short term bonds for living expenses above pension and SS is enough to ride out "Any" market decline. But if you look at how long it has taken the SP500 to get back to a previous high permanently, it is 13 years in recent memory, and it took 25 years after September 1929.
I agree we live in different times than 1929, but 3 years of living expenses is not much of a cushion for a recent retiree. Unfortunately, most people don't even have that.
As for medical progress, we kept patients hospitalized for days after gallbladders ( 7-10 days) Heart attacks ( at least a week) and hip surgery ( a week) in 1978. I was home walking up stairs a the night of surgery after my hip replacement in 2021. My wife had a grapefruit sized benign tumor taken out of her chest in 2018. She went home in 2 days.

Excerpt and photo from Article: ”Would Big Rate Cuts Really Help Stocks? History Offers Warnings.” - by Randall Forsyth in “Up and Down Wall Street” - Barron’s, January 15, 2024 issue
”There will be cuts in the spring, to paraphrase Chauncey Gardner in the classic satire film Being There. He was, in truth, Chance, the gardener, a dimwitted savant played brilliantly by Peter Sellers. His simple utterances about growth in the spring and other matters horticultural were taken by Washington’s elite, including the president, to be profound statements about the economy.”
Typically a skeptic, Forsyth doesn’t buy the growth argument advanced by Chauncey. It’s a complicated analysis citing prominent economists. But, in a nutshell, the Fed has rarely lowered interest rates in periods where core consumer prices were rising faster than the unemployment rate. It’s happened only 5 or 6 times in history. And when it did, short term optimism was followed by poor stock and bond performance as the Fed reversed course and eventually raised rates to correct its earlier error.

From reading articles and watching markets:
1) It is known that the US stock market is the best LT. Bogle, Buffett, and Malkiel (Random Walk) told us for a long time to invest mainly in the SP500 or VTI.
2) The further you go in the past, the less it matters. How 1802 is similar to 2000+. We are more advanced, and things are developed much faster and influence our lives. Two weeks ago, I hiked with a heart surgeon. He retired 10 years ago and told me that in the last 10 years, things changed and advanced so quickly and much faster than in the previous 40 years.
3) In the ST (months-years) bonds can do better. The SP500 lost money over 10 years in 2000-2010, see (https://schrts.co/sSpxKTXr). Indexes for total bond, SC, Value, and International beat it.
This is why I always believed and practiced investing in what works lately using a wide range of categories.

Just posted all ratings to MFO Premium site through December using Refinitiv's data drop dated 12 January.
For the record, the 5 January drop posted last Saturday, 6 January. Mostly, these updates just reflect changes in Year-To-Date and Weeks-To-Date numbers.

Barron’s Subtitle: “The Market’s Gains Won’t Come Easy From Here”
This is the first of two sessions. This year’s participants are: John W. Rogers Jr., Todd Ahlsten, Meryl Witmer, Rajiv Jain, Mario Gabelli, Scott Black, David Giroux, Sonal Desai, William Priest, Henry Ellenbogen, Abby Joseph Cohen.
It’s an insightful free-wheeling discussion. Short on specific buy recommendations but an exhaustive look at how investing is likely to be affected by domestic / geopolitics (in the broadest sense) along with the economic backdrop. Most foresee a flat to down year for U.S. equities. David Giroux expects a range of +5% / -5% this year - but looking out 5 years sees annual returns in the 6.5% area. He wasn’t too explicit, but seemed to be referencing his own fund (PRWCX) which he termed a “balanced” fund.
Giroux’s list of “likes” is long (excerpt): ”We see good value in managed care, life-sciences tools, utility stocks, and waste. We still see good value in companies like Microsoft, Intuit, and Salesforce, which has a low valuation … we are seeing good value in energy now as some supply-and-demand dynamics have changed.” And he’s still likes “high quality high yield bonds” (The latter struck me as a bit of an oxymoron.)
Graham Holdings (GHC) was recommended strongly by Witmer. Others joined in and much time was devoted to its numerous components including broadcasting, education and health care. It hurt a bit because I recently unloaded this one after what I thought was a nice run-up. Knowing when to sell a stock is a skill that escapes me. Deere (DE) is another stock that received favorable comment.
Participants noted that the economists / market prognosticators were nearly 100% wrong a year ago when recession was widely seen as “baked in the cake” and the market appeared headed for another bad year. Someone quipped that every year one of them says “It’s a stock picker’s market.” (When isn’t it?) Much was said of the approaching U.S. election and mostly with foreboding. One of the “optimists” (Witmer) predicted the U.S. will somehow “muddle through” without significant damage. Some think the markets will rebound late in the year after the election. The eternal optimism of Buffett and Templeton were noted in this regard. But the general feeling was far from optimistic. Most (if not all) find big cap valuations too rich, while small cap value is greatly undervalued. “De-globalization” is seen by some as a headwind, reducing efficiencies and adding costs for consumers. Franklin’s Sonal Desai says the “real interest rate” (inflation +) is in the 4-5% range - much above what the market currently assumes - implying rates will rise by year’s end.
Really recommend this article!

Than there’s Mario Gabelli in this week’s Barron’s who, after citing a litany of ominous signs, including budget deficits and a recent 50% drawdown in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, shrugs them off and says:
”But what does it matter? Short-termism is prevalent as algorithms, momentum investing, and exchange-traded funds influence trading. The Dow industrials will be the equivalent of 1,000,000 in 40 years and was under 1,000 about 40 years ago. So, invest long term.”
Gabelli’s point is later reaffirmed by Henry Ellenbogen (no investing lightweight):
“I agree with Mario: You have to take a long-term view and be positive on the prospects for the U.S. The agility and ability of the American business sector is like nothing else in the world”.
-
Excerpts from: ”The Market’s Gains Won’t Come Easy From Here, Barron’s Roundtable Pros Say. 8 Stocks for Now.” Barron’s January 15, 2024

It sounds like the original question concerned paid advisory services, but the responses and OP followup seem to be adding sales reps ("local FA") to the mix.
From Schwab:

When we recommend that you buy, sell, or hold securities; pursue a particular investment strategy; or open up a brokerage or IRA account at Schwab, we are acting as a broker-dealer unless otherwise stated at the time of recommendation ...
Schwab can also act as an investment adviser. You will know we are acting as an investment adviser because it is a distinct service that you select, and you will receive a special written disclosure.

While B-D's duties to their customers have been expanded from what they used to be (just "suitability" of investments), these duties are still more limited than what is required of a fiduciary. You may be satisfied with a BD, but you should be aware of the differences.
The industry has done what it can to obfuscate the differences. For example, here's what Fidelity says:

At Fidelity, our representatives are required to provide advice that is in your best interest. This standard of care applies to all accounts and relationships we have with you when we provide advice. Certain regulations specify that the best interest standard is part of a “fiduciary duty.” Other regulations require the best interest standard but do not refer to a fiduciary duty. Fidelity advisors comply with all applicable regulations, including providing advice that is in your best interest.
When providing advisory services, our advisors act in a fiduciary capacity.
When assisting with your brokerage needs, our advisors provide recommendations in your best interest.

That's clear as mud. Here's a page that helps sort out the difference between advisors (fiduciaries) and B-Ds:
https://www.wealthstreamadvisors.com/insights/fiduciary-vs-broker-dealer
Vanguard where your local FA is a "team". Not much experience with FIDO in this regard
If we're talking free services, both Vanguard and Fidelity at best just assign you to a team. They dropped individual contact names from their statements years ago.
If we're talking paid advisory services, Vanguard assigns you an individual adviser at the $500K level.
https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/compare-investment-advice#comparison-chart
Fidelity and Schwab have a wide assortment of paid services and investment offerings. It's easy to confuse the different offerings or miss one type of offering when reading about another.
At the lowest level are robo/hybrid advisors that do not provide customization.
My talks with Fidelity indicated they used many mutual funds in what seems like a computer driven process. Schwab will set up an "Intelligent Portfolio" in the same manner with dozens of ETFs,
Fidelity uses Flex Funds with 0% ER; Schwab doesn't charge anything for its pure robo advisor but makes money off of high allocations to Schwab MMFs.
Moving up the ladder, both companies offer in-house wealth management services (including tax/legacy planning if desired) and referrals to outside RIAs that use the brokerage for holding your managed investments. Services at both firms may build portfolios of individual securities or use funds, or both. The accounts may be discretionary (adviser trades w/o your explicit approval) or non-discretionary. They may be structured as separately managed accounts.
You are looking at an outside wealth management firm, Wealth Enhancement Group, that provides advisory services through its RIAs (Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services?). So it sounds like your question is about this third party and not about Schwab. The brokerage that the firm happens to use (here, Schwab) is likely immaterial. If you're asking about Schwab (and not the RIA), then you might want to also look into the services that Schwab provides.
Here's the disclosure for Schwab's referral service. It describes its referrals thusly:

The Service provides referrals only and terminates once we [Schwab] have referred you to an Advisor. Once a referral has been made, Schwab does not assume any additional duties or obligations to the client from an “investment manager” perspective. ... It is up to you and your Advisor to determine what types of investments are right for you. Any tax, estate planning, accounting, legal or other advice or services other than investment management and any financial planning ... are strictly a matter between you and your Advisor.

https://www.schwab.com/resource/schwab-advisor-network-disclosure-brochure?page=8
Schwab's menu of different advisory services from Intelligent Portfolios (robo advisors) to financial planning:
https://www.schwab.com/transparency/advisory

Agreed!
And after a partial rejigger in January, I find myself at 57 stocks 37 bonds and 5 cash. Close enough, I guess. PRNEX is more trouble than it's worth. Gonna exit and redeploy the money in that one. Too volatile, and performance has been yucky.
Still maintaining a hard wall between retirement accounts and taxable stuff. Taxable is up to 14% of portf. total now. Retirement $$$ is all in funds in TRP, except for BRUFX. Taxable (so far) is all in single stocks.

@Crash - Only $5 cash? Been there myself a few times …
:)
Seriously. Just 5

% of portfolio in cash. I guess that’s called “conviction”.
(No reference to any political figure intended.)

Yes, We have money in the bank. We grow it, then it disappears--- for use at school to pay the kids' tuition. Got the car loan down to $2,600.00. So, when that amount is zero, it will help to add some free cash and I'll put it in MM Treasury fund (sweep) PRTXX. That 5% number is all the cash our Fund Managers have decided upon, collectively. All along the way, I've always been "cash-poor" in the portfolio, trying to reach a total amount goal. We're not far away. But opposites attract: wifey creates expenses. She works. I don't. I don't complain. We'll get there, as long as I don't screw the pooch.

Jan 13th Episode:

In this interview, Sebastien Page shares his insights on how this new regime differs from previous periods and how it requires us to rethink traditional approaches to asset allocation. Join us as we explore the strategies and considerations for building and protecting your wealth in this changing financial landscape.

"Diversification may not be a free lunch, but maybe more like a 'tasty' lunch."

Agreed!
And after a partial rejigger in January, I find myself at 57 stocks 37 bonds and 5 cash. Close enough, I guess. PRNEX is more trouble than it's worth. Gonna exit and redeploy the money in that one. Too volatile, and performance has been yucky.
Still maintaining a hard wall between retirement accounts and taxable stuff. Taxable is up to 14% of portf. total now. Retirement $$$ is all in funds in TRP, except for BRUFX. Taxable (so far) is all in single stocks.

@Crash - Only $5 cash? Been there myself a few times …
:)
Seriously. Just 5% of portfolio in cash. I guess that’s called “conviction”.
(No reference to any political figure intended.)

The graphic is set for the 5 days ending January 12, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. One may then also select the one month column to align the one month return best to worst; or for the other listed time frame columns.
ADD an etf performance of your choosing, if you desire.
*** Requested ADD: For the week and YTD
--- EWW = -.8% / -2.2% (I Shares, Mexico)
MMKT note: Fidelity mmkt's had a slight yield drop this week of -.02%. First drop in many months.
NOTE: 4 day market week, next week, due to MLK holiday.
Remain curious,
Catch

Agreed!
And after a partial rejigger in January, I find myself at 57 stocks 37 bonds and 5 cash. Close enough, I guess. PRNEX is more trouble than it's worth. Gonna exit and redeploy the money in that one. Too volatile, and performance has been yucky.
Still maintaining a hard wall between retirement accounts and taxable stuff. Taxable is up to 14% of portf. total now. Retirement $$$ is all in funds in TRP, except for BRUFX. Taxable (so far) is all in single stocks.

Certainly can be done, and I'm a fan of doing precisely that. There's a wide variety of items (stocks, CEFs, OEFs, LPs, BDCs, REITs) that throw off distributions, both debt and equity. I have 35% of my portfolio with items targeted purely for growth and the rest is to throw off distributions. One of my regrets is that I should have planted the seeds for those distributions 20 years ago to take advantage of re-investment and the miracle of compounding.

Link to Prof. McQuarrie's article here. It's not behind a paywall.

If one thinks like an economist, then one makes the absurdly simplifying assumption that people act rationally. Add in the assumption (belief?) that stocks are more risky than bonds, and one must conclude that over a long enough time (whatever that may mean) stocks will outperform bonds. Else rational investors will invest in bonds for at least equal expected returns with less risk.
The question is what "long enough" means. I like the way Keynes put it:

In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.

However, when it comes to investing in stocks, it is worth recalling another well-worn if misquoted observation: the "rich are different from you and me".
Most stocks are owned by the wealthy, who invest multi-generationally. Their time horizon is often not limited to several decades. Not that this helps the other 99%, who tend to invest primarily for their own benefit and perhaps secondarily for a legacy.
The updated data suggest another quote by Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?” Or to put it another way, perhaps this adds support for 60/40.