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.

Very straightforward and readable. Thanks, @davfor. Needless to say, no one should try to exactly mimic what someone else has done, but there are lessons to be learned. One thing of note: he expresses that he was forced by health issues to retire early. Regardless of the reason, anyone pushed into retirement early will have to do some re-thinking and re-jiggering of the portfolio. (Unless you're independently wealthy.)
"Any thoughts on this?" For one thing, the stocks I choose all must offer me at least a 3% dividend. I stole that rule from someone on a board I've been banned from. I can use some measurements and statistics to understand more than a novice, but I get lost in the weeds when I try to run with the Big Dogs who can look at complicated charts and very granular statistics and stuff.
So: "KISS" it. "Keep it simple, stupid."
I just discovered a tiny bank out of Richmond, Indiana. I like smid-banks. I won't give a penny to the Behemoth Banksters who all fleece the public. Some might be worse than others, but I just steer clear. If you have a mind to do it, take a look at RMBI. The dividend stands at over 5% right now. And its moneymaking thesis is utterly simple and straightforward. Nothing fancy or convoluted.
Like the writer, I hold REITS. Just a SINGLE REIT, so far, though. I suppose I will forever be growing my stuff, rather than relying on income-production via dividends. One must be ready to flex, but for the time being, my choices are made, and a single adjustment will happen sooner or later. Still keeping an eye on when to make that tactical move.
Midstream oil/gas? Yes, the GIANT one he does NOT own: ET. It's an LP. I suppose taxes will not be an issue if I just never sell it. Wifey will get the step-up basis.

For what interest it holds, I have a phone call coming up with Ms Geritzto talk about what she takes away from this experience and how she's thinking about the firm's next steps.
In some ways it's a classic "not quite enough" story. The performance pattern is exactly what you wanted to see in a risk conscious fund. In years when the market was up (2019, 2020, 2021) this fund generally posted double digit returns. In periods when the market was down this fund generally protected better than its peers.
The exception was the past 12 months when it lagged in both directions.
Since inception the fund has returned 2.5% annually (against 4.7% for its Lipper peer group) but has substantially better standard deviation, downside deviation, down market deviation and Ulcer Index than its peers. But the fund trailed so dramatically in 2019 and 2023 that it became untenable.

So ... the bottom line is that there is no broad advice which can be taken as generally helpful for all time? Uh, okay.
>> Other times stocks will lag bonds, for decades.
When was that, and why was it? The 'decades' part.
I've been studying this site:
https://www.financialsamurai.com/historical-returns-of-different-stock-bond-portfolio-weightings/
As for individual stocks for the long term, which is how I understood the phrase, I came to think over my tech editorial career that tech was moving faster and faster for that to mean much.
I had strongly recommended to me to buy lots of Verizon 35y ago, can't miss, but I had just spent a couple years working at Bell Labs, and was properly wary. My father-in-law long ago worked his entire career at Barnes Group, such a venerable and consistent-dividend outfit that its stock symbol is, yes, B.
If you had held those two for 40+ years you would have done okay, but not like SP500 and with a lot more bumpy drama.

John Rekenthaler has been discussing some recent research that shows that Jeremy "Stocks for the Long Run" Siegel might, perhaps, have been relying on some selective, flawed and limited data. Siegel says that, in the long run, stocks have a 6.9% annualized real return. Scholars who did some of the hard archaeological work (for example, going through 19th century newspapers issue by issue to reconstruct the fate of long-dead stocks which aren't reflected in Siegel's data) find that the dominance of stocks is more limited, and more time dependent, than Siegel's faith would lead us to accept.
Nothing here is a definitive rejection of the pro-equity argument. More, it offers a heads up that it's entirely possible that stocks will lag and bonds will lead ... oh, between now and 2050?
JR's closing from today's essay:

The case for the ongoing dominance of stock is less overwhelming than we once believed. That observation bears consideration, especially for retirees tempted by advice that they invest heavily in equities. Such counsel is not necessarily wrong, depending upon individual circumstances (in particular, wealth levels), but it often is coupled with the implicit assumption that stocks will inevitably beat bonds over the long term.
Maybe. If not, though, retirees do not get a second bite at the financial apple. That lesson is very much worth pondering.
Note: When I sent Professor McQuarrie (Edward McQuarrie of Santa Clara University) the reader’s comment (NB: someone responded to JR's first essay on the subject by pointing out that mortality rates from surgery fell, and fell permanently so perhaps all of that old stuff from long ago reflects an age now forever past), he forwarded me the following response:
“My take is in the article’s title. Sometimes stock returns will soar far above bond returns, as after the war. That outperformance can be sustained for decades. Other times stocks will lag bonds, for decades. There’s no rhyme or reason to it, and in all likelihood, no predictability over the individual investor’s limited time horizon of several decades.
“As for your reader’s clever riposte, here is my redo: ‘The rate of death from disease and epidemics stayed at a relatively high and constant level from 1793 to 1920. Then advances in modern medicine fundamentally and permanently altered the trajectory ... or so it seemed until COVID-19 hit in February 2020.’”

For what interest it holds.

This chart suggests that utilizing the income received from dividend paying stocks may be prudent during retirement for portfolios concentrated in stock investments if a somewhat consistent stream of income is important. Any thoughts on this?

The areas shaded gray show periods when the real value of the dividends from the S&P 500 decreased. Notice that they did not decrease much and decreased far less than the real index value. During those periods, a retirement strategy based on those dividends would have been far more successful than one based on total returns.

Relying On Income From Dividend Paying Stocks

From a Rondure email:
January 10, 2024
Dear Shareholders:
After careful consideration, Rondure Global Advisors has decided to close the Rondure Overseas Fund (ticker: ROSIX/ROSOX) on February 8, 2024. It was a difficult decision, but after weighing the pros and cons, we believe it is in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders.
Since the Fund’s launch in 2017, its assets have consistently been insufficient to generate appropriate economies of scale, resulting in higher operating costs. We ultimately concluded that the Fund’s continued operation was not economically viable for Fund shareholders or the firm. We apologize for any inconvenience its closure may cause you.
As an investor in the Overseas Fund, you have two options prior to February 8, 2024: 1) You may redeem your account or 2) you may exchange into our emerging markets strategy, the Rondure New World Fund (ticker: RNWIX/RNWOX). If neither is done prior to February 8, you will receive a check shortly after the 8th for the value of your account. Please note all options are considered taxable events. Click here for more information: https://go.rondureglobal.com/e/896781/rondure-/dj5r8/362026087/h/cfYqdOa-zsupscok_7riMVFCZxW8BcWN3hh_tubmHEg
We at Rondure look forward to building on our core strength in emerging markets investing as we devote additional resources to the growth and development of our emerging market strategies going forward.
Thank you in advance for your understanding and support.
Best regards,
The Rondure Global Advisors Team

Many government retirement plans offer up to 25% in self directed mutual funds at outside firm such as Fidelity. CA state retirement plans are a mess with agenda that have nothing to do with best risk adjusted return. My wife worked several years for state - I need to move over to something like Fidelity balanced.

To clarify: I was referring to *pensions* that employees only pay into but have no control over how it's invested - those are the places witih the fat allocation to expensive hedge funds/PE black boxes. My state (MD) 403(b) also has the brokerage window where I could dump 0-99% of my 403 now into whatever fund I wanted to offered at TIAA or Fido ... but I'm happy with the one LCV fund I'm in now at TIAA, so I haven't used that.
I could probably buy into one or more 'alternative' type funds that way if I wanted to, but why?