@msf
Yep that is the same spreadsheet I saw. How did you get a copy?
I got a bunch of Morningstar reports on their portfolios and am going over them. Will report back as soon as I have finished.
So far for the 65% Equity income oriented portfolio I see that it lost 9% 10/21-9/22.
More later

I don't expect much that is good will happen in the Market until we are into 2025.
*"Mark Baum" in The Big Short.

So there's a chance the biotech ETF I bought at the end of 2021 might come back to life . . . some day? ROFL.
Looks like the CD in my IRA will come in handy when it pays off in October.
Plenty of cash in the taxable to shop with, if I wasn't frolicking in the spondulicks the MM is throwing off.

[snip]
As @Sven noted, Vanguard PAS can incorporate outside investments in its planning. It is one of several robo/hybrid advisors that do this (including the top five in M*'s ranking). See thread on Robo Advisor Evaluation.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/61501/robo-advisor-evaluation
From the M* report: "Having access to this [external asset] information can help robo-advisor programs provide more accurate advice on savings, asset allocations, and progress toward investment goals."

The dollar values for outside investments were incorporated into the portfolio
but these investments were treated as cash in the current asset mix*.
Consequently, unnecessary and counter-productive trades (with tax consequences)
were suggested to align my Vanguard accounts with the targeted asset allocation.
My understanding is that Vanguard PAS can not provide advice for outside accounts.
I'm certain there are legal reasons for this stance.
I'm ok with not getting advice for outside accounts but believe it would be much better
if these investments¹ were factored into the current asset mix in the beginning.
When we forecast goals that include accounts outside the portfolio (including
Vanguard accounts): They’re based solely on the account balance information
and contribution rates provided to us. For accounts held outside the portfolio,
we’ll assume the asset allocation is the same as our recommended allocation.
Thus, the hypothetical projections and your results will vary. You might consider
adjusting the asset mix of accounts outside the portfolio to our recommended
mix. This recommendation assumes the objectives of those accounts are the
same as your portfolio accounts.
* Edit: Outside investments were assumed to be allocated according to the plan (60/40 in this case)
when goals were forecast. However, outside investments were entirely ignored in the current asset mix.
This would result in unnecessary and senseless trading to align my portfolio with the target asset allocation.
¹ A list of all outside investments was provided.

Yes, I'm waiting until the eagle sh*ts, then I'll throw some $ into TS. I see Steve Eisman* (CNBC) is asserting that the whole bank sector is "uninvestable." For how long? My time-frame runs for years, not months. I don't expect much that is good will happen in the Market until we are into 2025.
*"Mark Baum" in The Big Short.

I just got off the call with this guy [at Wealth Enhancement Group]. I was generally impressed. ( While he was not calling form his yacht, he was calling from second home in Maine!) They have a model which will calculate Roth Conversions and expected taxes with breakeven points ( Example says 2040!). Assumes 5% return in taxable and 7% in Roth

Is this the example you were shown?
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ed7df046f291c4a9e5546fc/t/63ffc63f2a2d1c36743d9803/1677706815803/Sample+Roth+Conversions+DCFI+-+2023_with+notes+-+JH.pdf

They will do financial plan free of any fees, but of course want to manage your money. The fee is fairly reasonable at 1% for first 1,000,000 up to 0.7% over 5,000,000, so in line with most firms that do portfolio management only, and a bit higher than many mutual funds.

That is certainly in line with the industry:

From: https://www.advisoryhq.com/articles/financial-advisor-fees-wealth-managers-planners-and-fee-only-advisors/
Comparison of types of services and typical fees:
https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/financial-advisor-cost
Fees do depend on what you get. I was just looking at someone's Separately Managed Account (SMA) portfolio with a couple of hundred large cap stocks (with little S&P 500 overlap). Real portfolio, outperformed the S&P 500 net of fees since owned (about 2.5 years), fees closer to 1/2% than to 1% (well under $1M in assets). Would perform tax harvesting except it is in an IRA. Don't know about other services included.

I agree the Vanguard info is pretty comprehensive, but to me it is predictably Vanguard, ie 60/40, 20% International, tax loss harvesting. Not sure that is worth their fees which I think are 0.3% correct ?

As @hank observed, Vanguard builds a glidepath. I noted in the Robo advisor thread that per M* this is unusual for low cost (i.e. robo) advisors. Also note that that 20% international is out of 60% stock, i.e. 1/3 of equity is foreign. Vanguard, being enthusiastic about matching market attributes, observes that 40% of the equity market is abroad.
Vanguard Digital Advisor costs 20 basis points all in, or 15 basis points excluding underlying fund expenses. One adds another 15 basis points (30 basis points excluding underlying expenses) in order to get human attention and financial planning. More services, higher fees.
https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/compare-investment-advice#comparison-chart

Those suggested allocations for VG PAS in 60s & 70s (60-40), early-80s (55-45), late-80s & beyond (50-50) are much higher than those for target-date funds (TDFs), including Vanguard TDFs. Of course, the questionnaire for PAS determined the specifics.
Most TDFs have 50-50 in 60s (retirement age) and then flatten out to 20-80/40-60 over several years. TDFs also have issues. But I am just noticing the huge discrepancy between the VG PAS recommendations and TDFs.

Vanguard has defined five risk levels for asset allocation schedules:
very conservative, conservative, moderate, aggressive, very aggressive.
The asset allocation schedule suggested in my plan is considered aggressive.
For some context, two 2025 target-date fund portfolios (08/31/2023) are listed below.
VTTVX
U.S. Stock: 32.60%
Intl. Stock: 22.00%
U.S. Bond: 28.30%
Intl. Bond: 12.40%
Short-Term TIPS: 4.70%
TRRHX
U.S. Stock: 38.39%
Intl. Stock: 17.58%
U.S. Bond: 26.18%
Intl. Bond: 9.75%
Cash: 4.80%
Other: 2.66%
Convertibles: 0.42%
Preferred Stock: 0.22%
The glide path in my plan differs from target-date fund glide paths.
Equity allocation is 60% until age 80, 55% from ages 80 - 85, and 50% from ages 85 - 100.
I was surprised by the relatively high equity allocation beyond age 80.
Perhaps a more conventional glide path exists for conservative or moderate asset allocation schedules?

Preset allocation funds including target date funds do work and meet the target, but it takes patience. Yes, we set aside cash and cash equivalents for emergency.
Our personal experience is to send our kids to college using the 529 fund exclusively. These plans can be set to change allocation automatically ( or manually) according to the child age and withdrawal date. Through 2000, 2008 and 2022 drawdowns, we stay the course and came out okay and manage to pay the college bills.

@sma3 stated:
For this you get the plan, quarterly reviews, tax planning etc. Their "value dividend growth " portfolio has returned 12% net of fees since 2007, pays 3% and lost only 7% in 2022. They also have a growth portfolio, and buy individual bonds for income. They have on site CFA, CFPs, tax lawyers estate planners etc.
In the "value dividend growth" portfolio 12% net of fees since 2007 figure above provided by the Wealth Enhancement Group, do they compare this portfolio to what index? Is their portfolio earning 13% since 2007 for a little more than 15+ years (ie, 12% net of fee + 1% advisor fee)? I'm curious as it appears they are earning equal to S&P 500 index returns or possible better with lower risk profile.

@Derf
Funny you should ask. After asking my Schwab rep if he had some way to help me calculate Roth conversions amounts, he suggested talking to the "Wealth Enhancement Group" for a no commitment plan. WEG guy says they are the 6th largest independent advisory firm in the country with over 70 Billion in assets
I just got off the call with this guy. I was generally impressed. ( While he was not calling form his yacht, he was calling from second home in Maine!) They have a model which will calculate Roth Conversions and expected taxes with breakeven points ( Example says 2040!). Assumes 5% return in taxable and 7% in Roth
They will do financial plan free of any fees, but of course want to manage your money. The fee is fairly reasonable at 1% for first 1,000,000 up to 0.7% over 5,000,000, so in line with most firms that do portfolio management only, and a bit higher than many mutual funds.
For this you get the plan, quarterly reviews, tax planning etc. Their "value dividend growth " portfolio has returned 12% net of fees since 2007, pays 3% and lost only 7% in 2022. They also have a growth portfolio, and buy individual bonds for income. They have on site CFA, CFPs, tax lawyers estate planners etc.
I agree the Vanguard info is pretty comprehensive, but to me it is predictably Vanguard, ie 60/40, 20% International, tax loss harvesting. Not sure that is worth their fees which I think are 0.3% correct ?

Assume comes up once again ! Let's say you put your plan to work a few years ago, 3,4 5. Along comes rate increase , now over 5% that's taken place. Would you be willing to stand pat , or clear out some equity & jump into CD's & T-bills or notes ? I know I've lowered equity side by 5 to 7 %.
With that said, I 'assume" ones age would play a big part where one invests.
@Observant1 Thanks for posting I enjoyed your info !

Critics say that many funds may move to more generic names or the rule may limit fund managers' flexibility.
To the extent that this rule change has any effect, I would tend to agree with the critics on the former (move toward generic names). But upon cursory examination (I haven't looked at the full rule yet), it doesn't look like the rule has teeth.
The PR says that "The [new rule] will include enhanced prospectus disclosure requirements for terminology used in fund names, including a requirement that any terms used in the fund’s name that suggest an investment focus must be consistent with those terms’ plain English meaning or established industry use."
Consider Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust. For much of its existence, it was classified as a growth fund, e.g.

The fund's name and Miller's stated goal strongly indicate that LMVTX is a value fund, although Morningstar classifies it as a large-cap growth fund. In fact, one of its top holdings is Google .

Fortune, Jan 27,2006.
Bill Miller argued that he was a value investor, and the Legg Mason prospectus described this:

The fund invests primarily in equity securities that, in the adviser's opinion, offer the potential for capital growth. The adviser follows a value discipline in selecting securities, and therefore seeks to purchase securities at large discounts to the adviser's assessment of their intrinsic value. Intrinsic value, according to the adviser, is the value of the company measured, to different extents depending on the type of company, on factors such as, but not limited to, the discounted value of its projected future free cash flows, the company's ability to earn returns on capital in excess of its cost of capital, private market values of similar companies and the costs to replicate the business. Qualitative factors, such as an assessment of the company's products, competitive positioning, strategy, industry economics and dynamics, regulatory frameworks and more, may also be considered. Securities may be undervalued due to, among other things, uncertainty arising from the limited availability of accurate information, economic growth and change, changes in competitive conditions, technological change, investor overreaction to negative news or events, and changes in government policy or geopolitical dynamics.

Prospectus, July 2006
More succinctly, from The Street (2001):

Unlike most value managers who tend to ignore pricey stocks in the technology and telecom sectors, Miller has a broader and less rigid view. Instead of relying on traditional metrics like a stock's price to earnings multiple, he looks at a company's free cash flow.

Miller was a relative value investor, though with a distinctive way of valuing companies. As such, and especially with the detailed definition of intrinsic value in the prospectus, I suspect that his fund would have passed the new SEC rule. IOW, a pretty toothless rule.

The difference between the individual recommendation and glide paths of various TDFs is likely due to the low (3.03%) withdrawal rate requested. That's quite low compared with the "rule of thumb" 4% or the base case of 4.7% used in this Vanguard paper (analyzing the relationship between health, spending, and asset allocation).
With a lower withdrawal rate, one can be (somewhat) more aggressive in asset allocation. That's assuming that "optimizing" a portfolio means making the most money available subject to it not running out.
Alternatively, one could optimize by investing more conservatively, improving odds of success from very near certainty to very, very near certainty. (That's somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but a real response to the question of whether it would be better to be more conservative if one doesn't need the extra money.)
As @Sven noted, Vanguard PAS can incorporate outside investments in its planning. It is one of several robo/hybrid advisors that do this (including the top five in M*'s ranking). See thread on Robo Advisor Evaluation.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/61501/robo-advisor-evaluation
From the M* report: "Having access to this [external asset] information can help robo-advisor programs provide more accurate advice on savings, asset allocations, and progress toward investment goals."

Those suggested allocations for VG PAS in 60s & 70s (60-40), early-80s (55-45), late-80s & beyond (50-50) are much higher than those for target-date funds (TDFs), including Vanguard TDFs. Of course, the questionnaire for PAS determined the specifics.
Most TDFs have 50-50 in 60s (retirement age) and then flatten out to 20-80/40-60 over several years. TDFs also have issues. But I am just noticing the huge discrepancy between the VG PAS recommendations and TDFs.

Yeah. Per stockcharts or Fidelity, FXAIX, VOO, and IVV trade lead places irregularly over 10-5-3-1-0.5y, also the last few months. SPY is always last, slightly.

A bit loud: "The Music Never Stopped."

When the Mussico stops??

Spending Strategy
We have a withdrawal plan to help maximize the longevity of your portfolio.
Our general approach is to use both the income and capital appreciation from your portfolio
to meet your spending needs.
We recommend directing all interest, dividends, and capital gains distributions
from your taxable account(s) to a fund set aside for spending.
If you need more income, generally we'll sell assets within your taxable account(s) that would produce
the lowest taxable gains, or even realize a loss, in order to minimize taxes.
To maximize your potential for tax-deferred growth, consider delaying withdrawals from your traditional
tax-deferred account(s) until your taxable account(s) have been depleted or your required minimum
distributions begin. Only consider withdrawing from your Roth account(s) once your traditional
tax-deferred assets have been spent.
Key Actions
Recommended action #1
We recommend that you use a target allocation of 60% stocks, 40% bonds,
and 0% short-term reserves.
Why we're recommending this:
Over time, your asset allocation is the most important factor in determining your portfolio's risk and potential
for return. Should your purpose, time horizon, or risk tolerance for this goal change, please contact us
to discuss if any updates should be made to your investment strategy.
Recommended action #2
We recommend you adjust your portfolio by purchasing taxable bonds in your tax-sheltered account first.
Then consider purchasing taxable bonds in your taxable accounts, if necessary, to achieve the target bond allocation.
Why we're recommending this:
It's more advantageous for you to hold bonds in tax-sheltered accounts where the interest is allowed to compound on a tax-deferred or tax-free basis.
Recommended action #3
Increase your investments in international stocks to 18% of your portfolio for this goal.
Why we're recommending this:
It's Vanguard's position that setting a target allocation for non-U.S. stocks of 20% to the market weight can balance the diversification benefits with the potential risks and costs. Based on our research, most diversification benefits are achieved with a 40% allocation to non-U.S. stocks, particularly when costs are taken into account.
Recommended action #4
Decrease your U.S. large-cap stock exposure to 27% of your portfolio.
Why we're recommending this:
Vanguard believes that most investors are best served by holding a significant allocation of investments that represent broad markets. Reducing your investments in large-cap U.S. stocks will bring your portfolio closer to the proportions of the broad U.S. stock market.
Recommended action #5
Increase your international bond investments to 12% of your goal's portfolio.
Why we're recommending this:
Foreign bonds are one of the world's largest asset classes and are not perfectly correlated with the U.S. bond market. Increasing your exposure to a currency-hedged international bond fund can lead to lower volatility in your portfolio.
Recommended action #6
Adjust your portfolio by purchasing stock index investments within your taxable accounts.
Why we're recommending this:
Broadly diversified stock index investments aim to track the underlying benchmarks of the broad U.S. stock market and typically have fewer taxable distributions than actively-managed funds. Therefore, they can provide a tax-efficient way to gain exposure to the stock market.

I contacted Vanguard a few weeks ago regarding an unrelated issue.
The Vanguard rep suggested a complementary meeting with a Personal Advisor Services (PAS) professional.
A preliminary financial plan was developed and sent to me yesterday.
I won't delve into all the specific details but will provide an overview since this info may be helpful to others.
Age: Early 60s
Goal: Retire in two years
Withdrawal rate: I requested a specific dollar amount which equaled 3.03% of my total portfolio
Asset allocation to age 80: 60% stock/40% bond - completed questionaires and discussed with Vanguard
Asset allocation from age 80 to 85: 55% stock/45% bond
Asset allocation from age 85 to 100: 50% stock/50% bond
The Vanguard Capital Markets Model (VCMM) is used to forecast returns for stocks, bonds,
and short-term reserves as well as inflation rates.
Monte Carlo simulations are run to project outcomes to age 100.

I like to think I'm quite adequately diversified, though there are some hefty overweights, when I look at my breakdown. I'm one-third heavier in Financials than the SP500.
Energy: SP500 is a bit over 4%. I'm at 17.02%. Most of that is PRNEX. Actually quite volatile. I don't like that. But I do look forward to the end-of-year dividends from the Monster oil companies. The other elements in this category I'm holding are:
ET. oil/gas midstream. (Pipelines). and TS, a maker of pipes, particularly top-end, seamless quality pipes. Especially with offshore wells, their kind of pipe is preferred, maybe even essential for deep water jobs. I see the company just BOUGHT a pipe-coating outfit, too.
I'm light on Technology, very light in Consumer Defensives.
Utilities: SP500 holds 2.68% in the Index. My portfolio includes 7.31% of total in "Yoots." But I hold no single-stock Yoots. The P/E on all the Yoots I see does not appeal to me at all. I keep watching and hoping, though.
(What's a 'yoot?')

"Higher for longer" is where it's at. I see no Fed lowering of interest rates at all in 2024. Accordingly, what I expect is to collect dividends, while watching the Market, and my own stuff, drift in the doldrums without much movement, unless it's downward movement. ZIRP was a huge exception to business as usual. Are we in a New Normal? Or will we find ourselves back to something like the "old normal" when rates are taken down at last, by the Fed--- MAYBE sometime in 2025?

Bloomberg story via open Yahoo Finance.
Basically, Illinois is consolidating many local police pension funds into a big state level police pension fund. But this is under litigation as many locals like to "play" with their own underfunded pension funds. This is hurdle# 1.
If it is overcome (as it was for IL Firemen pension fund), then the designated managers are soliciting bids for junky FR/BL by December 2023. Then, they will decide if/how many such external managers may be hired, and how these may be made available.
STAY TUNED!
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/illinois-police-pension-fund-plans-194125760.html