Just an update. I beleive the post for RSIIX vs OSTIX challenge was on the weekend on April 22m, 2023 (but the MFO can determine). The performance contest was written for the next 12 months with David Snowball determing the winner based on attributes (as total return may be the sole variable or perhaps a combo with volaitility) solely at his discretion. The language was "Fund is considered the best based on the next 12 months"
Summary based on total return per Bloomberg:
Apr 22, 2022 thru Jan 14, 2023 has OSTIX at 9.02% which is significantly leading RSIIX at 6.64%. OSTIX outperformance can be attributed to the Nov and Dec robust rally in which OSTIX captured a lot more upside. As for 3 year comparison, RSIIX is ahead and for 5 years, the two funds are neck & neck.
Regardless of the outcome, I will enjoy the dinner and I am sure I will learn much since our styles and execution are different.

“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......

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.

Trying to convince myself to diversify and invest in small cap and internationals, and expanding FT1000 observation:
From 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2013 SPY moved up only 2%. During the same time, Vanguard International Value VTRIX was 84% up, and Vanguard Small Cap VSMAX was 131% up.
As for the next 10 years, see https://www.morningstar.com/portfolios/experts-forecast-stock-bond-returns-2024-edition

”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.”
It’s truly incredible. My first (of several) eye surgeries in the early 70s required a 2-night hospital stay, horrific pain for a day or two and rendered mediocre results. The last one five-six years ago was accomplished in an hour’s time in an outpatient setting while fully clothed - shoes and all. No pain. Terrific results. A lot of eye surgery is done under local anesthesia (for medical reasons) so that you are aware of and listening to the surgical team during the entire process. On that first one in the 70s they were frantically running around looking for a needed instrument they couldn’t / never did locate. On the last one the surgeon was discussing with colleagues her plan to fly to Colorado with her husband for a ski trip at the end of the day. :)

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.

The typical pattern of these annual Roundtables is that Part 1 has lots of macro/big-picture stuff on markets, economy, geopolitics, followed by specific recommendations by only 2-3 panelists. Then, Parts 2 and 3 will have recommendations from the rest of the panelists.
In some years, there are only 2 parts, but 3 parts are mentioned for 2024. Frankly, Part 3 gets quite stale, and all the stuff has leaked out by then. Remember that this year the Roundtable was held on January 8, 2024.
Rarely, if there is some huge event, Barron's may reach out to the remaining panelists for revisions to their upcoming recommendations.
There were 2 new panelists this year - John Rogers (Ariel) and Rajiv Jain (GQG).
In comparing with 2023 Roundtable, Rupal Bhansali left Ariel to start her own firm, and Ariel CEO Rogers replaced her. There was 1 net addition in that 2023 had 10 panelists, 2024 had 11.
Mario Gabelli has been a Roundtable member for as long as I have followed these Roundtables.

Thanks for putting that together, @hank. Sonal Desai was just on "Real Yield" again, on Friday evening. Reasoned, smart, easy to listen to. Years ago, I realized that Abby Joseph Cohen is a perma-bull. And often missed the mark, when checking results after she'd offered something. The entire Panel certainly are among the most eminent to be found.

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

Catch22, I believe you’re half right regarding FZDXX (FZEXX-muni sister). Yes, you have to purchase like a MF but you do not have to sell to buy. I’ve been using one or both of these MM funds for several years. And never did I have to sell to buy anything. It first checks your core account for sufficient funds, then pulls from FZDXX / FZEXX if necessary.

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.

I'm surely glad to have clicked on THIS thread. Thank you, David and David.
Ever since I started out in investing, just beginning my 403b, always self-directed--- I knew I must constantly stay on top of whatever I could get my hands on in terms of information.
THEN, the the job is to draw conclusions which mean something from it all. Yes, I'd bought into the "stocks for the long-run" argument.
But over the years, I saw more and more clearly, that one must be at least a bit fluid and flexible. A refusal to make any changes can indeed spell doom.
Now in retirement, I've got an income stream from both bonds and stocks, but don't need them, so they get reinvested. And EVERYONE'S circumstances are different. Still more stocks than bonds, however. If and when I get into PRCFX from David Giroux, that picture will change over time, but very slowly.

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.

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?

@Tarwheel again I agree completely.
It's also why when I joined my state university system I avoided the pension plan and went for the self-directed 403(b). Many state pensions have huge positions in various (and costly) hedge/PE investments that I want no part of ... plus I don't trust the investing savvy of the political appointees overseeing the pension's investment, many of whom live and die by whatever the Wall Street favorite 'thinking' is at the time regarding allocations.
As I said at the time, if I'm going to lose or make money, I want to be the one responsible for it.
ETA: Somewhat off-topic but IIRC the Nevada State Pension is entirely in Vanguard funds. A WSJ article a few years ago talked about how 'boring' the Pension Chief's job was. :)

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.

Yes. I left Matthews after an arrogant prick treated me like dirt on the phone, a handful of years ago. Glad I did.

Do you recall which fund you were invested in at the time?

I had been in MACSX and MAPIX. Then consolidated all into MAPIX.
I was calling---- as were many, many others---- about a missed dividend. Turns out a risky bet went south. The fellow on the phone read a pre-fabricated statement to me about it over the phone. Just a sentence or two.
I said: "Sounds like you're reading from a script to me."
He said: "I AM. I AM reading from a script to you."
I said, "Why would you DO that?" (Why not talk to me like a human being, eh?)
He said: "Listen, this is what was prepared. If you want to redeem your shares and go, you're free to do so!"
...I DID.