I agree with both of you, but I like to post stuff that presents various perspectives on the overall economy and financial picture. Never hurts to think about stuff.

The Roaring Twenties May Be Back (44 minutes)
Featured on Bloomberg recently. A half-decent, thoughtful appraisal of the current global investment climate. Yardini lays out several different scenarios going forward and offers up some “odds” on each occurring.

“Dr. Ed Yardeni is the president of Yardeni Research, Inc., a provider of global investment strategy and asset allocation analyses and recommendations. He previously served as chief investment strategist for Oak Associates, Prudential Equity Group, and Deutsche Bank's US equities division in New York City. Dr. Yardeni taught at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business and was an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He is frequently quoted in the financial press, including the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Barron's.” Source

Link to Jan 27 Episode:

… dive into the real risks facing the markets with global value investor Matthew McLennan. As markets climb a wall of worry, McLennan shares his insights on protecting yourself from inevitable declines and sticking to a disciplined investment approach.
We explore the key concerns and opportunities in the financial landscape. Stay tuned for valuable insights from McLennan, Co-Head of the global value team at First Eagle Investments, discusses the multiple risks facing “complacent” markets and his strategies to navigate them.

@Mark- Thanks. Some here are interested in aviation reports, especially when there's a financial aspect involved. Because this is an ongoing situation I thought that it would be cool to have an index to keep track of it.
I also liked the old FA format, for the same reasons. But you'll recall that Roy was real strict about subject matter, unlike MFO.

Commenting about a few points in the discussion:
RSIIX/COVID: We discussed in our 1Q20 Letter. I refer you to: https://www.riverparkfunds.com/assets/pdfs/rpsthyf/commentary/RiverPark-Cohanzick_1Q20_Shareholder_Letter.pdf
OSTIX: I do not view OSTIX as a competitor but rather complementary. It is the investment community (including this board) that actively compares the two funds. I think folks should consider owning both OSTIX and RSIIX rther than just one of the funds. The underlying portfolio, construction and approach are very different with some but limited overlap in holdings (in name and allocation). Yet, our risk metrics are very similar. I have a great deal of respect for Carl and his team.
RSIIX/RSIVX: When making comparison, please use RSIIX as it is the institutional class that is most alike to others one is reviewing. For MFO participants that are interested in the lower expense institutional class (RSIIX), please contact [email protected] and he can inform you of ways to access via direct platform via US Bank.
2022 Industry Drawdown and COVID Drawdown: Very different scenarios and RSIIX as well as all CrossingBridge products were top in performance in 2022. As for COVID, RSIIX recovery back to high water mark took (if memory serves) around 2 mos longer than High Yield Index and others, but the continued upward return lasted longer (more sustained).
RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHIX): The mandate is to focus as a cash alternative profile for holding periods of 6 months or longer.
Cash: Nice conversation but way more nuanced than the board in regards to the funds in our family. For instance, a called bond has a 30 day effective maturity regardless of the stated maturity and I believe Morningstar may capture in calculation provided. Other examples such as event driven status also exist and one should read our commentaries to understand. Also, timing makes a difference based on financial market calendar activity and flow of funds. In a very sarcastic voice, I just love it when we get a large inflow between Christmas and New Year.
If you want to have a more detailed conversation one on one or in a group call, happy to schedule.

Clearly it's important to know the precise definition of terms when reading statistics. Even back when M* was using 1 year maturities as the cutoff for cash equivalents for analyzing portfolios (i.e. before 2017), it also used the 3 month definition in other contexts. Here's an excerpt from a 2014 M* glossary:

Generally, only investments with original maturities of three months or less qualify under this definition. Original maturity means original maturity to the entity holding the investment. For example, both a three-month US Treasury bill and a three year Treasury note purchased three months from maturity qualify as cash equivalents. However, a Treasury note purchased three years ago does not become a cash equivalent when its remaining maturity is three months

https://morningstardirect.morningstar.com/clientcomm/DataDefinitions-EquityandExecutive_201408.pdf
This restriction of cash equivalents to securities with original (time of purchase) maturities of three months is lifted straight from the official definition of cash equivalents as given by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification® (ASC) 230-10-20. That's what reporting entities, like mutual funds, corporations, etc. use:

Cash equivalents are short-term, highly liquid investments that have both of the following characteristics:

a. Readily convertible to known amounts of cash
b. So near their maturity that they present insignificant risk of changes in value because of changes in interest rates.

Generally, only investments with original maturities of three months or less qualify under that definition. Original maturity means original maturity to the entity holding the investment. For example, both a three-month U.S. Treasury bill and a three-year U.S. Treasury note purchased three months from maturity qualify as cash equivalents. However, a Treasury note purchased three years ago does not become a cash equivalent when its remaining maturity is three months

ASC 230 July 2023
For completeness and wonks: FASB defines GAAP.

The FASB Accounting Standards Codification® is the source of authoritative generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities.

FASB cash flow update
Personally, I consider Treasuries and CDs with just weeks until they mature to be equivalent to cash regardless of when I acquired them. I consider no penalty CDs to be cash regardless of maturity length.
Suppose I have a 2 year T-note that I acquired at auction and it has 6 weeks until maturity. GAAP says that's not a cash equivalent. But if you and I swap the same T-notes, then they become cash equivalents because we just acquired them. I'm sure the accountants know what they're doing, but by my kitchen-table bookkeeping those two T-notes are the same.

Many good points already made. Here's my ten cents worth. Self-directed investing is like running a small business out of the home. It's financial reason for existing is to benefit the household. When I rented out properties I owned, I kept the rental business records separated from the household records. That logic gets applied to my investing activities. The investment account and its records are maintained separately from the household accounts and their records. The only time they come together is when the taxes get paid.

THAT is what I call a perfect idea. :)

Many good points already made. Here's my ten cents worth. Self-directed investing is like running a small business out of the home. It's financial reason for existing is to benefit the household. When I rented out properties I owned, I kept the rental business records separated from the household records. That logic gets applied to my investing activities. The investment account and its records are maintained separately from the household accounts and their records. The only time they come together is when the taxes get paid.

The author disagrees with the often recommended notion of stashing away 3, 5 or 10 years spending in cash or short term treasuries to ride out potential market downturns. It’s a popular notion often recommended here and across the financial press.
His investment portfolio: ”Beyond cash, all a retiree needs is one ‘bucket’ for investments. The portfolio would hold between 50 and 75% in equities for those following the 4% rule or similar retirement spending strategies. The remaining 25 to 50% would be held in intermediate term Treasuries and TIPS.”
I’m pretty much in agreement with @Crash. I generally don’t bother to maintain a bucket at all, but sell / withdraw from investments “across the board” two or three times during the year for basic needs or major expenses. If the markets get a little “crazy” on the upside, I may pull out an entire year’s spending ahead of time to lock in that extra return. During withdrawals I also rebalance, taking a higher percentage from those assets that have appreciated the most. (I am aware that some here refute the notion of rebalancing at all. )
But your position is probably different. My pension (with some limited cola) and SS (inflation adjusted) could probably cover basic necessities (but not infrastructure maintenance, travel, new vehicles). So I can’t put myself in the position of those who live entirely off investments. It’s a huge difference and so “buckets galore” might well be the preferred route for them.
FWIW - I only started keeping accurate year-by-year records in 2007 (but have some generalized averages from before). Beginning with 2007 (the past 17 years) I’ve had three “down” years. Two resulted in single-digit losses. But ‘08 was nasty with a loss of over 20%. That suggests to me, anyway, that a large cash stash isn’t warranted. To wit - this simplistic analysis overlooks both the magnitude and the duration the market downturn that began in 1929. A multi-year downdraft in equities of that magnitude would inflict greater pain. (But there’d be other more serious issues to worry about.) Recent downturns have been much shorter and may have given some of us a false sense of security. Also, the Japanese experience in the 90s and afterwards should sober any who look at it.

At Old_Joe. Some might say we don’t need our cat but we allocate for her medical care too. That’s why financial matters are very personal.

Jan 20 Episode

Join renowned financial thought leader and strategist Jason Trennert as he shares his major investment themes for 2024 in this episode of WEALTHTRACK. Gain insights into the current state of the economy and markets, and discover potential risks and opportunities that lie ahead.
Trennert discusses the performance of giant tech stocks, the importance of portfolio rebalancing, and investment strategies for areas that have lagged behind.

I have a financial link between my Schwab Taxable Account and my Capital One Bank Account. I will transfer money back and forth, between these two financial institutions, depending on where the best CD rates are available--very fast and simple. For liquidity purposes, I do maintain a significant investment in SWVXX Money Market Account, which continues to pay well over 5%.

I never got an answer for my perhaps impolite question asking why RSIIX was not able to protect investors better during March 2020.

@BaluBalu -
I won’t attempt to shed any more light on the financial environment in March 2020 as you are more than up to speed on that. And my apologies for even considering otherwise.. But where is the original “question” you are referring to? Was it in another thread somewhere? Whom specifically was it addressed to?
@Soupkitchen’s initial inquiry is rather general. ISTM he wonders only in a general sense whether board members think bonds will outperform cash going forward. I think it’s safe to assume he / we know that cash is the more stable asset of the two. You have apparently chosen to add another component to the discussion. . That’s fine. Is there another thread somewhere with your question? If so, kindly provide a link. Or, maybe you could quote the message in its entirety again. Sorry for any extra trouble it might cause you.

”I never got an answer for my perhaps impolite question asking why RSIIX was not able to protect investors better during March 2020.”

There were serious liquidity issues in the financial system, beginning in early March 2020. My ultra-short (investment grade) fund at the time (TRBUX) fell off a cliff for a few weeks before slowly recovering to near its nominal $10.00 NAV. The crisis was so extreme across the bond markets that the Federal Reserve announced a plan to back investment grade corporate bonds (something it had never done before) a few days into the crisis (which in turn sent those bonds’ prices soaring, led to an equity rally and calmed the markets. There are times (albeit rare) when T-Bills trump lesser quality paper - no matter how well researched it might be.
These types of issues can surface rapidly and unexpectedly, but are rare. The other one that stands to mind is at the beginning of the ‘07-‘09 financial crisis. Early in, the Fed stepped in to back money market funds, some of which would have fallen below their $1.00 NAV.
Sorry if this has already been answered or if I’ve missed the point of the question. I didn’t understand FD either.

I have a hard time paying a computer even 0.3% for advice.
Computer-only service at Vanguard costs 0.15%. All these programs and options do get rather confusing. At 0.30% a real human being at Vanguard will help you with some planning issues like sequencing of drawdowns. Not all of the 0.3% is going for paying a computer.
0.15%: Vanguard Digital Advisor® - pure robo, pure index (VTI, BND, VXUS, BNDX)
0.15% Vanguard Digital Advisor - pure robo, ESG index (ESGV, VCEB, VSGX, BNDX)
0.20%: Vanguard Digital Advisor - pure robo, active/passive (as above plus VHCAX, VADGX, VZICX, VAGVX, VAIGX, VCOBX)
0.30%: Vanguard Personal Advisor - hybrid, pure index (same index funds as above)
0.30%: Vanguard Personal Advisor - hybrid, ESG index (same ESG funds as above)
0.35%: Vanguard Personal Advisor - hybrid, active/passive (same as active/passive above)
0.30% Vanguard Personal Advisor Select - dedicated advisor
https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/robo-advisor (pure robo)
https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/personal-hybrid-robo-advisor (hybrid)
https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/personal-financial-advisor
(I can't quite differentiate between all of these either.)

Market has good times and bad times.
Indeed. Another venerable balanced fund, PGEOX, outperformed FPURX for 8.5 years starting 12/31/64, before falling behind in the last 1.5 years of that 10 year span.
Funds are not static, they evolve and adapt.
For example, in 2008, Puritan explicitly changed from "emphasizing above-average income-producing equity securities, which tends to lead to investments in stocks that have more 'value' characteristics than 'growth' characteristics" to a fund that "is not constrained by any particular investment style. At any given time, FMR may tend to buy 'growth' stocks or 'value' stocks, or a combination of both types."
Here are descriptions of how a couple of its peers changed over decades:

Initially focusing on a simple mix of blue-chip stocks and high-grade bonds, [the George Putnam Balanced Fund] has expanded its universe over the years, incorporating international equities, high-yield bonds, and even alternative investments to diversify and enhance returns.
The management of the fund has also transitioned from a primarily fundamental, research-driven approach to one that incorporates technical analysis and global economic trends. This evolution reflects the fund’s commitment to maintaining its foundational principles while adapting to the complexities of the modern financial world.
...
Originally a hybrid of stocks and bonds, the[Wellington] fund has continually recalibrated its asset mix in response to economic cycles. During periods of market exuberance, such as the post-World War II boom and the late 20th-century bull markets, the fund shifted towards a higher allocation in stocks to capture growth.
Conversely, in times of economic downturns and uncertainties, like the oil crises of the 1970s and the financial crisis of 2008, the fund increased its bond holdings, prioritizing capital preservation and income. The Wellington Fund’s management has been characterized by a blend of historical wisdom and a forward-looking approach, consistently adapting to the ever-evolving market dynamics.

https://pictureperfectportfolios.com/what-are-the-oldest-mutual-funds-historic-investments-revealed/
Whether these and other fund changes have handled markets in good times and bad I leave for others to decide. The point here (since someone keeps asking me what the point is) is that these may not be your father's (or your grandfather's) funds. It's fun to see how they did half a century ago, but is it meaningful?

Or ... we can see now (sort of). Using the conventional 30 year horizon and the usual 4%/year (inflation adjusted) assumed spend down amount, a 20 year cash cushion would result in 80% in cash, 20% invested. Setting aside 5 years of cash would result in 20% in cash, 80% invested.
Portfolio Visualizer only goes back to 1985, but that covers the 1987 crash, the dot com bust, and the great financial crisis. Run PV through 30 year periods (or to 2024 when starting after 1994), rebalance annually, withdraw 4% annually, inflation adjusted.
The worst start year, not surprisingly, is 2000. That's starting with a market collapse and going through another one in the same decade. A lost decade for large cap stocks.
Here are the nominal results of three portfolios from Jan 2000 - Dec 2023. The first starting with 20 years of cash, the second with 5 years of cash and the rest in VFINX. The third with 5 years of cash and the rest invested 60/40 VFINX/VBMFX. After the 24 year period ...
20% stock/80% cash - 14% remaining (7.7% inflation adjusted)
80% stock/20% cash - 42% remaining (23% inflation adjusted)
48% stock/32% bond/20% cash - 73% remaining (40% inflation adjusted)
For the remaining six years, you'd like at least 24% (4% x six years) remaining in real dollars. The 80/20 mix almost makes it, and the balanced portfolio makes it with ease.
If you're wondering what would happen to the 80% cash portfolio without rebalancing, it would have come out about the same (a half percent worse). The others would have come out worse than with rebalancing.
Here's the PV run. You can experiment with it yourself.
Many years ago, Suze Orman said she was keeping almost all of her assets in TIPS. Which was fine for her - she didn't need to grow her portfolio and TIPS wouldn't be degraded by inflation. That doesn't work for most people, who need growth even in retirement. (4% withdrawals with no growth lasts only 25 years.)
I think @Crash said something similar, though in a different way.

Reg BI is a diluted standard that many brokers & financial advisors can claim they are following. Only the RIAs are obligated to follow fiduciary standard.
Beware of dual-hatted advisors that have both RIA and broker/advisor credentials. There is a fuzzy area where the rules apply based on whatever hat that person is wearing - so better ask directly.
This muddy solution of Reg BI was because only a small % of brokers & advisors also have RIA licenses. So, if fiduciary standard was imposed overnight, the financial industry would come to a halt.
Industry is also resistant. The DOL wants fiduciary standard to apply to IRAs, 401k, etc, but even that is in the courts.

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