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

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."

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.

Would the class view it more important to work with an excellent CPA rather than an advisor? I do.
Also, I remember a convo I had with my VP Engr in the late 90s. He and his wife were in their mid 50s at the time and had done well in their careers....told me that he saw an advisor who was like 20 years younger than him and had like 5% personal wealth than he had. VP felt that he should charge for his advice to the FA.... LOL.
Also, it's my firm belief that I would never take financial advice from anyone who didn't have some gray hair and who didn't have very substantial personal wealth.... just like I like my pilots to have some gray hair....

Schwab assigned a local FA(financial adviser) to me when I joined years ago. This guy is amazing and can tell you what funds to use, he even does CEFs, all for free. I don't need it so I don't use him but over the years I met with him twice just to find out his knowledge. Last year I was assigned to another FA and she is your typical saleslady, which is what most FAs are IMO.
I call it catch-22. If your knowledge is below average, you would not be able to know if the FA is good, if your knowledge is above average, you don't need one.
In the past anytime I have asked Fidelity or Schwab for advice I received a portfolio made of 8-10 funds that looks like computer generated.
My advice is to learn it by yourself, investing is really "simple" unless you want to complicate things...and most do. See ideas at https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Lazy_portfolios
You can just go beyond that. Example: select 3 index funds + 2 managed funds = done.

There was talk a while back about the pros and cons of either Fidelity, Vanguard or Schwab's in house financial advisors. Many of us worry our partners will be left floundering if anything happens to us suddenly. My wife has no interest in managing our big picture finances, although she is a genius on the little stuff.
@lynnbolin2021 probably did the most investigation and chose Fidelity and Vanguard, which use mostly mutual funds at fees of 0.3% to 0.5%. I have shied away from Vanguard having such poor results with their paperwork and accounts handling. 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, none of which seem to be their best ETFs in that category, and is heavily weighted to international equities.
I have thoroughly investigated Schwab's financial planning process using their recommended "Wealth Enhancement Group". This is the11th largest ( by AUM) money management firm in the US, and seems to buy up smaller ( ? less successful firms).
They have produced some high quality projections about Roth Conversions and cash withdrawals for us for free, hoping we will sign on.
They recommend a portfolio of dividend growth stocks that has a very good track record, equivalent or better than SCHD with slightly less risk. The fees are higher than SCHD's rock bottom ( 0.06%) but no more than a lot of actively managed funds.
Anybody use this platform as Schwab?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1537140/000158064224000163/rondure-overseas_497.htm
497 1 rondure-overseas_497.htm 497
Rondure Overseas Fund
Investor Class - ROSOX
Institutional Class - ROSIX
(a series of Northern Lights Fund Trust III)
Supplement dated January 9, 2024 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated October 20, 2023
The Board of Trustees of Northern Lights Fund Trust III (the “Board”) has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Rondure Overseas Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or about February 8, 2024 (“Redemption Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments, will no longer pursue its stated investment objective, and will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund at 1-855-775-3337.
This Supplement, and the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated October 20, 2023, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund at 1-855-775-3337.

@msf,
The link you posted by Robin Powell stated the following:

1. Tactical allocation funds had an average expense ratio of 1.39% (they are very expensive) and an average turnover of 289% (trading costs are high and tax efficiency is low).
2. TAA funds on average had about 49% of their assets in U.S. equity, about 33% in bonds, about 15% in foreign equities, about 8% in foreign bonds and about 13% in cash.
3. TAA funds underperformed all benchmark indexes and had lower absolute and risk-adjusted performance. The average TAA fund had cumulative returns of 215% versus 486% for P1 and 406% for P2. They even underperformed the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index, which returned 242%.
4. TAA funds produced an average Sharpe ratio of just 0.10 versus 0.17 for P1 and 0.15 for P2. Their Sortino ratio (a measure of downside risk) was also much lower, at 0.14 versus 0.25 for P1 and 0.22 for P2.
5. Benchmarked against a seven-factor asset pricing model (the four Fama-French-Carhart factors of beta, size, value and momentum plus factors for foreign equities and domestic and international bonds), TAA funds had a highly significant (t-stat = 4.6) negative monthly alpha of -0.16 over the entire period. The negative monthly alpha was even worse, at -0.20% (t-stat = 5.2), over the period beginning in 2004.
6. TAA funds failed when needed most, during the Great Financial Crisis — over the period 10/2007-3/2009, they produced a negative monthly alpha of -0.37% (t-stat = 2.7).
It concluded that “Our findings indicate that tactical allocation funds did not outperform the benchmarks, and investors would have been better off with passively managed funds that followed benchmark indexes.”
Am I missing something on this tread?

If the orders were placed before 4 p.m. ET, the share purchase price should have been the NAV close that day.
Unless the transaction request was not in "correct form" - whatever that means.
From the prospectus:
How the Trade Date Is Determined
"If you invest through a financial intermediary and your transaction request
is received by T. Rowe Price or its agent in correct form by the close of the NYSE,
your transaction will be priced at that business day’s net asset value.
If your request is received by T. Rowe Price or its agent in correct form after the close of the NYSE,
your transaction will be priced at the next business day’s net asset value unless the fund
has an agreement with your financial intermediary for orders to be priced at the net asset value
next computed after receipt by the financial intermediary."

Happy New Year! What's your New Year resolution?
Mine is to learn something new...one of the many reasons I enjoy this site. Thanks to all that share their experiences and expertise with others.
Here are a few resolutions from some recent WealthTrack guests:
recent-wealthtrack-guests-all-top-financial-professionals-have-remarkably-similar-2024-resolutions
No new episode for this week.

" time tested magical thinking...". Too funny @wabac. lol
Wasn't there a fund years ago that was very successful in that it assigned placeholder identifiers for each stock, only looking at financial metrics/performance and took the bias of actually knowing which company it was... I guess those who look at Brand strength would disagree but again I recall this was an outperformer

@MSF. Thank you for your comments above. I did review your pros and cons before I made my decision last year. You have a wonderful ability to explain and tease out the issues with financial decisions for those who are not aware of them. My sister is a CPA and is a great resource for tax questions that I did not consider. Thanks again. Fundly

...one would have to take into consideration several factors if one decided to limit the number of funds.... key nan risk, reputation, scale and financial strength of the fund company, diversification within reason, drawdown performance, bench strength, age of fund managets....the more I read this thread the more I like TSUMX. Thornburg Summit fund.,. multi asset, invests to outperform inflation, some international exposure, create quote real wealth end quote. Keep it simple, stay invested, some funds too volatile and then you bail at the wrong time.... always...
Baseball fan

I can't locate any information that states CALF specifically avoids the financial sector (and/or any other sector). Here's the current Fact Sheet from Pacer.

Look here.

Starting with the S&P Small Cap 600 Index, CALF screens out financial companies with the exception of REITs

CALF versus AVUV here for those not familiar with etfrc.com

I can't locate any information that states CALF specifically avoids the financial sector (and/or any other sector). Here's the current Fact Sheet from Pacer.

My own opinion on the current holdings in a managed ETF, not sure it means to much other than looking backwards. Maybe CALF has avoided financial for now but could make it a high percentage going forward. Who knows. You have to have faith in the management and process more so than the current holdings, I think. Same for any ETF or mutual fund.
One interesting statistic on CALF and AVUV. CALF has 100 holdings. 73% of those holdings are also in AVUV which has 748 holdings. Obviously, they like many of the same SC stocks, but CALF is more concentrated.
FWIW, I've held QRSVX at different percentages for many years. A conservative SC that does well over time. I've more recently in the past couple months added both CALF and AVUV to my SC holdings.

For some reason, Financial Services industry allows sub par customer focused companies to survive far too long. May be when it comes to money matters humans have sticky behavior.

From @Tarwheel’s linked FT article
“My sense is we are approaching the end of the more intense period of outflows,” chief executive Rob Sharps said in an interview with the Financial Times. “In certain, very visible, aspects it was a very disappointing year. In particular, the flow picture and the business that we lost.”The active equity house has faced strong headwinds since early 2022, when poor performance in some of T Rowe’s largest growth equity strategies sent investors running for the exits.
-
As a subscriber to the FT I’m underwhelmed by the breadth and depth of its stories. Plan to cancel before it renews. Not a bad article. Superficial coverage ISTM. Chief Executive Sharpe and outside observers may not fully grasp the depth of the problem. No mention of investors disgruntled by poor service. And I wonder if they fully appreciate the mounting competitive pressures. To a lesser extent they are afflicted by the same phenomenon that has dinged banks - the ability and willingness of investors to shift funds from one institution to another with relative ease and speed using modern technology.
I was a bit surprised Franklin is the other house mentioned as hemorrhaging money. Albeit, I’m not too familiar with them. But a few of their ETFs have garnered my attention. They seem at least to be experimenting with some new approaches. Some, like LVHI have done well and receive high marks at M*.

The Week in Charts (12/27/23)
Put these charts on your wall. Topics:
0:00 Intro
00:23 Overbought! Oversold!
01:08 Credit Card Rates & Mortgage Rates
01:55 Fed Policy & Stock Market Returns
03:30 Mortgage Rates & Home Prices
04:20 The Stock Market Is Not the Economy
05:20 Bear Market Bottoms
06:39 Volatility is Mean-Reverting at Extremes
07:36 Markets Don't Follow a Normal Distribution
09:35 Bank Failures and Financial Crises
10:33 Increasing Concentration
11:59 What Happened Last Year = What Will Happen Next Year?
12:47 Cars Are Not Appreciating Assets
13:43 Past Performance = Future Results?
14:54 Just Buy What You Know?
15:54 Shorting Stocks Based on Valuation
17:07 Irrational Investors
18:38 Streaks
19:41 Profits Matter ... Eventually
20:41 The Workers Came Back
21:42 Bonds Have Risk
23:23 Buying a Stock Based on a Meme
24:34 Supply/Demand Imbalances
25:20 Makes Changes to Your Portfolio Based on Headlines
26:26 Rising National Debt
28:06 Big Returns, Big Drawdowns
28:59 Central Planning vs. Capitalism
29:53 Wall Street Predictions
31:10 Why You Need to Invest
32:21 There Is No Impossible in Markets
Video
Blog