Most of these wrap accounts seem pretty similar, and as davidrmoran noted, the fee is typical. So what follows is not a criticism of Merrill Lynch in particular, so much as observations about these plans in general. They do work well for many people.
SEC, Investor Bulletin: Investment Adviser Sponsored Wrap Fee Programs
https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-and-bulletins/ib_wrapfeeprograms

[highlighted section] Tip: ... But if there is little or no trading activity in your advisory account or the trades being made would not otherwise have a transaction fee, a wrap fee arrangement may cost more than separately paying for the services. You should check your account statements to review the level of trading, and periodically talk to your adviser about the level of trading in your account, the fees involved, and what sort of account makes sense for you. Of course, there may be considerations other than cost, like access to certain managers, that make a wrap fee program right for you.

Merrill Lynch INVESTMENT ADVISORY PROGRAM WRAP FEE PROGRAM BROCHURE, March 26, 2018
https://olui2.fs.ml.com/publish/ESIGN_EXPAN/TandC/MSGDisclosure.pdf

We address conflicts from this compensation in a variety of ways, including the disclosure of the conflicts in this Brochure. Moreover, our Advisors are required to recommend investment advisory programs, investment products and securities that are suitable for each client

All of the links that people posted here to questions to ask include the question: is there a fiduciary relationship. "Suitability" is a term used to indicate that the advisor isn't a fiduciary. I hope your specific client agreement does require your advisor to act as a fiduciary.

as a general rule, we only include for purchase in the Program and other Merrill Lynch securities accounts a mutual fund share class that provides for a payment to be made by the mutual fund to one of our Affiliates for providing certain ...services.... The manager of a particular mutual fund may have a fund share class that does [not pay for these services]. Accordingly, you should not assume that you will be invested in the share class with the lowest possible expense ratio that the mutual fund provider makes available to the investing public. ... As a result of such Fund-Related Compensation, we may have a conflict of interest in selecting certain mutual funds for inclusion in the Program over others.

That would explain why as @slick noted, you'll have problems getting Vanguard funds.
Note that in retirement accounts (IRAs, 401(k)s, etc.) an advisor must give you credit for any 12b-1 fees and management fees paid by a fund that is run by (in this case) Merrill Lynch or affiliate. But not for 12b-1 fees paid by any other funds.

Performed X-Ray on portfolio and I’m only showing 5% invested overseas. I tend to let money run in investments such as PRMTX, which when I started in 2002 was 25, now 106 per share. I probably need to diversify a bit more away from large cap which is roughly 45% of portfolio.
Where are some international areas to invest in. Thanks

Thought if u you have large amount in boa Merrill edge ( Preferred Rewards Platinum or Preferred Rewards Platinum Honors programs) think there should be no fees at least this is what my cpa in Merrill edge stated... Free meeting and account evaluation
You probably get more answers in mfo here than most private cpa or investment advisor imhi
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/merrill-edge-review/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marybethstorjohann/2018/01/09/what-you-dont-know-but-should-about-your-thrift-savings-plan-tsp/#1d33e38227ba

Yes, and increasingly higher, for God knows what justification --- the base charged fees have gone to 1.1%, 1.25%, and more.
They reduce w/ higher assets; if you turn over millions, they go under 1%, and increasingly well under (marginal).
There are institutional advisers (yours is one, maybe, being w/ ML?), whom one is always advised to stay away from by indies even though many do very good work, whose fees are lower sometimes, or were back in the day, because they were getting spiffed from placing you in the institution's funds and paying said brokerage small fees for stock transactions. The pricing revolution of the last decade has reduced much of that, I hear.

Thanks very much for the feedback everyone. I had a good first meeting with planner where we laid out our goals. He appears to be fairly conservative in his approach which matches well with me. He charges a flat 1% fee for assets that he will actively manage and he will recommend a combination of individual stocks, bonds, mutual funds and ETFs. I'm curious from your experiences -- is 1% fairly standard?

@Catch22- OK, Catch... there's your answer: up to 1% plus transaction fees per transaction. Not quite the same thing as "no load".

right most investment firm charges 1% up [to buy] or down [to sell] on different private corp bonds retention fees to hold their bond on their bonddesk. dont know about muni bonds though but think almost same percentage. so you are looking at paying 1% eitherway + transaction fees.
maybe best to hold a 60/40 if you are conservative or 80/20 [even 90/10] if you are very aggressive

I've become rather disenchanted with bonds and consequently find the paper's arguments less than persuasive. In part because I question why, at least for long term investors, volatility should even matter. Long term a pure stock portfolio wins out; even over "just" a decade, stocks win out around 80% of the time.
In part, because bonds have done worse than the graphic suggests. A common complaint with the US aggregate bond index is that it is heavily weighted toward federal bonds. They have significantly less risk. In 2008 "Lower-risk Treasury-backed debt whipped most fixed-income categories, while company-issued bonds and more daring overseas debt suffered a similarly grim fate as stocks."
This is not to suggest that bonds have near the risk of stocks, simply that the numbers don't tell the full story.
If you're investing for income, then you're investing behind the "efficient frontier", which is okay. But I'm more interested in total earnings, whether that comes from coupons or dividends or capital gains.
I do agree that bonds can serve a very useful role if you "must meet an expense at a particular time in the future. " For that, see bond immunization. The simplest form of immunization is just buying a zero bond that matures when you need the money. No reinvestment risk, and bond (as opposed to cash) rate of return.
In one sense, absence of reinvestment risk makes zeros less risky than coupon bonds. Sure there's the risk that rates will rise and you'll be stuck with your low YTM zero. However, coupon bonds have a similar risk - you're still stuck with the bond paying low coupons. That is somewhat mitigated by the fact that you are getting cash out (interest payments) that you can reinvest at a higher rate, if rates rise. But if rates fall instead of rise, you lose because you reinvest those interest payments at lower rates. That's the reinvestment risk.
Regarding not knowing markup: at least for munis, there's EMMA. Enter a CUSIP in the search box here, and you get not only real time trades, but information about the type of trade (inter-dealer, customer buy, customer sell), that let's you estimate markups in real time as well. Different markups by different dealers.

Usually one reads about what to do when one leaves an employer. Basically, roll it over (into an IRA or another employer plan), take the cash, or leave it there. But one usually doesn't think about what happens to the money that one leaves there, other than it being subject to RMDs.
I'd always assumed that one could take partial withdrawals on demand. It does look like TSP is very restrictive here - limiting you to one partial withdrawal.
On the other hand, it looks like it's more flexible than most 401(k) plans (though not necessarily 403(b)s), in giving retirees the option of taking the money as an annuity (effectively as a traditional pension). It also strikes me as flexible in allowing you to define your own mix of options - lump sum, fixed payments (until the money is exhausted), RMD payments, and/or the "pension" (annuity) option.
So you have a lot of options that you can mix and match, but you're locked into them. You can't take bigger or smaller monthly payments as needed. More flexibility in some respects, less in others.

MikeW,
Will you be able to keep the Thrift Savings Plan?
Often, at retirement, these plans can no longer be contributed to and may also have to be transferred out of the Thrift Savings Plan. This was the case for a relative who work for a government employer (military) who recently retired a few months ago.

I'm not that familiar with TSP (all I know is what I read in the papers). Still, the situation you're describing sounds unusual.
TSP holds itself out as " similar to a 401(k) plan in the private sector." In the private sector, by law you must be allowed to keep your money in your 401(k) so long as you have at least $5K there.
Many plans allow you to keep your money even if you have a lesser amount. With TSP, "If your vested account balance is $200 or more, you can leave your entire account with the TSP until the account withdrawal deadline." The deadline it's talking about is just the usual rule that RMDs begin the later of age 70.5 or separation from service.
https://www.tsp.gov/PlanParticipation/LoansAndWithdrawals/withdrawals/index.html
It's pretty obvious that someone who is not working for an employer cannot make payroll contributions to that employer's sponsored plan (TSP, 401(k), 403(b), etc.) But TSP seems very flexible in the types of other post-retirement contributions it allows.
It accepts rollovers from IRAs and transfers from retirement plans at other employers. "Not only can you leave your money with the TSP, you can simplify your financial life by moving money from plans into your TSP account." However, it doesn't look like it can accommodate Roth money, as it limits IRA rollovers to traditional IRAs.
https://www.tsp.gov/PlanParticipation/EligibilityAndContributions/RolloversTransfers/index.html

Hi Ted
Allocation is currently 26% C fund, 21% S Fund, 10% I fund, and 43% G fund.

Tough holdings for me since 1/26/2018:
SFGIX (actively managed) & VWO (EMM Index)- Both down almost 15 % in steady decline. Active management doesn't seem to be offering much downside protection:

FSUTX has done very well compared to the Utility Index:

FSRPX has buck the trend of (87% Consumer Cyclical & 10% Consumer Defensive) as a result of their choices / weighting in this sector.

FYI: The waiting game for new highs in the S&P 500 continues has lasted a bit longer than it was looking like it would last at this point a week ago. Even though the S&P 500 hasn’t moved much at the index level, though, many of its components have seen big moves. The table below summarizes the average performance of individual S&P 500 components grouped according to sector since the 1/26 closing high. Leading the way higher, Utilities have been the leading sector with an average gain of just under 5%, but right on the Utilities sector’s heels is Technology where stocks in the sector are up an average of 4.2%. Besides these two sectors, the only two other sectors where the average stock is up since 1/26 are Real Estate and Energy. To the downside, in three sectors (Consumer Staples, Materials, and Financials), the average stock is down over 7%. That’s quite an average decline for an index that is within 2% of record highs.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/sector-performance-breakdown-since-the-126-peak/

Thanks very much Bee. I will explore whether an extra annuity is an option. I work for the federal government so I don't think they offer this but I will ask. We have 3 sources of income as feds. 1) An annuity that's based on years of service. 2) Social security. 3) The Thrift Savings plan which is like a 401K program with a limited set of investment options -- equity and bond indexes.

Not often mentioned, but another planning topic is your debt to income ratio. Prior to retirement I had very good credit (partly due to my low debt to a higher working income). This "debt to income ratio" will change instantly in the first months of retirement...probably due to a lower income... and as a result your credit score may suffer. More importantly you will qualify for less credit.
I applied for a 30 year mortgage (actually a 15/15 ARM @ a rate of 2.875 fixed for the first 15 years) and also took additional cash out on this loan. I planned to use the cash for home improvements that I knew I now had time to do myself (retirement offers time to do this) as well as serve as a on demand cash for opportunities. Another story for another time, but cash was king back in 2010.
This decision to refinance my home loan prior to retirement effectively locked in my principle/interest payments for 15 years into retirement and since I completed this process while I was still working I qualified for a much larger mortgage due to my higher "debt to income ratio".

@MikeW: Hope this is of some help.
Regards,
Ted
Nerd Wallet:
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/10-questions-ask-financial-advisor/
Motley Fool:
https://www.fool.com/slideshow/13-smart-questions-everyone-should-ask-their-financial-advisor/
Dave Ramsey:
https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/questions-to-ask-financial-advisor

I was hoping to request some advice. I am meeting with a new financial planner today to do some retirement plannig and review our investment portfolio. I'm about 10 years from retirement and will have a government pension. I'm interested in the planner providing recommendations on asset allocation and steps we should take to achieve our goals. I would value the board's suggestions on questions I should ask the planner or links to such questions. The planner works for Merrill so I'm sure he will be recommending their various products. Our situation is a little complicated in that we have a special needs son that we need to plan for. Thanks so much for your advice.

@catch22. Thanks for pointing out Big Mac. I last drove across it in 1960 in my parents Impala rag top. A memorable day and my dad even seemed cool for putting the top down. Those were the days,,, or so it seemed.

Usually about 9.95 dollars per transaction of 5k of bonds at Vanguard, that the only fee you pay. Most bonds pay biyearly div. We use these div to buy more stocks or bonds after once collected. At schwab no fees but the price us slightly higher for same bond.
So if u have 100 cents on dollar yield 5% for instance next year u have 105, 2 year after you have 110.5 Compoundedafter yr 3 u have 116.025. The problem maybe you have to hold bond until it mature.... If the stock bankrupt u loose all the funds put into individual bond.... Been doing this for 8+yrs only 2 defaults so I was very lucky lost about 7 or 8 k... Probably have over few hundreds bonds now
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Bond+investing
We previously had Zions Direct and cost 4.98 per transaction but they recently went out of bonds broker business. We rolled over and transferred all our funds to Vanguard since
You can get Google. Com/alert 'att bankrup' and put alert on the bond u hold (catch taught me this in 2010 $$thx Catch!!!) and get immediate alerts if company have problems and decide to sell bonds quickly if u think bond has bad news going forward