+1.

Morgan Stanley can not risk continuing to employ someone who becomes (or is) a permanent bear. It will be good to find out the instances when Mike Wilson may have made the right market calls. It is acceptable to me if he has been right >50% of the time. He has been in his current position since 2012.
Per Google search, here is a timeline of Mike Wilson's career at Morgan Stanley:
1989-1995: Investment banker
1995-2000: Head of Institutional Equity Sales
2000-2005: Head of Content Distribution for North American Equities
2005-2012: CIO of Wealth Management
2012-Present: Chief U.S. Equity Strategist and Chief Investment Officer
P.S.: I do not hold Mike or anybody else responsible for my outcomes because at the end of the day, my actions are always dictated by my own mental inclinations.

@fd1000
How much do you think the tea leaf reader meaning Wilson pulls down in salary annually? Where else can you be so wrong and get paid to keep doing it?

There are several others who do this.
The weatherman=markets predictor

"Take note that calculating your RMD works a bit differently if your spouse is the only primary beneficiary to your account and is more than 10 years younger than you. In this case, you must use the IRS Joint Life and Last Survivor Expectancy Table. You can also find this on IRS Publication 590. However, your life expectancy factor would be based on the ages of you and your spouse. But the formula doesn’t change. You’d still follow the same IRA withdraw rules listed above."
Just discovered this. My spouse is indeed the only primary beneficiary, and is more than 10 years younger than me. Does that work to my advantage?
"...The IRS has other tables for account holders and beneficiaries of retirement funds whose spouses are much younger."
I still have 4 years until reaching age 73.
....And just try to locate those withdrawal tables (and alternative withdrawal tables) re: "combined life expectancy." I dare you. Your tax dollars at work. Geniuses, everywhere:
https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-publication-590-b

@fd1000
How much do you think the tea leaf reader meaning Wilson pulls down in salary annually? Where else can you be so wrong and get paid to keep doing it?

Hussy has that great chart in this commentary showing a spectacular returns using his 1998 proprietary indicator of "favorable indicators" to go all in on SP500 and cash if unfavorable.
https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/comment/mc230724fb.png

Works like a dream. But why doesn't he use it running his mutual funds?
I have never understood how a guy with such data at his disposal, such well throughout discussions and analysis can do so poorly managing mutual funds.

I never promoted income based portfolio. I say look at categories/stocks and select the best risk-adjusted ones. This can be growth stocks or income or others. Never starts your selection by looking only at higher-income stocks.
Drawing from a portfolio doesn't justify owning income stocks because total performance matters more. Just because ATT+IBM paid a lot more income in 2010, if you own them instead of MSFT, you make a huge mistake.
What's going to be next? I don't have an idea. I know what worked for me, but I'm not going to discuss it, looks like no one is interested to know it.

I have a special place in my heart for Wilson because he made so many bad predictions, see (link).

@FD1000 In other threads haven't you also advocated for owning IOFIX at times, a bond fund with an extraordinarily high for bonds 1.50% expense ratio? You've also suggested PRWCX, which, while an excellent fund, isn't cheap but average expense ratio wise and more expensive than American Funds' competitors. So it might help if you explain why these previous statements don't quite add up when combined with this one.

Yes, years ago I used to own a lot of IOFIX. I have a system that works for me and is not recommended to anybody. I don't care too much about ER, I'm a trader.
On the other hand, there are funds that can be great for other investors with a decent ER, such as PRWCX, PIMIX at its best and others.

@FD1000 In other threads haven't you also advocated for owning IOFIX at times, a bond fund with an extraordinarily high for bonds 1.50% expense ratio? You've also suggested PRWCX, which, while an excellent fund, isn't cheap but average expense ratio wise and more expensive than American Funds' competitors. So it might help if you explain why these previous statements don't quite add up when combined with this one.

@FD1000, you sure make a case for income investing. ;-p
Isn't one's portfolio to draw from? If so what matter does it make if the market is not good? Is the goal to only grow a portfolio and never use it until you die?

How time has changed with American funds. By the time we invested with American, the R6 (retirement accounts) were available - no load and no 12-b-1 fees. AF has served us well especially during drawdowns. Today, we moved to their newly created ETFs (less than 2 years old) with attractive expense ratio of 0.47-0.33%.

I listened to the Clark Howard show (https://clark.com/)in ATL in the early 90s. Clark has been a great advocate for consumers and promoted index funds. This is when I read my first investing book Random Walk..I didn't know much about investing but I knew expenses should be very cheap. I started investing in 1995 and opened my first account at Vanguard. Several years later with more experience and knowledge I looked at other options.

”my desired target is .60 or better on active management fees for mutual funds and with no 12(b)-1 fees thrown in.”
Very reasonable outlook. Similar goal here for the plain vanilla variety. However, if one wishes to visit Charlie’s Chocolate Factory and add extra ingredients like long-short, market neutral, leveraged CEFs, it will cost more. Not everyone needs or wants those exotic flavors. One might even argue they are extravagant and wasteful.

I agree that it is open with Schwab, but it should not be.
From January 31, 2023:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1494928/000139834423001516/fp0081525-7_497k.htm
Excerpt:
Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares
Sales of Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund are closed to new investors except as noted below. Existing shareholders of the Fund (including clients of any financial adviser or planner who has client assets invested in the Fund) and certain eligible investors may purchase additional shares of the Fund through existing or new accounts and may reinvest dividends and capital gains distributions. New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase shares directly from the Fund (i.e., not through a financial intermediary). Further, any trustee of RiverPark Funds Trust, or employee of RiverPark Advisors, LLC or Cohanzick Management, LLC, or an investor who is an immediate family member of any of these individuals may also open new accounts and purchase shares of the Fund. The Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to determine the criteria for qualification as an eligible investor and to reject or accept any purchase order. Sales of shares of the Fund may be further restricted or reopened in the future.

In my opinion, no one should ever pay 5%, and most should not pay even 1% annually when Vanguard's annual fee is 0.35% for its all-index investment options and 0.40% for an active/index mix. A good adviser can and should have a clear plan that lasts for years, and only make changes in major events, and why most who need advice should do it every several years or in major events.

On this, we are in complete accord. IMO front-end loads are a relic of the "old days" and have no business being charged on people today. If I knew then what I know now, I never would've agreed to buy them -- but they've more than recouped the loads over the past 20+ years so I'm not complaining.
Generally speaking, with very few exceptions, my desired target is .60 or better on active management fees for mutual funds and with no 12(b)-1 fees thrown in. How some funds (including AF classes, like 529-series and some R-shares ) can still charge 1.X or more per year blows the mind, though I realize that by paying more, those people are allowing me to invest in a 'cheaper' or 'much cheaper' share class.
.

@yogibearbull said, ”Things were different in 1970s.” - Right with ya Yogi.
Our workplace plan (1970s) had but 1 option if you wanted to invest in equities, It was through Templeton funds. The A shares’ normal front load was 7%. But, as a group, we got a discount down to 4.7% - and we were happy just to be able to invest with a very good fund house for the day. Total ER including the 12B-1 fee was a bit over 1% on an international fund.
I suppose I could go “all-index” today and construct a portfolio with under a .50% average ER if I wanted to do all the work - including the ever ongoing research. But. I don’t. So, I’m “dumb and happy” paying somewhere around 1% in return for some fine managed approaches. Not everybody wants to shoulder all the investment decision making.
FD said, ”In my opinion, no one should ever pay 5% …” -
A bit unclear to me to what that’s referencing. It’s perhaps a reference to the front loads some of us paid decades ago when it was common. Interesting question whether anyone today would pay such a high load. Never say never. So, possibly I would if the investment were attractive enough. But, yes, by today’s standards 5% is very high.

@FD1000: You can sit there and blather whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that coming from middle-class families with little inherited wealth we can now sit here without any financial worry, and that our American Fund financial advisor played a significant role in that.
American Funds never charged any load when selling and reinvesting in a different fund. You would have us believe that you know everything about everything, but your world view is so self-centered that all that you accomplish is pomposity and arrogance. Hubris... how pathetic.
But I'm pretty sure that many others have already commented on that.

I don't why you got offended. I asked several questions I didn't know the answer to. I also didn't say anything about your investment ability, nor did I post anything about my past record. I'm glad you are doing well and hope you will do great in the future.
In my opinion, no one should ever pay 5%, and most should not pay even 1% annually when Vanguard's annual fee is 0.35% for its all-index investment options and 0.40% for an active/index mix. A good adviser can and should have a clear plan that lasts for years, and only make changes in major events, and why most who need advice should do it every several years or in major events.

Last year’s plunge in the S&P 500 (SPX) made uber bear Mike Wilson the most celebrated stock forecaster on Wall Street. It’s a role he has failed to reprise in 2023. 
The chief US equity strategist for Morgan Stanley on Monday conceded that he stuck with the pessimism for too long amid a rebound that has left equity benchmarks within spitting distance of erasing last year’s decline. His forecast for the S&P 500 remains 3,900, a level that has been left behind in the index’s 19% jump to around 4,560.
“We were wrong,” Wilson wrote in a note to clients Monday. “2023 has been a story of higher valuations than we expected amid falling inflation and cost cutting.” His team has recently shifted the focus to June 2024, for which the price target is set at 4,200, about 8% below its current level.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/were-wrong-morgan-stanley-wilson-191650465.html
Suppose I’d be upset had I paid Mr. Wilson one dime for his prediction. But I didn’t. He gave it out free of charge, Sometimes you gets what you pays for.

Things were different in 1970s. I remember paying 6% commission. So, a switch from stock "A" (sell) to stock "B" (buy) would eat up 12% just in commissions. Then the era of discount brokerage arrived (Schwab, Fidelity, etc) and things started changing dramatically - for funds, stocks and ETFs (these came only in 1990s). But today, there is absolutely no reason to pay for loads for American Funds (or any other funds) when alternative no-load classes exist at brokerage NTF platforms or comparable ETFs are available. I do have broker friends who sell the load stuff and my discussions with them are short - their point is that it's for their "time" and "service" for those who just want to call and talk to brokers, and there are break points for large purchases. Well, they aren't for me, or for most people, IMO.