@sma3 stated:
For this you get the plan, quarterly reviews, tax planning etc. Their "value dividend growth " portfolio has returned 12% net of fees since 2007, pays 3% and lost only 7% in 2022. They also have a growth portfolio, and buy individual bonds for income. They have on site CFA, CFPs, tax lawyers estate planners etc.
In the "value dividend growth" portfolio 12% net of fees since 2007 figure above provided by the Wealth Enhancement Group, do they compare this portfolio to what index? Is their portfolio earning 13% since 2007 for a little more than 15+ years (ie, 12% net of fee + 1% advisor fee)? I'm curious as it appears they are earning equal to S&P 500 index returns or possible better with lower risk profile.

Those recommended age specific equity allocations are fascinating. Sound about right for disciplined really long-term oriented investors. A lot of us (self included) may have a hard time “shutting our eyes” and letting those long-term investments play out. To some extent, that may be a characteristic of those who frequent investment forums or follow markets closely (eyes always wide open).
Not sure if covered above, but fairly certain those recommendations are aside from a hefty stash of cash / short term investments for emergencies or to ride out an equity bear market. Pretty much goes without saying …
Thanks to @Observant1 and others who have contributed to this thread.

Having a more complete portfolio picture helped in our planning. Remember, the initial plan is merely a proposal. The clients need to review it thoroughly and make adjustments (asset allocation (risk tolerance), investment vehicles, and % active vs. % passive). We have VG to manage part of several IRA accounts for us with the objective of capital appreciation (the third bucket). We manage the other half for generating income (first and second buckets).
As @lynnbolin21 said earlier there is an element of "leap of faith" when using financial advisor. This is new to us so we take it slow. Our ultimate goal is to have a human advisor to help manage our retirement funds if and when I can no longer able to manage it.
On Vanguard site, there is other links on the bottom that have many useful information on financial planning and templates for their advisors.
https://advisors.vanguard.com/advisors-home
I found particularly informative is under the "Advisor's Alpha®" tab where it goes into Advisor's Alpha® overview, Investors' view on advice, and Behavioral coaching. On the Wealth Management tab, it goes into useful tools for Health Care Cost Estimator, Intergenerational wealth, and Roth Conversion Calculator.
I believe sharing these information is helpful for everyone's planning in the future.

@Derf
Funny you should ask. After asking my Schwab rep if he had some way to help me calculate Roth conversions amounts, he suggested talking to the "Wealth Enhancement Group" for a no commitment plan. WEG guy says they are the 6th largest independent advisory firm in the country with over 70 Billion in assets
I just got off the call with this guy. I was generally impressed. ( While he was not calling form his yacht, he was calling from second home in Maine!) They have a model which will calculate Roth Conversions and expected taxes with breakeven points ( Example says 2040!). Assumes 5% return in taxable and 7% in Roth
They will do financial plan free of any fees, but of course want to manage your money. The fee is fairly reasonable at 1% for first 1,000,000 up to 0.7% over 5,000,000, so in line with most firms that do portfolio management only, and a bit higher than many mutual funds.
For this you get the plan, quarterly reviews, tax planning etc. Their "value dividend growth " portfolio has returned 12% net of fees since 2007, pays 3% and lost only 7% in 2022. They also have a growth portfolio, and buy individual bonds for income. They have on site CFA, CFPs, tax lawyers estate planners etc.
I agree the Vanguard info is pretty comprehensive, but to me it is predictably Vanguard, ie 60/40, 20% International, tax loss harvesting. Not sure that is worth their fees which I think are 0.3% correct ?

Assume comes up once again ! Let's say you put your plan to work a few years ago, 3,4 5. Along comes rate increase , now over 5% that's taken place. Would you be willing to stand pat , or clear out some equity & jump into CD's & T-bills or notes ? I know I've lowered equity side by 5 to 7 %.
With that said, I 'assume" ones age would play a big part where one invests.
@Observant1 Thanks for posting I enjoyed your info !

Critics say that many funds may move to more generic names or the rule may limit fund managers' flexibility.
To the extent that this rule change has any effect, I would tend to agree with the critics on the former (move toward generic names). But upon cursory examination (I haven't looked at the full rule yet), it doesn't look like the rule has teeth.
The PR says that "The [new rule] will include enhanced prospectus disclosure requirements for terminology used in fund names, including a requirement that any terms used in the fund’s name that suggest an investment focus must be consistent with those terms’ plain English meaning or established industry use."
Consider Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust. For much of its existence, it was classified as a growth fund, e.g.

The fund's name and Miller's stated goal strongly indicate that LMVTX is a value fund, although Morningstar classifies it as a large-cap growth fund. In fact, one of its top holdings is Google .

Fortune, Jan 27,2006.
Bill Miller argued that he was a value investor, and the Legg Mason prospectus described this:

The fund invests primarily in equity securities that, in the adviser's opinion, offer the potential for capital growth. The adviser follows a value discipline in selecting securities, and therefore seeks to purchase securities at large discounts to the adviser's assessment of their intrinsic value. Intrinsic value, according to the adviser, is the value of the company measured, to different extents depending on the type of company, on factors such as, but not limited to, the discounted value of its projected future free cash flows, the company's ability to earn returns on capital in excess of its cost of capital, private market values of similar companies and the costs to replicate the business. Qualitative factors, such as an assessment of the company's products, competitive positioning, strategy, industry economics and dynamics, regulatory frameworks and more, may also be considered. Securities may be undervalued due to, among other things, uncertainty arising from the limited availability of accurate information, economic growth and change, changes in competitive conditions, technological change, investor overreaction to negative news or events, and changes in government policy or geopolitical dynamics.

Prospectus, July 2006
More succinctly, from The Street (2001):

Unlike most value managers who tend to ignore pricey stocks in the technology and telecom sectors, Miller has a broader and less rigid view. Instead of relying on traditional metrics like a stock's price to earnings multiple, he looks at a company's free cash flow.

Miller was a relative value investor, though with a distinctive way of valuing companies. As such, and especially with the detailed definition of intrinsic value in the prospectus, I suspect that his fund would have passed the new SEC rule. IOW, a pretty toothless rule.

The difference between the individual recommendation and glide paths of various TDFs is likely due to the low (3.03%) withdrawal rate requested. That's quite low compared with the "rule of thumb" 4% or the base case of 4.7% used in this Vanguard paper (analyzing the relationship between health, spending, and asset allocation).
With a lower withdrawal rate, one can be (somewhat) more aggressive in asset allocation. That's assuming that "optimizing" a portfolio means making the most money available subject to it not running out.
Alternatively, one could optimize by investing more conservatively, improving odds of success from very near certainty to very, very near certainty. (That's somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but a real response to the question of whether it would be better to be more conservative if one doesn't need the extra money.)
As @Sven noted, Vanguard PAS can incorporate outside investments in its planning. It is one of several robo/hybrid advisors that do this (including the top five in M*'s ranking). See thread on Robo Advisor Evaluation.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/61501/robo-advisor-evaluation
From the M* report: "Having access to this [external asset] information can help robo-advisor programs provide more accurate advice on savings, asset allocations, and progress toward investment goals."

AAII Sentiment Survey, 9/20/23
BEARISH became the top sentiment (34.6%; above average) & bullish became the bottom sentiment (31.3%; below average); neutral became the middle sentiment (34.1%; above average); Bull-Bear Spread was -3.3% (below average). Investor concerns: Inflation (still high); economy; the Fed; dollar; crypto regulations; market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (82+ weeks, 2/24/22-now); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks were down, bonds down, oil up, gold up, dollar flat. Fed held rates. Yield-curve may be pivoting about ST rates. No budget deal yet in DC. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1184/thread

We are in similar situation as @Observant1 with respect to Vanguard PAS. Their proposed Plan is very detailed as described above with many recommendations . Once you import external account holdings, a comprehensive customized plan can then be made for their clients.
Still we have yet to explore other advisory service they provide besides investment and spending in retirement. That include Roth conversion and timing before RMD at 73.

Yeah. Per stockcharts or Fidelity, FXAIX, VOO, and IVV trade lead places irregularly over 10-5-3-1-0.5y, also the last few months. SPY is always last, slightly.

@Observant1- In the many years that I've been with MFO I've never seen anyone present such complete, detailed and interesting information with respect to a retirement plan that was recommended by a financial firm. Nice job! It should be useful to other MFO members, and initiate some healthy conversations.
Regards- OJ

Thanks, OJ!

@Observant1 What did you think of the information that was kicked back to you ?
I see nothing that hasn't been brought up here from time to time.
I was contacted by rep from Schwab for the second time , to make a plan. I passed for the second time.
So now I'll ask if anyone has participated in their planning offering .
I'm not trying to steal your thread only add to it.
I get a kick out of VG's use of the word assume !
Thanks Derf

@Derf,
Overall, the spending strategy and recommended actions were sensible and the projections were favorable.
My main issue is that outside accounts are not considered when determining the current asset allocation mix.
This can lead to unnecessary trades with potential tax consequences.
Since I favor a more holistic solution, I strongly prefer that outside accounts be factored
into the current asset allocation mix.
Although this was a worthwhile exercise, Vanguard PAS will not work for me.
YMMV.

Vanguard's spending strategy and recommended actions are sensible*.
The Vanguard Capital Markets Model is proprietary but appears to be robust.
Approximately half of my total portfolio is held outside of Vanguard.
While the corresponding dollar amounts are included in Vanguard's financial plan,
asset allocation for outside investments is not reflected in the current asset mix.
Examples:
Recommendation #3 - increase international to 18%
Portfolio X-Ray indicated 24.48% international exposure
Recommendation #4 - decrease U.S. large caps to 27%
Spreadsheet indicated 24.87% large cap fund exposure (actual large cap stock exposure will be less)
Consequently, Vanguard suggests making unnecessary trades (with tax consequences)
to align my portfolio with the 60/40 asset allocation target.
* Edit: Recommended actions are sensible assuming your entire portfolio is managed by Vanguard PAS.
If this is not the case, some of the recommended actions may not be prudent.

@Observant1 What did you think of the information that was kicked back to you ?
I see nothing that hasn't been brought up here from time to time.
I was contacted by rep from Schwab for the second time , to make a plan. I passed for the second time.
So now I'll ask if anyone has participated in their planning offering .
I'm not trying to steal your thread only add to it.
I get a kick out of VG's use of the word assume !
Thanks Derf

@Observant1- In the many years that I've been with MFO I've never seen anyone present such complete, detailed and interesting information with respect to a retirement plan that was recommended by a financial firm. Nice job! It should be useful to other MFO members, and initiate some healthy conversations.
Regards- OJ

Spending Strategy
We have a withdrawal plan to help maximize the longevity of your portfolio.
Our general approach is to use both the income and capital appreciation from your portfolio
to meet your spending needs.
We recommend directing all interest, dividends, and capital gains distributions
from your taxable account(s) to a fund set aside for spending.
If you need more income, generally we'll sell assets within your taxable account(s) that would produce
the lowest taxable gains, or even realize a loss, in order to minimize taxes.
To maximize your potential for tax-deferred growth, consider delaying withdrawals from your traditional
tax-deferred account(s) until your taxable account(s) have been depleted or your required minimum
distributions begin. Only consider withdrawing from your Roth account(s) once your traditional
tax-deferred assets have been spent.
Key Actions
Recommended action #1
We recommend that you use a target allocation of 60% stocks, 40% bonds,
and 0% short-term reserves.
Why we're recommending this:
Over time, your asset allocation is the most important factor in determining your portfolio's risk and potential
for return. Should your purpose, time horizon, or risk tolerance for this goal change, please contact us
to discuss if any updates should be made to your investment strategy.
Recommended action #2
We recommend you adjust your portfolio by purchasing taxable bonds in your tax-sheltered account first.
Then consider purchasing taxable bonds in your taxable accounts, if necessary, to achieve the target bond allocation.
Why we're recommending this:
It's more advantageous for you to hold bonds in tax-sheltered accounts where the interest is allowed to compound on a tax-deferred or tax-free basis.
Recommended action #3
Increase your investments in international stocks to 18% of your portfolio for this goal.
Why we're recommending this:
It's Vanguard's position that setting a target allocation for non-U.S. stocks of 20% to the market weight can balance the diversification benefits with the potential risks and costs. Based on our research, most diversification benefits are achieved with a 40% allocation to non-U.S. stocks, particularly when costs are taken into account.
Recommended action #4
Decrease your U.S. large-cap stock exposure to 27% of your portfolio.
Why we're recommending this:
Vanguard believes that most investors are best served by holding a significant allocation of investments that represent broad markets. Reducing your investments in large-cap U.S. stocks will bring your portfolio closer to the proportions of the broad U.S. stock market.
Recommended action #5
Increase your international bond investments to 12% of your goal's portfolio.
Why we're recommending this:
Foreign bonds are one of the world's largest asset classes and are not perfectly correlated with the U.S. bond market. Increasing your exposure to a currency-hedged international bond fund can lead to lower volatility in your portfolio.
Recommended action #6
Adjust your portfolio by purchasing stock index investments within your taxable accounts.
Why we're recommending this:
Broadly diversified stock index investments aim to track the underlying benchmarks of the broad U.S. stock market and typically have fewer taxable distributions than actively-managed funds. Therefore, they can provide a tax-efficient way to gain exposure to the stock market.

I contacted Vanguard a few weeks ago regarding an unrelated issue.
The Vanguard rep suggested a complementary meeting with a Personal Advisor Services (PAS) professional.
A preliminary financial plan was developed and sent to me yesterday.
I won't delve into all the specific details but will provide an overview since this info may be helpful to others.
Age: Early 60s
Goal: Retire in two years
Withdrawal rate: I requested a specific dollar amount which equaled 3.03% of my total portfolio
Asset allocation to age 80: 60% stock/40% bond - completed questionaires and discussed with Vanguard
Asset allocation from age 80 to 85: 55% stock/45% bond
Asset allocation from age 85 to 100: 50% stock/50% bond
The Vanguard Capital Markets Model (VCMM) is used to forecast returns for stocks, bonds,
and short-term reserves as well as inflation rates.
Monte Carlo simulations are run to project outcomes to age 100.

If FR/BL are so bullish, why have PRFRX and FFRHX been in redemption for probably 1 1/2 years?
Just read in Wednesday's WSJ that individual investors have pulled $13 billion from FR/BL mutual funds and ETF's this year. Are they the "smart money" or the "dumb money"?
Asking for a friend.

There is nothing more bullish than a bond category that is steadily rising amid heavy fund outflows. Early 2014 in junk munis come to mind. Once inflows become heavy and consistent the party is nearing an end. One of the most bullish things about bank loans earlier in the year and which I alluded in June was the steady and persistent outflows. In fact outflows had been the story for years on end. Most recently the outflows have reversed into small inflows. Hopefully @yogibearbull can shed more light on recent flows. Overall I have never been much of a fan of the bank loan category (except for mid to late 2016) because they could never compete with junk corporates performance wise. Obviously this year another rare exception.
Edit: The 10 year in the overnight market is trading at 4.44%. Yikes!

Under the NAMES RULE, the SEC will require that the names of funds reflect 80% of the fund portfolios to avoid drifting and playing games by funds. If a fund doesn't satisfy this requirement, it will have 30 days to correct this.
This rule sort of exists now for very broad things such as "equity", "bonds" in funds' names, but the new rules will also apply to more specific things like "growth", "value", "dividend", "small/mid/large-caps", "foreign", "global", "investment-grade", "high yield", etc in the fund names.
I don't know what will happen to M* Fund Category Definitions (2023) or similar published by others.
Critics say that many funds may move to more generic names or the rule may limit fund managers' flexibility.
SEC
Press Release Names Rule https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2023-188
Fact Sheet https://www.sec.gov/files/33-11238-fact-sheet.pdf
Final Rule (283 pages) https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2023/33-11238.pdf
M* Fund Categories https://pdfhost.io/v/K3mzSxMmx_MStar_Categories_Funds_April2023_091423

I like to think I'm quite adequately diversified, though there are some hefty overweights, when I look at my breakdown. I'm one-third heavier in Financials than the SP500.
Energy: SP500 is a bit over 4%. I'm at 17.02%. Most of that is PRNEX. Actually quite volatile. I don't like that. But I do look forward to the end-of-year dividends from the Monster oil companies. The other elements in this category I'm holding are:
ET. oil/gas midstream. (Pipelines). and TS, a maker of pipes, particularly top-end, seamless quality pipes. Especially with offshore wells, their kind of pipe is preferred, maybe even essential for deep water jobs. I see the company just BOUGHT a pipe-coating outfit, too.
I'm light on Technology, very light in Consumer Defensives.
Utilities: SP500 holds 2.68% in the Index. My portfolio includes 7.31% of total in "Yoots." But I hold no single-stock Yoots. The P/E on all the Yoots I see does not appeal to me at all. I keep watching and hoping, though.
(What's a 'yoot?')

"Higher for longer" is where it's at. I see no Fed lowering of interest rates at all in 2024. Accordingly, what I expect is to collect dividends, while watching the Market, and my own stuff, drift in the doldrums without much movement, unless it's downward movement. ZIRP was a huge exception to business as usual. Are we in a New Normal? Or will we find ourselves back to something like the "old normal" when rates are taken down at last, by the Fed--- MAYBE sometime in 2025?