Suppose there were a cap, where all amounts greater than the cap had to be withdrawn:
Age 71: $1,000,000
Age 72: $ 970,000
Age 73: $ 940,000
...
Age 81: $ 700,000
...
Age 91: $ 400,000
...
Age 101:$ 100,000
Age 102:$ 80,000
Age 103:$ 60,000
Age 104:$ 40,000
Age 105:$ 20,000
How would this gradually reduced cap impede those who started saving late? ISTM that they're the ones who would benefit, since they would have the smaller accounts and thus be allowed to let their IRAs grow.
Perhaps you had something different in mind for how a cap (even a fixed limit cap) would work?

IMHO, the suggested rationale that RMDs be eliminated (or at least pushed back a few years, say, to age 75) because some people (a) are working now so don't need the money (b) will need the benefit of longer tax deferrals on those few years of RMDs they take before they retire, is a red herring.
If that really is a problem, it can be easily addressed without making broad changes in RMDs that affect everyone.
To some extent, it is already addressed. If someone over 70 works for an employer that offers a retirement plan accepting rollovers, the worker need just transfer the IRAs into the retirement plan. That gets rid of any RMD so long as the person continues working for the employer.
"The vast majority would still need to withdraw money on a regular cadence but allowing the untapped portion to further compound." Those workers in this "vast majority" withdraw money (RMDs or more) on a regular cadence and leave the rest of the IRA untapped to further compound. Done! That's the way things work now.
For the few (the "unvast minority"?) who don't need any money while working, they pay their taxes on the modest annual RMDs ("tax a little now") for a few years while they continue to work. They're not required to spend those RMDs. So they move their RMDs to taxable accounts, where they "benefit from additional time for their investments to compound"
There's no need to create more opportunities to abuse the system, merely to address what is to a large extent (i.e. for the "vast majority") not a problem. And for the few who are substantially affected, there are more targeted ways of helping them.

@DavidrMoran. Hey,,,,, it's a subject that is on my mind right now. I will be turning 70.5 next year,,,, I was pointing up his hypocrisy... I also understand that the elite don't need the money and would be happy to let it grow tax deferred. Regular folks will need the money and it might be taxable,,, particularly if husband and wife are of a certain age.

I was just going to ask LB how he thinks tax-deferred savings should be handled, and the 5y window sounds like a good idea.
I wonder if there is a progressive case to be made for handling Roths differently, as there is and has been for the new SaLT-deduction caps.

"the prosperity was strongly skewed in favor of the earnings of business and the incomes of the rich. In consequence, continued prosperity depended on continuing high investment expenditures by business, continuing high consumer expenditures by the affluent.
As share volumes came rushing down, prudence in all investment decisions rose as a reciprocal. Solid enterprises began to reconsider their investment commitments. Banks were suddenly cautious. Borrowers had been caught in the market. Better to have plenty of cash. And individual investors, their fingers badly scorched, were also poor prospects for the new issues of securities.
The blight on consumer expenditures was equally severe. Those who had been spending capital gains no longer had them. Many not directly affected thought it prudent to behave as though they had been."
John Kenneth Galbraith: Money, Whence It Came, Where It Went
(Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1975, pg 184).
[Lightly edited for brevity and to accent relevance to the present time.]

In 2011 the English government (using data from England and Wales) conducted a study to estimate the probability of an individual 50 years old in 2011 to reach 100 years of age. The results were 11.4% for males and 17.0% for females. These numbers if applied to the US, would imply that we might be significantly underestimating the income requirements during retirement.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223114/diffs_life_expectancy_20_50_80.pdf

Normally when I see these tables, I just go ooohh, look at the pretty pictures.
But when there's coloring outside the lines, I take a closer look. The S&P 500 sector performance table shows eleven rows of sectors (plus a row for the S&P 500). The problem is that until 2016 there were only ten sectors.
This is how the chart looked through 2015.
http://www.usfunds.com/media/files/pdfs/researchreports/2016/Periodic-Table-of-Sector-Returns-2016.pdf

Here's State Street Global Advisors (SPDRs) current chart, with 10 sectors through 2015, and eleven sectors since.
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/Pdf/All Funds Documents/Document Resources/10 Year Sector Returns

I don't know where NovelInvestor got its figures or how it retrofitted the new Real Estate sector into earlier years. That should have been easy to do - Real Estate was simply carved out of Financials, so the other sectors' figures for the past decade should not have been changed. But looking at the NovelInvestor table, it seems they were.
https://www.reit.com/investing/investor-resources/gics-classification-real-estate
Just wait until the latest sector reorg hits these tables. With IT being split, Media being expanded, and other companies being moved around, it will be difficult to extend these new sectors back in time to create a "virtual" table of how these sectors might have done over the past ten years. (That's because there's ambiguity in how each of the companies would have been classified over the past decade as their businesses matured.)

@hank: My suggestion would be, take that 7.5% and put it into something that working for the remainder of 08. You said it yourself, "Still hoping for a change in direction. (Hope is not a viable investment plan.)" Believe me that's not going to happen, and you won't miss the four funds you mentioned.
Regards,
Ted

I don’t normally post buys / sells. But FWIW, over past 6 months I’ve nibbled on some of the real asset type funds I already owned as things got cheaper. Today, I find myself a bit overweight in that area - and yet it still hasn’t paid me back. The entire area is still in the doldrums.
Still hoping for a change in direction. (Hope is not a viable investment plan.) :)
Unlike @Ted, my point here is that when you buy things that look cheap ... they might get even cheaper. Here’s the 4 funds I’m referencing: PRAFX, TRREX, OPGSX, OQGAX. Together, they comprise 7.5% of total investments.

FYI: While the ever-climbing U.S. stock market (and the bubble forming in it) has been stealing most of the investing public's attention, a dangerous bubble has been forming under-the-radar in the corporate bond market. Interestingly, this corporate bond bubble is one of the main reasons why the stock market has been consistently pushing to new highs, and it will also eventually prove to be its undoing. In this report, I will show a variety of different charts to help explain the U.S. corporate bond bubble and the risk it poses to the stock market and economy.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2018/08/29/the-u-s-is-experiencing-a-dangerous-corporate-debt-bubble/#2a2d9584600e

FYI: A presidential executive order that could lead to investors keeping their money longer in tax-deferred retirement accounts? What’s not for investment advisors to like?
Especially intriguing to advisors is the language in President Trump’s new executive order calling on the Treasury Department to review its rules for required mandatory withdrawals from 401(k)
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/trump-calls-for-review-of-rule-requiring-rmds-at-70-1-2-40625.html?print

Totally agree that health care will consumer much larger part of our retirement resources. We still have over 15 years fom retirement. In the meantime, we maintain an active lifestyle, routine exercising (swimming and walking), and eating healthy.

@MFO Members: Bought PRHSX on 8/27/18, fund was up 2.87% for the week. During the same period of time the S&P 500 returned .98%. I know its only five days, but this is a perfect example by being aggressive you get enhanced returns.
Regards,
Ted :)

Looking at the new comms services sector, 50% is Google and Facebook, based on market cap FIFTY. That just reinforces my sense that market-cap weightings are a farce and lead to skewed index performance ... and why I don't invest according to indices or market caps myself.

My thoughts and positioning follow. As we open September Old_Skeet is currently just watching the markets and has been building my cash position since late June as my market barometer indicated that the S&P 500 Index moved from being undervalued in June to being fairly valued for most of July and August and just recently moved into overvalued status. I'm thinking with the upcoming November elections this will provide me a buying opportunity should I want to increase my equity allocation or perhaps open and build a fall spiff position as I'm thinking stocks will go soft around election time. Currently, my most recent Xray of my portfolio bubbled my asset allocation at 17% cash, 34% US equity, 18% foreign equity, 25% bonds and 6% other assets. During the past rolling quarter (90 day period) my commodity strategy fund (PCLAX, -3.2%) along with my emerging market fund (NEWFX, -3.5%) went soft while my aggressive growth fund (AOFAX, +19.6%) ... a dividend strategy fund (FDSAX, +7.7%) ... and, a large cap growth fund SPECX, +7.6%) all had a nice upward movement. Overall, I made some good money during this past rolling quarter.
So, for now, I just sit and await a good stock market pullback so I can put some cash to work (most likely in a spiff position) when the next buying opportunity presents itself as measured by my market barometer.
In closing ... I guess, for now, I ponder as I am not buying, nor selling, while I continue to build cash awaiting a good stock market pullback.

This is why ETFs like ProShares Ex-Tech (SPXT) will be picking up these stocks. My comment there:
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/105938/#Comment_105938
The point is that these firms don't just "dominate our digital lives", they dominate our lives. The value is in what they do (application), often more than in how they do it (technology).

FYI: ( Make sure your watch the video, its very well done, along with the Sidebar "Tech Stocks Could Be Winners in Big Sector Shift.)
Tech Stocks Could Be Winners in Big Sector Shif.)
A Market Shakeup Is Pushing Alphabet and Facebook Out of the Tech Sector
Photo: Javier Jaén
Think of Big Tech and companies like Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook come to mind. The firms dominate our digital lives, living on our cellphones and influencing how we interact with people, buy things, get to places, access information, and consume entertainment. Their market impact has also been huge: These four stocks have returned 33.7% annually over the past five years, on average, versus the S&P 500’s 14.5%.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-market-shakeup-is-pushing-alphabet-and-facebook-out-of-the-tech-sector-1535762710

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1494928/000139834418013039/fp0035706_497.htm
SUPPLEMENT TO SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, PROSPECTUS AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DATED JANUARY 25, 2018
On August 30, 2018, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of RiverPark Funds Trust approved a Plan of Liquidation for the RiverPark Focused Value Fund (the “Fund”) pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated on or about September 28, 2018 (the “Liquidation Date”). In approving the liquidation, the Board determined that the liquidation of the Fund is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders. To arrive at this decision, the Board considered factors that have adversely affected, and will continue to affect adversely, the ability of the Fund to conduct its business and operations in an economically viable manner, including factors such as low asset levels and limited future prospects for growth.
Accordingly, the Adviser may begin positioning the portfolio of the Fund for liquidation, which may cause the Fund to deviate from its stated investment objective and strategies. It is anticipated that the Fund's portfolio will be positioned into cash on or some time prior to the Liquidation Date.
Effective as of the close of business on September 10, 2018, the Fund will be closed to new investors and investments by existing shareholders.
Any shares outstanding at the close of business on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed. Such redemption shall follow the procedures set forth in the Fund's Plan of Liquidation. Final dividends will be paid in advance of the Liquidation Date. Any capital gains will be distributed to shareholders, if necessary, prior to the Liquidation Date.
Any time prior to the Liquidation Date, the shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares of the Fund pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Fund's Prospectus. Shareholders may also exchange their shares of the Fund into shares of the same class of another RiverPark fund if the shareholder meets the eligibility criteria and investment minimum for such fund.
Any income or capital gains distributed to shareholders prior to the Liquidation Date or as part of the liquidation proceeds will be subject to tax. All investors should consult with their tax advisor regarding the tax consequences of this liquidation.

10 Great Tech ETFs to Buy Now
Aug. 31, 2018
Most investors are fascinated with tech stocks. And why not? The information technology segment is the largest group within the S&P 500 index, with $9.8 trillion of the benchmark’s overall $46.6 trillion in market cap – good for more than 20 percent of its value.
Whether its mega corporations like Apple (ticker: AAPL) or Amazon.com (AMZN) or small upstarts in emerging fields like cybersecurity and cloud computing, there’s always a big story somewhere in tech. There are a host of technology-focused ETFs out there, including both broad-based funds for diversified investors and tactical funds for those looking to play a more focused slice of the sector.
1. Technology Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLK). This broad technology ETF is one of the most popular ways to play the sector among all ETFs, with a massive $22 billion under management. Including both the technology and telecom segments of the S&P 500, the 75 components are a who’s who list of the industry with the top of the list including Apple, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and Facebook (FB).
Keep in mind, however, that this fund is weighted heavily toward Apple, which represents a staggering 16 percent of the portfolio. This bias is good when big stocks like these are doing well, but can be risky if things take a turn for the worse.
2. Vanguard Information Technology ETF (VGT). Right beside the XLK is this Vanguard technology sector play that consists mostly of the same stocks, and also boasts more than $20 billion in total assets. However, there are a few subtle differences in the makeup of this fund – such as a more robust list of about 350 picks and the inclusion of payments processors Visa (V) and MasterCard (MA) in the top seven holdings.
And as is typical of a Vanguard fund, the expenses are dirt-cheap at just 0.1 percent annually, or $10 on every $10,000 invested. That’s a small price to pay for a one-stop shop. – Jeff Reeves
Click here to continue.

FYI: Vanguard is probably best known for their low-cost mutual funds and ETFs, but its robo-advisor service is earning superlatives as well.
Vanguard’s Personal Advisor Services tops the first edition of “The Robo Ranking,” a report released this week by Martinsville, N.J.-based Backend Benchmarking, the publishers of “The Robo Report.” Like “The Robo Report,” the ranking incorporates the researchers’ real-time performance analysis of roboadvisor portfolios.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/new-ranking-finds-that-vanguard-s-robo-rules-the-roost-40582.html?print
The Robo Report:
http://webreprints.djreprints.com/4417810789355.pdf