@JohnN recently started this thread that seems worth including here:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/56127/low-risk-vanguard-retirement-portfolio#latest

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4348188-low-risk-vanguard-retirement-portfolio
Low Risk Vanguard Retirement Portfolio
May 16, 2020 12:35 AM ETVBMFX, VEXPX, VFICX.
Investment portfolios with low volatility, low drawdowns and high returns can be constructed with Vanguard mutual funds.
From January 2003, a dual momentum strategy applied to a five-fund Vanguard portfolio would have produced a safe 5% annual withdrawal rate while achieving a 6.76% annual balance increase.
The strategy described in this article is suitable for conservative investors. It requires quarterly reallocation of funds and is robust with respect to its two parameter selections.

Sorta. Won’t need as much as normally pull out due to not being able to travel anywhere this summer (and who knows for how long?) - plus being gifted a $1200 check from Uncle Donald. Will pull partial RMD however to meet budget needs. And it’s always nice to leave the Roth untouched in any given year. I always move the anticipated budget needs into TRBUX (ultra short) far in advance and leave it under the tax-sheltered umbrella until actually needed. Made deferring some of the anticipated RMD super easy in this case. Good suggestion from @BenWP for those who might need to reclaim their RMD.

“... Let the money grow through the entire year.”

Catch did qualify that comment with “If one doesn't have a need for a RMD for current needs”. Otherwise I’d caution against leaving $$ you expect to need any time soon in the markets. They don’t always “grow”.
A thought: Fortunate are those “average” retirees who can subside beyond age 70.5 without having to tap even a small portion of their tax-sheltered investments. Having substantial non-deferred savings would be one reason not to need to rely on tax-deferred accounts. I searched for the % of Americans in retirement who subside w/o tapping tax-deferred assets, but couldn’t find an answer. Putting aside the substantial number who have no tax-shelter at all, I’d guess the number to be perhaps 10-15% who have one but don’t rely on it to fund living expenses - at least to some degree.

... with PRWCX, based on returns over the past 20 years, starting with a 4% initial withdrawal amount (inflation adjusted), and requiring the worst year to come first, one may have a 98% chance of surviving 30 years.

Superb number-crunching from @msf. Suspect he carries a slide-rule day and night. :)
Can’t help but wonder if it’s similarity possible to calculate the % chance that PRWCX will produce the same (or better) rate of return / drawdown assurance over those next 30 years as for the past 20? That aside, I would never bet against Giroux - though he’s already been at the helm 14 years and will be a bit grey-haired in 30 more.
Fans of PRWCX might be interested to know that even in the current dismal market it’s been consistently besting my stalwart benchmark fund, TRRIX. It is currently off only about 5% YTD compared to TRRIX’s 6% loss. That’s pretty amazing considering that longer term PRWCX is the more aggressive fund and usually outperforms TRRIX by a long shot. I suspect that speaks, in part, to the diminishing value / appeal of fixed-income investments.
My only suggestion would be that in the overall picture I think it more prudent to look at what a more diversified portfolio (focusing more on underlying assets) might generate long term than to focus on one or a handful of funds.

A minor point perhaps, but NYC beaches remain closed - Coney Island, Rockaway Beach, etc. The beach pictures shown are of New Jersey beaches.
Detailed NYC COVID-19 data and graphs:
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page
Keep in mind that aside from Rhode Island, NYS does more testing per capita than any other state and more than any other country outside of small countries like the the Falkland Islands and Luxembourg.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Even Trump knows that the more testing you do the more cases you "have" (report). It's like comparing Big Apples with Oranges (LA county 20,569 tests/1M pop., roughly half US average.) This is not to suggest that the NYC metropolitan area is not the most significant epicenter; just that one should understand the nature of the data at hand, whether for epidemics or fund metrics.

Here is how Old_Skeet is playing it.
I have two sleeves of equity income funds (one domestic and one global) which make up better than 15% of my portfolio plus what my hybrid funds hold. With this, I'm thinking that I've got, at least, somewhere around 50% in equity income type stocks within equities. As you may recall, I was a buyer of equity income funds during the recent stock market swoon and increased my allocation to them by 5%. In this way, I felt I'd get paid by collecting dividends during the anticipated stock market recovery over the next year, or so. My domestic equity income sleeve has a current yield of 3.72% while the global one has a yield of 2.53%. While this is short of the yield that my fixed income (4.52%) and hybrid income (3.75%) sleeves generate ... the equity income sleeves, I'm thinking, offer better capital appreciation opportunity. In looking back over the past ten year total returns for each sleeve the equity income sleeves had a total return in the 7% to 8% range while the income sleeves had a ten year total return in 5% to 6% range. And, if I had done nothing and kept the 5% in cash ... which I used to buy equity income ... (the best performing money market fund I have) had a ten year total return of 0.67%.
With this, I'm thinking it pays to buy the stock market pullbacks, corrections and the bear markets over just sitting in cash. My analysis and looking back using the above ten year total return performance percentages with a sum of $10,000 invested cash would have generated about $670.00 ... the income sleeves would have generated about $5,500 and equity income sleeves would have generated about $7,500. This does not take into account compounding. For a long term investor, such as myself, buy during a dip, pullback, correction, or bear market when stocks are oversold and you'll do better than the average. Buy above the average when stocks are overbought and your returns will be less than average over an extended period of time.

https://nypost.com/2020/05/16/people-flock-to-nyc-area-bars-beaches-as-quarantine-fatigue-intensifies/
People flock to NYC-area bars, beaches as ‘quarantine fatigue’ intensifies
They’re partying like it’s 2019.
/lockdown-weary New Yorkers ditched the distancing to get social instead this weekend — transforming parts of the Big Apple into a raucous, late-season Mardi Gras./
Folks in NY may have no remote, 2nd wave maybe deadly. We will find out in few weeks if ny curve indeed was flattened

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/16/kevin-oleary-talks-stock-market-etfs-as-economic-worries-mount.html
Here’s what’s driving stocks higher despite mounting economic worries: Kevin O’Leary
This is driving stocks higher despite mounting economic worries: Kevin O’Leary
Unprecedented demand for stocks.
That’s one major piece to the puzzle that is the current relationship between the U.S. stock market and the underlying economy, O’Shares ETFs Chairman and “Shark Tank” investor Kevin O’Leary told CNBC’s “ETF Edge” this week.

I sold 50% of brk.b, Warren maybe too old to do things now, may not be as vibrant as he once was, under performed compared to sp500 past few yrs so I pulled the plug. Even he recommended to buy sp500 during last speech
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fool.com/amp/investing/2020/05/16/its-1987-again-warren-buffett-berkshire-hathaway.aspx

Turns out he sold a boat load of his Goldman Sachs too, eighty-four percent.
Did Buffet not get the memo that you can't fight the Fed? I read his investment obituary at one of the popular websites this week.
"Rage against the dying of the light"

I can't believe it never dawned on me that GEnworth had been part of GE.
I believe they were the last LTC provider to sell policies that you could completely pay for over a fixed number of years. More costly up front to do this, but it protected you from large premium increases once paid off. As carew388 noted, the industry was discovering that it had mispriced policies, so all insurers were implementing massive premium hikes.
GE spun off Genworth in 2004. However, it was stuck with reinsurance liabilities of at least $15B. Today it still owns legacy reinsurance companies carrying these liabilities.
The partial divestiture of GE Capital that I'm more familiar with came after the GFC. As part of Dodd Frank, the Financial Stability Oversight Council designated AIG, Prudential, MetLife, and GE Capital systemically important financial institutions. Like TBTF banks, that meant more regulation.
"In April 2015, GE announced that it intended to sell most of GE Capital over the next 18 months to 24 months in an effort, in part, to no longer be designated as systemically important."
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42150.pdf
People surely know of Synchrony Bank, formerly GE Capital Retail Bank, and Marcus (Goldman Sachs) Bank, formerly GE Capital Bank. These were some of the institutions that GE Capital sold off. What's left of GE Capital is still owned by GE. It just ain't what it used to be.

I define fun money as 50~100 bucks. Not sure I'ld buy an historical manufacturing icon just yet though. Not sure anybody wants what they're making. I'ld have to have a lot of money lying around before I'ld take a 25K flyer on a stumbling investment bank.
If you check the ownership tab at M* it appears to be popular with a number of other funds at TRowe, as well as Fidelity, LongLeaf, and Hotchkiss & Wiley. You can also check out who has bailed completely.

GE Finance was a big player in the long term care insurance segment. One of their moves was buying the ltc policies of AMEX around 1995. A large number of these policies provided unlimited coverage. I only know this because both of my parents had AMEX ltc policies, that were acquired by GE and administered by their subsidiary Genworth. The insurance providers thought most of the purchasers would drop the insurance eventually. Turned out that Seniors liked the idea of protecting their assets with ltc insurance, leading to large losses and unexpected billions of dollars in cash infusion by GE !

what's interesting is to not use longest time frame but to set the start date to 2007, so you're going into retirement at a very bad time. i did it w PRWCX. started with 1 mil and at the end of 2019 you had 780k with a max drawdown of 55%, at the 10th percentile. scary. but at least you still had money. oh -- did retirement of 20 years. thanks for posting this!

I could not figure out where to set a custom start date. I'm pretty sure I clicked all the options. What am I missing?

There is a tendency to use this tool as black box oracle. I'm not faulting the use of a simulator to run models per se. Rather I'm suggesting that people may not fully appreciate what is being modeled.
The Monte Carlo simulation engine of PV does not appear to allow a user to pick the starting date for the simulated runs. When one specifies a range of dates (which one does by setting "Use Full History" to "No"), one is specifying the data set (annual returns) from which the simulator randomly selects returns. It doesn't mean that the simulated runs start with the 2007 performance.
By selecting 2007 to 2019, you're telling the simulator to use one of 13 annual returns for each year in each run. Which means, among other things, that a run of 20 years must duplicate the returns from some years, since it needs 20 1 year returns and it's got only 13 years to choose from.
See "Historical Returns" in the "Methodology" section of PV's FAQs.
The simulator does have an option where you can tell it to start with the worst year (or worst two, or worst three, or ...). So if a simulated run of 20 years has returns r1, r2, ..., r20, and r5 is the worst, the simulator reorders the returns as r5, r1, r2, r3, r4, r6, ....
Better, but not perfect, because the worst run in your data set may not be in the simulated run. Still, this is much better than nothing.
---------
Numbers:
If you use this option with QQQ over 30 years with an initial withdrawal amount equal to 4% of the portfolio (subsequently inflation adjusted), then the simulations say that about 5% of the time your portfolio doesn't survive 30 years.
2007 was not the worst time to start retirement. The S&P 500 returned 3.53% that year, and QQQ returned 18.7%. See graph. If one is looking for a poorly performing data set, one would be better off excluding 2007 and starting with 2008.
Running the model with data from 2008 through 2019, 5% of the time the portfolio doesn't survive. Add in the requirement that the first year in any simulated run is the worst, and 6% or so of runs don't survive. Not a big difference.
For kicks, I ran QQQ, 4% starting withdrawal (inflation adjusted) for the lost decade (2000-2009). Less than 1 in 5 survive for 20 years, barely 5% survive 30. Expand the data set to the past 20 years (2000-2019), and about 7 in 10 survive 20 years; a bit over half survive 30. That doesn't include starting each run with the worst year which would make things worse.
Not comforting figures. Forget about getting the original investment back (perpetual withdrawal rate). According to the model, assuming returns over the next 20 years are like the past 20, there's a good chance that the money won't even last at all.
OTOH, with PRWCX, based on returns over the past 20 years, starting with a 4% initial withdrawal amount (inflation adjusted), and requiring the worst year to come first, one may have a 98% chance of surviving 30 years.

May 16th Episode:
"We have to solve the biology before we can solve the economy" Erin Bromage

Ha! A colleague once told me the same thing when Lehman was trading close to $1. He invested $25K of fun money ... and, could not believe when it was gone. But I hope that's not case with GE!

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/05/14/business/14reuters-health-coronavirus-investment-analysis.html
Storm Clouds Gather Over U.S. Stocks as Hopes of Quick Recovery Fade
By Reuters
May 14, 2020
/(Reuters) - A lightning-quick rally in U.S. equities is showing cracks, as investors face mounting evidence that the economy's coronavirus-fueled woes may be far longer-lasting than many had anticipated./
Could be stalled/stagnant recovery next few months. We will see. Many pundits also predicted double
dip... BTW after article published DOWS went up by few percent

what's interesting is to not use longest time frame but to set the start date to 2007, so you're going into retirement at a very bad time. i did it w PRWCX. started with 1 mil and at the end of 2019 you had 780k with a max drawdown of 55%, at the 10th percentile. scary. but at least you still had money. oh -- did retirement of 20 years. thanks for posting this!

I could not figure out where to set a custom start date. I'm pretty sure I clicked all the options. What am I missing?

@VintageFreak,
The new name of the funds is listed above in my first post. A registration filing for the new funds is in my second post. The "I" class shares require $1,500 initial investment, the same as FPA Funds.

Hi @litner, Thanks for your question.
Currently, the hybrid income sleeve makes up 26.56% of the portfolio as of May 15th market close.
Generally, the income area of the portfolio carries a neutral weighting of 40%. With the hybrid income sleeve currently at 26.56% of the portfolio and my income sleeve at 12.73% leaves me a little short of the targeted 40% desired weighting for the area as a whole but it is within an acceptable range at 39.29%. Thus, I have been buying in the income sleeve with the portfolio's monthly income generation.
The neutral weighting for the income sleeve is 15% and for the hybrid income sleeve it is 25%. Each of these can carry target weights of + (or -) 5% from their neutral weightings with the area as a whole not being less than 35% nor greater than 45% of the portfolio as a whole. The amount of each fund held can varry based upon the number of members within each sleeve and its desired influence. Some hybrid funds might have no more than a 1% overall portfolio weighting while others might be upwards towards the maxium allowable of 6%.
Currently, hybrid type funds make up 43.23% of my overall portfolio and total eighteen in number. My hybrid income sleeve found in the income area accounts for 26.56% of the portfolio. The other two hybrid sleeves are found in the growth & income area. The domestic hybrid sleeve accounts for 8.89%; and, my global hybrid sleeve accounts for 7.78% of the portfolio.
My reason for a large number of funds, currently around 50, is that this limits fund manager and strategy risk. And, when one fund falters, within its sleeve, then there are the other members that can offer production and can continue to propel the sleeve. Including my two cash mamagement sleeves there are a total of twelve sleeves split among four areas of investmest within my portfolio.
Thanks again for your question. I am hoping that this gives you insight as to how Old_Skeet rolls.