But, the govt. does not give something to you for nothing. My RMD factor will be higher on my 2021 distribution than my 2020 because as you age the factor increases.

Hope springs eternal. Last fall, the IRS proposed new life expectancy figures that make the 2021 divisor even larger (smaller RMD) than the 2020 divisor is currently. Not only something for nothing, but something more than what you asked for.
The comment period closed January 7th. I don't know what the status is, though Kitces wrote that "it’s likely the changes to the tables will be finalized sometime in 2020 in the same or substantially similar form."
Here's the table of life expectancies, both current and proposed:
https://www.kitces.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Current-Vs-New-Uniform-Lifetime-Table-RMD-Percentage-Of-Acct-Balance.pdf
Proposed Regulation: Updated Life Expectancy and Distribution Period Tables Used for Purposes of Determining Minimum Required Distributions
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=IRS-2019-0050-0001
Comments (55): https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&D=IRS-2019-0050

That certainly sums it up. The "quarter of a century" reflects something that my wife and I just discussed at dinner a few minutes ago: the younger people in this country- say, 15 to 35- likely believe that this is the way that their country has always been... they have no clue that most of this has occurred pretty much since 1970 or so.

Given the overwhelming psychological component of market "valuation" I really don't believe that it is in any way possible to predict, with expectation of any reasonable accuracy, how a market may be "valued" in the face of unknowns which may have major financial impact.
There is likely some predictive ability when a market is cruising along a long-lasting slope, either up or down, as it gradually adjusts to the general financial environment, and some technical indicators may be helpful in such an environment.
In the present environment we have the known unknowns of a major worldwide pandemic with an undetermined end point, an election with the potential to replace a disruptive and dangerously unstable president, a worldwide oil market in freefall, and steadily increasing animosity between the United States and China... actually, increasing animosity between the United States and almost every other major nation.
Then, of course, there are always the real unknowns: for instance, a vice-president who has just announced that the White House, as the death toll passes 70,000, is looking to wind down the pandemic taskforce.
It may be arguable to classify the White House as an unknown: it should be generally expected that they will pursue the most self-serving, ignorant or stupid option available in any situation requiring experience, intelligence or leadership.
The odds of accurate market prediction for the foreseeable future are significantly worse than those of your typical slot machine. Good luck on that.

I think it is difficult to be invested in a bond fund that is supposed to be "ballast" to your equities and then see it drop 13%
A "Core " Bond fund IMHO should diversify and provide some income but not reach for yield, etc. With treasury yields so low, I think you have to look at corporate bonds. Mortgages bother me as I think there will be significantly more foreclosures, although this may take several months. ...
Staying in cash limits you return to 1% or less.
I am open to suggestions.

For quite some time I've been questioning the virtue of bonds, whether for ballast or for total return. ISTM cash is more valuable than you're giving it credit for, and bonds less so.
First, cash. Personally, for cash I focus on preservation and liquidity (withdrawals, not additions). Marcus Bank is currently offering 1.55% for 7 month no penalty CDs, 1.45% for 11 month ones. These meet my definition of cash and are 50% above "1% or less". The nice thing about these CDs is that the rates won't go down at least for several months. After that, one can reexamine the situation.
Next, ballast. In a literal sense, dead weight, something to keep a ship from listing. Cash does that, as does anything that reduces beta (relative volatility).
Negative correlation seems to be another reason given for investing in bonds. Two issues here: (1) what does negative correlation really mean (and what does it do for you), and (2) what types of bonds negatively correlate with, say, the S&P 500?
Here's a nice (3 page) piece by PIMCO Does the Stock‑Bond Correlation Really Matter?
https://www.pimco.com/en-us/insights/viewpoints/does-the-stock-bond-correlation-really-matter
Its thesis is that correlation isn't what you think it is. Negative correlation happens when bonds' deviation from their normal return zigs while stocks' deviation from their normal return zags. Both stocks and bonds can drop even with negative correlation, and stocks and bonds can move in opposite directions (one gaining, one losing) even when they're positively correlated.

Bonds have historically hedged equity risk in recessions because returns have been positive, not necessarily because correlations have been negative. So, does the correlation matter? In our view, not really.

Cash is guaranteed to have positive returns. Bonds, not so much. These days, what one is getting from bonds isn't high enough to serve as a good hedge, just as ballast.
Even if we stipulate that negative correlation is somewhat beneficial, what types of bonds are negatively correlated with stocks? If the correlation is near zero, then the bonds are just as likely to harm portfolio returns as to help. That is, bonds are just as likely to underperform at the same time stocks are underperforming as they are likely to outperform.
Schwab has a table of correlations over the period 2004-2015. It's Exhibit 7 in this whitepaper. The correlation (ranges) it gives for different bond types relative to the S&P 500 are:
Treasuries: negative
Core, securitized, and inflation-protected: 0.0 - 0.3 (i.e. insignificant)
IG Corporate: 0.3-0.7
HY Corporate: 0.7 - 0.9 (little better than holding stocks)
If you're going to reach for yield with corporates, you're taking on equity risk, especially with junk bonds. As one can see from the difference between HY, IG, and Core, both credit quality and corp vs. gov. affect how good the bonds are in not doing harm. Aside from Treasuries, the best you can say is that with luck (50/50) the bonds won't underperform at the same time stocks are underperforming. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
The ETF suggestions (which are fairly representative of lower credit risk bonds) serve to illustrate why cash (around 1.5%) may do at least as good a job as bonds. Unless one really does take on more credit risk (and hence greater correlation with stocks).
SEC yields: EDV 1.28%, BND 1.62%, SHY 0.09% (each from its sponsor's web page)

The May 1 prospectus reflects the total assets that you calculated. I was not able to find anything on T Rowe's website concerning the reopening Mid-Cap Value fund reopening, but it may be posted there tomorrow or the next day.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1012678/000174177320000690/c485bpos.htm
I wonder whether the Mid-Cap Growth fund will re-open next?

M* analysis dated March 30, 2020: "Despite its burgeoning asset base of over $19 billion as of December 2019, the portfolio’s characteristics have not strayed. The fund closed to new investors at $9 billion in assets in May 2010, so it’s unlikely to reopen anytime soon."
I count $13B from four share classes as of Dec 2019 from the Annual Report ($9B in TRMCX, $3B in TRMIX, and a couple of classes with small amounts). So I'm not sure how accurate the $19B figure is. According to M*, the fund is now back down to $9.8B.
So it's curious that M* wrote just one month ago that the fund was unlikely to open soon.

This Sam Zell:
https://latimes.com/projects/la-me-mexico-housing-chapter-2/
https://medium.com/@voteyeson10/billionaire-sam-zell-lays-out-3-7-million-to-oppose-proposition-10-6a8a2798986c
https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/07/news/companies/sam-zell-women/index.html
https://nbcchicago.com/news/local/sam-zell-artful-dodger/2089851/
https://businessinsider.com/worst-bosses-of-all-time-2011-4
I'll pass.

Listen to your elders. Especially, those who have been there and done that; and are clear thinkers.
Interview
Take care,
Catch

To be rated above average, a fund must be in the top 32.5% of its category (but not in the top 10%).
PRIDX came close to above average performance, but didn't make it over 3 years (38th percentile) or 10 years (33rd percentile). Shift that 10 year performance a little and the 10 year star rating should move up to 4 stars, bringing the overall weighted average rating also up to four stars.
It looks like this has happened. Take performance rankings through today (April 26). 10 year moves up to 27th percentile, 5 year drops slightly from 14th to 17th percentile, and 3 year moves up to 29th percentile. All above average performances.
So one should expect the star rating to move back to 4 stars when it's recalculated unless the fund stumbles in the interim.

It is now (May 5th) rated four stars.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1012678/000174177320000799/c497.htm
497 1 c497.htm
T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Value Fund
Supplement to Prospectus Dated May 1, 2020
Effective June 5, 2020, the T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Value Fund will resume accepting new accounts and purchases from most investors who invest directly with T. Rowe Price.
Accordingly, effective June 5, 2020, the first sentence under “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” in Section 1, and the first four paragraphs under “More Information About the Fund and Its Investment Risks” in Section 3, are deleted in their entirety from the prospectus.
Financial intermediaries and other institutional clients should contact T. Rowe Price Financial Institution Services or their relationship manager to determine eligibility to open new accounts and purchase shares of the fund.
The date of this supplement is May 5, 2020.
F115-041 5/5/20

Hi @Old_Joe:
I was able to speak with my advisor yesterday and discussed several things. On the subject of MIAQX my broker, after speaking with American Funds, explained to me that this new fund was designed to fill a void in their fixed income lineup. It's yield was targeted to be somewhere around 4.65% (that's somewwhere between Bond Fund America and their high yield fund). I'm finding that it closed yesterday with a nav of $9.65. According, to my advisor, it is not yet available for purchase on their platform as it has not yet been submitted, to the firm, for product review and listing. However, I was told I could still purchase the fund directly through American Funds and then transfer it into my account once it became available on the platform.
I also checked with a couple of other investment shops and they indicated that it was not yet available for purchase with them.
I'm liking what I'm seeing in INPAX ... and, I may go that route as an addition to my hybrid income sleeve as it is conseratively invested with a decent yield of about 3.5%. Being a hybrid type fund it can reallocate (among the family of American Funds) and reposition within certain asset allocation ranges based upon the manager's call.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-the-trap-awaiting-the-stock-market-ahead-of-a-grim-summer-warns-nomura-strategist-2020-05-05
"This is the trap awaiting the stock market ahead of a grim summer, warns Nomura strategist
Sell in pandemic May and go away?
That is a fair question, as a six-month period that has traditionally been unfavorable for stocks gets under way, with painful coronavirus baggage piled on top."
I think they had similar discussions in late Sept 2009/Early 2010, lots Grims/dims and double dip, turned out be scare tatic
Different Reaction this time around? Only time will tell. IMHO, stocks so cheap now and nothing else looks more attractive.
Or we did indeed have an April Fool Rally [We will know @ 4p Central time 8/31/2020 ]

@Derf. S&P revised their TTM earnings projections for the S&P 500 Index moving form the mid 130's to the mid 110's. Since, the barometer is comprised of both fundamental and technical feeds the earnings revision changed the readings within the barometer's metrics. Remember, the Fed's have recently injected large amounts of money into the financial system. With this, I'm sure some of it has found its way into the stock market as it looks for a home. Perhaps, not directly ... but, indirectly. I'm thinking that this is a Fed induced rally which just might wane. I'm still with my thoughts that stocks will go soft through the summer months and rally in the fall as the earnings outlook improves. For now, based upon the metrics of the barometer it is now producing an extermely overbought reading of 130.
At the end of March the barometer produced a reading of 180 indicating that the Index was extremely oversold. Fiar value resides at the 150 mark. Within about a four week period the Index has gained about 27% and has gone from exptemely oversold to extremely overbought during this range of price movement on the barometer's scale.
With this movement ... Old_Skeet is now more of a seller than he is a buyer since I bought equities in the downdraft. And, since we are about midpoint 2810 between the 52 week high of 3386 and low of 2237 ... I'm thinking that the back 50% is going to come much more slowly than the front 50% came. I'm staying with my rebalance stratey and within the confines of my asset allocation model. And, in doing this ... this conforms to a buy low sell high strategy.

Hi guys: Today, I received an earnings update for the S&P 500 Index and made changes in the earnings data used in the barometer. In addition, changes have taken place in the two other primary feeds from market movement. The barometer now scores the Index as ... extremely overbought ... with a reading of 130 with todays market close and with the Index having a value of 2843.

@dsuttr
The below chart offers a small example of VFINX vs WHOSX, 1999 to present date.
***Note: both charts are total return, meaning all distributions included.
Chart
This period covers, with a little extra; the 20 year period of the article. The line chart is a bit busy at the right edge. For an easy read, at the far left edge of the "days" section at the bottom of the chart, click the green and red icon to present a bar graph with percentages. Stock charts will not allow me to travel longer into the past. Perhaps this is available with a full membership.
@bee , thank you for your presentations.
Now, the ultimate return possibility is for one to study your favorite SP500 fund, etf or index (or other growth investment); and a chosen fund as WHOSX, an index or etf that represents long term government bonds. With these two sectors in mind, discover their trend patterns; based upon what is taking placing in the investment world. Either maintain a 50/50 mix or adjust as needed to favor one over the other for "x" time. Run your mix as a personal allocation fund, balanced more to one side from time to time.
'Course, we all know that the common words for investors when asked the question: "Where are you invested in the stock market?" More often than not, I reply that currently we're invested in bonds and some equity. A blank, questioning look appears upon the face of the one asking the question, "bonds?". The local tv and radio commentators never state that the bond markets closed today at......,eh?
IMHO, debt (BONDS) is the blood that flows through the veins of equity, and obviously; governments (large and small). Regardless, I don't like the fact of how much debt exists; be it government or corporate. But, this is where the game lays at this point. It is perhaps just as easy to state that too many corporations have stock prices that are inflated, too. Same game, eh?
Note: This discussion is about government AAA rated bonds, backed by the full faith of the U.S, government. Not BBB or similar corporate bonds that may be on the edge of "good junk".
The widely invested etf's in this space; are: TLT, EDV and ZROZ. TLT generally lags a bit in performance to the other two.
Ten year chart of the three, limited by inception date.
You'll likely discover more funds and indexes in this area with a search.
Lastly, at least for the time frame of the article, is the general long term, positive performance in many bond areas that have offered a lot of support to the performance of moderate and conservative allocation funds. Give a thank you to the mangers who have helped you have a decent return over the years in this area.
Ok, I'm past my time limit, chores call. :)
Catch

re: FD 1000 comments
l agree that results with TLT are very different from those engendered with BND.
When i inputted TLT into Market Watch, Fund. Comparison it will only yield for me 1 year return so i tried the comparison with Stock Charts, Performance
Charts and I compared for ten years TLT and SPY. The results show SPY at +194.7% and TLT +153.1%
I then went to Chas. Schwab Research on ETF page and compared ten year annualized returns. I found different values but still SPY at +153.58 % outperformed TLT at +74.9%
Interesting how two reliable firms get similar but not identical results. I guess numbers are fungible and can be maneuvered to prove anything, as I am sure our NY Times corespondent is aware.

Unable to find data since 1929

Not 1929 data, but 1987 - to present:
WHOSX (TLT) vs VFINX (S&P 500)
https://screencast.com/t/cYKhbbKQbu8b
More interesting is a portfolio of equal weight (50% WHOSX / 50% VFINX) produced the same long term results with a lot less voltatility:
https://screencast.com/t/D1k4jI8Pa

Since inception of TLT since early 2001s {after presumptive [>2.5 major crashes]} until Friday, according to google.com/finance
iShares Barclays 20+ Yr Treas.Bond
167.13 USD
95.45%
S&P 500 Index
2,817.17 USD
162.27%
The past few wks show fierce rebounds in spy500; maybe fastest recovery ever [of course we are still very young in this new BULL market]
Am I wrong?
Bull may turn to Bull **it after summer if have large COVID19 rebounds...
Unable to find data since 1929

Lies, damned lies and statistics!
from Marketwatch:Mutual Fund Comparison
extreme right column shows 10 yrs. annualized BND is 3.92% and SPY is 11.27%
BND -0.08% 2.94% 5.16% 10.99% 5.27% 3.85% 3.92%
SPY -0.19% -11.69% -11.74% -1.21% 7.89% 8.19% 11.27%
Where is my error?

I stopped touting FLPSX here after a ton of meh, meh responses. Since NY2k, though, it absolutely pounds all of these funds. And with only the one guy at the helm. That's investing. $10k growth of SP500 is to $28k; Tillinghast laps that many times, reaching $68k to date.

This fund has had a rough ride YTD. In fact, its long term performance has come with as much volatility as some of the best "Agressive Growth funds". Might it best described as an "Aggressive Value fund"?
When compared with an Aggressive Growth fund such as POAGX (or older VHCOX) the long term result are almost identical yet these two do "ying and yang" at times (growth / value styles) making them a possible good pairing (50/50 allocation).
Historically speaking, by combining WHOSX (LT Treasuries) with FLPSX & POAGX at (1/3 allocations each) it helped to reduced Volatility, Max Down down, but provided similar long term results.
Here's the link:
https://screencast.com/t/OcGMi0Yty
PV Site link:
https://portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio#analysisResults