I sold quite a few funds on 9/3/2021 to avoid a Labor Day decline. Since I appear to be a contrarian indicator, my sales were a sign to buy more!

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1843841/000158064221004583/dgi497.htm
(DGIBX , DGITX)
497 1 dgi497.htm 497
SUPPLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2021
TO THE PROSPECTUS
AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
DATED MAY 21, 2021
OF DGI BALANCED FUND (the “Fund”)
(a series of the DGI Investment Trust)
On May 24, 2021, the Trust filed a supplement to the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated May 21, 2021 (the “May 24 Supplement”) announcing that the Fund would be closed to new investors and, except as discussed in the May 24 Supplement, would also be closed to new sales until further notice. Effective immediately, the May 24 Supplement is rescinded and removed, and the Fund is available for new investment and new sales.
Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference.

RMDs are merely tax events - moving assets from one pocket (an IRA) to another. They don't require you to sell anything.
If you're relying on IRA distributions to meet cash needs, then your concern is not so much that you have RMDs, but rather that you have to sell assets. The question is thus: which assets do you sell.
You can "replace" the assets distributed and sold from your DW's IRA by repurchasing them in your own IRA. So there's no risk of selling low that's created by distributing one set of assets (i.e. DW's assets) vs. another (i.e. your IRA).
OTOH, if your question is how to maximize sheltered assets, then I suggest looking at post-tax values. Assuming you don't expect your tax rates to change much, there's a simple calculation you can make.
Assume that your tax rate is, and will be, 25%. Then every $100 in a taxable IRA is "worth" $75. If that $100 investment doubles to $200, then it will be "worth" $150. Very straightforward. From your perspective, the government is not sharing risk here. This is the same as if you had $75 in a Roth and it might double to $150. Your risk and your potential reward is the same either way, so long as you think in terms of post-tax dollars.
So, if the objective is to maximize sheltered assets, maximize the post-tax dollars in your IRAs. As hank mentioned, you can do gradual Roth conversions. Then, that $75 (post tax) in your traditional IRA becomes $100 (post tax) in your Roth.
You can also put the dollars with the highest expected growth rates into (a) a Roth, and (b) the younger spouse's T-IRA since those dollars will be allowed to remain there longer. The latter assumes that you don't need to draw dollars out of IRAs for spending cash.
Circling back to the beginning, if the concern is not so much maximizing sheltered dollars as it is controlling which assets to sell, remember that you always have the option of replacing something you sell in one IRA by purchasing it in the other IRA. In this way, you're not at risk of selling low - you have control over which assets, at the end of the day, you sell.

From Reuters - “BlackRock added 31.3 million notes of Evergrande's debt between January and August 2021, pushing its stake in the company to 1% of the assets in its $1.7 billion Asian High Yield Bond Fund, according to Morningstar. HSBC increased its positions in the company by 40% through July, according to Morningstar. UBS increased its position by 25% through May, the latest date available in the fund tracker's database. None of the companies responded to requests to comment for this story. At the same time, other large fund firms such as Fidelity, Pimco, and Allianz cut their positions in the company by up to 47% between January and July, Morningstar said.”
Reuters Link
There is a more comprehensive / incisive story on same topic in the September 22 Financial Times, but more difficult to access due to paywall.
Possible FT Links:
From the Financial Times - “BlackRock in August bought up five different Evergrande dollar bonds through one of its high-yield funds, which had holdings in the developer then worth $18m, Morningstar data show. The size of the holding had already expanded sharply this year as the fund’s assets under management rose. The biggest asset manager had exposure of close to $400m across its funds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg based on June, July and September filing dates. An HSBC-run high-yield fund in July was also a net buyer of Evergrande’s debt and has increased bond holdings 38 per cent since February as the fund expanded in size, the Morningstar data showed, though the value of its exposure at $31m declined over that period due to falling prices. The data highlight a willingness on the part of some of the biggest investors in Evergrande’s offshore bonds to continue to add to their holdings even after prices had started falling in the earlier stages of a liquidity crisis that is rippling across markets.”

+1

Click on this link:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418921006795/0000894189-21-006795-index.htm
Never seen it state something was "inactive"

@TheShadow - I'm confused. Which SPAC is inactive?
The way I read you initial post is that Mr. Sherman and Mr. Whitney would be managing an ETF comprised of SPAC's. At least that's what the SEC document says also.
"Principal Investment Strategies
The Fund is an actively managed exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) that under normal market conditions will invest at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, in shares of common stock and units of Special Purpose Acquisitions Companies (“SPACs”) that have yet to consummate a shareholder-approved merger or business combination. The Fund seeks to invest in publicly-traded SPACs that at the time of purchase are trading at or below the SPAC’s pro rata trust account value.
The Fund will invest in SPACs that have a minimum total market capitalization of $100 million at the time of purchase by the Fund. The Fund will invest primarily in U.S.-listed SPACs, and may also invest in SPACs that are domiciled or listed outside of the U.S., including SPACs listed in Canada, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the Virgin Islands."
Or did you mean to say that the ETF is inactive?

+1 It's more wishful thinking on my part.

I'm hoping 2 to 2.5 % after 3 years. For me 2% is better than 1 basis point for my idle cash !

"The Federal Reserve on Wednesday telegraphed it could hike rates six to seven times by the end of 2024, illustrating the central bank’s optimism that the COVID-19 recovery will progress well enough for the Fed to tighten its easy money policies in a few years.
The policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee still held interest rates at near-zero in its updated statement, but said it had advanced talks on paring back its asset purchase program.
Since the depths of the pandemic, the Fed has been absorbing about $120 billion a month in U.S. Treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities. But Fed officials have said in recent weeks that by the end of the year, the economy will likely make the “substantial further progress” needed for the central bank to begin slowing the pace of those purchases."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-fomc-monetary-policy-decision-september-2021-141145429.html
Can't wait earn a nifty 1.5% on my savings after another 3 years, while inflation eats my breakfast, lunch and dinner for me.

This filing indicates that the SPAC is inactive:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418921006795/0000894189-21-006795-index.htm
or
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418921006795/crossingbridgespacetf497k.htm

Here is blog link compiling All Things Bradford, new styled Excel export option, and more.

In investment, increasingly, speed is Alpha and it seems M* has not reevaluated its reaction function in the past 10 yrs I have come to know M*, making M* Analyst commentaries less meaningful for an active (fund) investor.

But assuming Xi's rhetoric has teeth, the real play here is not to sell out of China completely, but to switch to small- and mid-cap China stocks.

The Matthews China "small companies" fund MCSMX (86% small & mid-cap) has stayed well ahead of the China Fund (19% small & mid cap) since January 2020. (They're both growth funds.) From that limited comparison, looks like that advice has been good for a while now.

On the surface it makes sense if your goal is to position your more aggressive holdings so that they become subject to RMD later rather than earlier. Of course, there are plenty of unknowns here, including how well you and your DW (dear wife) are able to coordinate your planning (ie “stay on the same page”) - and to continue doing so through what might prove to be widely varying market conditions.
As you’ve explained it, this would garner a few additional (non-RMD) years on the “aggressive” side of the overall portfolio. Of course, a conversion of your own more aggressive holdings to a Roth would also be a way to protect them from RMD and would reduce overall the size of the Traditional IRA so that the RMD would be less in ensuing years.
There is a counter point however. With assets not subject to taxation (in particular the Roth) you own the asset 100%. On the contrary, if the asset is subject to taxation than the government is in effect part owner. Under certain conditions, you might deem it more prudent to take on more risk inside the part of the portfolio that’s subject to taxation - effectively allowing the government share a portion of that risk.

The Feds are asserting that this so-called "alliance" is effectively an anticompetive merger.
➤ Free Link to WSJ Article

DW is five years younger and five years from her first RMD. We are buy and hold types and have an oversized Bucket 1. The thought of having to sell for RMD funding makes me cringe. It occurred to me that adjusting my DW’s assets for more growth investments and mine for more income makes sense as opposed to matching allocations. Am I crazy? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

+1

The venerable Art Cashin introduced me years ago to the concept of "an orderly sell-off."
That's what Monday's action looked like to me so I added to AAPL, AMZN and MSFT just prior to the close.
Ah, at least one other person saw it the same way and offered an interesting metric...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/stocks-fall-options-traders-show-185553962.html
And OBTW, Monday's drop was not a stand alone event. It came on the heels of a coupla DOWN weeks and was highlighted by the S&P blowing through its 50-day MA. So yeah, of course as a LT investor I added on Monday.

A lengthy but fascinating article in the Wall Street Journal analyzes what may really be going on in China, and looks at possible financial ramifications for the West. This article is free with the link below:
➤ Xi Jinping Aims to Rein In Chinese Capitalism
Here's another free article from the WSJ on this topic:

China’s Regulatory Storm Risks Triggering Wider Economic Damage
As Beijing tightens rules on real estate, technology and other sectors, worries grow that it could trip up growth
➤ Link to WSJ Article