Kitces:“ Once ... buckets are established, the retiree then might use the following decision-rule framework for liquidations:
1) If equities are up, take the retirement spending from equities
2) If equities are down but bonds are up, take the spending from bonds instead
3) If both equities and bonds are down in the same year, take the distribution from Treasury bills ”
(or, in my case, from “Alternative” investment funds)
Thanks for the link @msf - I’d never seen any analysis comparing the two approaches before and somewhat humbled that Kitces sees some merit in what I’ve been doing. Of course there will be other experts who disagree.
My method IMHO only works if one is willing to sacrifice some current level of return in exchange for being fully invested at all times (a lousy misleading term anyway). So, I carry what some would consider expensive, low performing or erratic performance funds as an offset to a severe equity sell-down. Funds like TMSRX, PRPFX, OPGSX - none of which would pass mustard based on the metrics most mutual fund investors use or receive high marks on this board. There’s also a static 15% weighting in the mix devoted to ultra-short and short term bonds. (I just recently increased that frim 10%.) And as Kitces mentions, you have to be willing to sell your winners in a downturn and hang on to your losers.
One big problem is in trying to backtest anything. For most, 10-15 years seems like an eternity. But in terms of really important global financial turning points 10-15 years is little more than a drop in the bucket. And some of the alternative investment funds (like TMSRX) have only become available recently.

I can only wish that my retirement account had that persons' 1966 dollar amount in 2019 dollars. (inflation adjusted!!!]
Derf

Hi @hank
OK, finished some early chores and coffee gone.
The numbers from the posted link seem large, but in the overall; may not mean much when related just to the IRA and 401K holdings (i didn't check 403b, but this amount is likely very large, too)
So, here's some info from ICI.org as of mid-year, 2019:
--- IRA total assets = $9.7 TRILLION
--- 401k total assets = $5.9 TRILLION
Secondary info reports total individual retirement market assets = $29.8 TRILLION, although I don't have time to chase this data breakdown.
Obviously, the numbers in the link are interesting; but not of significant value to cause me to change my ways as of today.
At least, some form of a value measuring benchmark info was available.
ADD: some of the flow to MM accounts likely can be attributed to required minimum distributions from traditional IRA accounts before Dec. 31
Take care,
Catch

@Gary
This may not apply to you; but perhaps for whomever..................
If a spouse is not working, the other spouse may provide funding to a spousal Roth, etc.
The link below also provides contribution limits, and other info.
See this IRS page.

Just looking at the mechanics, and not the particular funds ...
It looks like with a little flexibility, you could get down to two institutions - Fidelity and Vanguard - pretty easily. TRP is now NTF at Fidelity (and at Vanguard, though I'd favor Fidelity for brokerage/third party funds). The only reason I might have for continuing to invest directly with TRP is free M* premium access.
For the HSA, if you're willing to invest in anything other than BRUFX, Fidelity now offers HSA accounts that are as free as its regular/IRA brokerage accounts. As a side note, you don't have to withdraw money from an HSA as expenses are incurred. You can pay out of pocket and reimburse yourself anytime in the future out of the HSA so long as you hold onto your bills and receipts. So, like other "Roths", you can keep the HSA invested in more volatile funds and draw on the HSA only when it is doing well.
Personally, I tend to avoid sector funds. In part because I don't claim any macro expertise. In part because, as you wrote, I pay my fund managers to make those kinds of decisions. To each his own. I agree with targeting 3 years or so of "survival funds". Even if the other funds don't fully recover in three years, they should come back enough that drawing on them after that time shouldn't be too painful.
A curiosity question, no need to respond w/personal data: my understanding of WEP is that "By law, it cannot eliminate your benefit entirely." (AARP page) So I'm wondering how you're getting hit so hard by it.

This is what I see. Fidelity may have given you incorrect information. It does mention income limits. Could that be it?
The Roth IRA contribution limit is $6,000 for 2019, up from $5,500 in 2018. Retirement savers 50 and older can contribute an extra $1,000. Income limits apply. Retirement savers have yet another reason to celebrate the Roth IRA: The maximum amount that can be contributed to a Roth in 2019 has been increased by $500. Jun 11, 2019

The IRS says yes.
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-ira-contribution-limits

As part of my end of the year portfolio review I try to simplify my holdings without compromising performance. I am 60 years old and have a pension, but no Social Security (SS's WEP provision eliminated SS for me). I see the next 20 years as a time to spend a little bit of what I have saved knowing full well that, if I am lucky enough to live into my eighties, spending priorities will begin to shift away from "foot loose and fancy free" to "foot wear that's loose and free".
Simplification comes in two forms. One, I am attempting to simplify what I hold (the number of funds) and two, where I hold these funds (the number of institutions where I hold the funds). I manage all of my investments independent of advisors. I do attempt to seek out mutual funds that are managed. So, in a sense, I do pay for investment management advice as a function of the Expense Ratio (ER) of the funds i own that have fund managers or management teams.
Over the next 20 years my withdrawal from these investments need to fund:
- Yearly Income gaps - the yearly shortfall when I subtract my projected yearly expenses from my retirement income.
- One time Expenses - For gift costs (weddings, tuition, holidays), travel costs, medical procedures costs (not covered by insurances), large one time item costs (a car, boat, real estate)
- Roth Conversions up to the 12% tax bracket limit (25% of my retirement accounts are in deferred taxable IRA, 75% in Roth/HSA).
- Help fund retirement needs beyond 80 such as income gaps as a result of inflation, out of pocket health care costs, funeral expenses, providing for surviving spouse, and gifting to beneficiaries (Spouse, Kids, Charities)...oh yeah, and loose fitting shoes.
Here are my present holding by percentages of total:
71% Moderate to Aggressive positions (for long term growth and periodic withdrawals)
PRWCX - 22% (half Roth, half SD IRA)
PRGSX - 10.5% (Roth)
PRMTX - 7.5% (Roth)
PRHSX - 4% (SD IRA)
VMVFX - 6% (Roth)
VHCOX / POAGX-11% (Roth)
VHT - 2% (Roth)
FSMEX - 4% (Roth)
FSRPX - 4% (Roth)
6% Balance position (to cover Long term HC costs)
BRUFX - (HSA)
23% Conservative positions (to cover sequence of return withdrawals, to provide cash for buying opportunities, lower portfolio volatility)
FRIFX, VWINX, PTIAX, VFISX, PRWBX, SPRXX - (mostly Roth)
I am presently at 5 institutions which I will reduce to 4 by Spring 2020 and 3 by summer 2020
Recently, I back tested a portfolio consisting of PRWCX (34%), PRMTX (33%) and PRHSX (33%) which I consider moderately aggressive.
Its past 20 year performance had a MAXXDD recovery period of 3 years. I consider this a reasonable time frame to cover a sequence of return risk withdrawal.
Having at least 3 years of retirement income money earmarked for these future time frames (market pull backs and recoveries) seems reasonable to me. A combination of FRIFX / VWINX / PTIAX / ST Bonds are my choices for this part of my portfolio.
Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.

Hi guys,
Since, I am retired and in the distribution phase of investing I like my portfolio to generate ample income to meet my needs. In this way, I do not have to sell assets to meet cash distribution needs.
In addition, I also look at it in this light. I look at each share owned in a mutual fund much in the same way a farmer looks at an acre of land. While the share/acre is in production it generates some form of income or growth in most cases. Start selling shares/acres to raise cash then pretty soon nothing is left to generate the needed production.
By the way ... even in retirement ... I'm growing my number of shares/acres owned thus increasing my production. And, income generation is a part of this production along with growth of capital.
I agree with hank's comment ... "To each his own."
Is it not great that there is no one way to success (or failure) in investing?
Old_Skeet

An alternative view:

An important aspect of this conversation is that, while REITs provide a higher level of income than most other stocks, income from investments is not, in itself, a useful goal. Rather, it’s total return that matters, because capital appreciation can be used to fund living expenses just as well as income can. For instance, in a given year, if a given mutual fund provides an 8% total return, it does not matter whether the return is 8% from income and 0% from capital appreciation, 8% capital appreciation and no income, or any other combination in between.
An important exception is that if we’re talking about a taxable account (as opposed to retirement accounts such as IRAs or 401(k) accounts), income is actually detrimental relative to capital appreciation, because it results in an immediate tax cost rather than a deferred tax cost. And as a result, it can even make sense to underweight REITs in taxable accounts.

Link to Article:
overweighting-reits-why-dont-more-experts-recommend-it

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4310950-retirement-why-reits-are-good-bond-replacements
Retirement: Why REITs Are Good Bond Replacements
Summary
Historically low – and even negative – interest rates are making it harder than ever to retire.
REITs are a viable alternative to retirees and other income investors who desire greater income without having to take significantly more risk.
Our method enables us to earn high and stable income from real asset backed investments.

sounds alarming
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-10/retirement-crisis-six-charts

An Ad for T. Rowe Price. Basically filling the page. Title may be misleading. While the funds may be appropriate for long term investing, they are not designed for those in retirement as title seems to suggest. (Examples: TRBCX, PRHSX).
The recommendation for their 2030 fund seems especially out of place, since it’s geared for someone 10 years from retirement. Doesn’t seem to fit with their long-term focus; but it isn’t designed for someone already in retirement either. They recommend PRWCX without noting it’s closed to new investors. One of their stated criteria is cost. Yet there are much lower cost providers than T. Rowe if that’s what you’re seeking.
A sham job by U.S. News .
@JohnN - Why did you think it imperative to bump this over to the Discussions+ section of the board? Are you normally accustomed to “discussing” matters with yourself? Kindly refrain from doing so here.

*Like*

An Ad for T. Rowe Price. Basically filling the page. Title may be misleading. While the funds may be appropriate for long term investing, they are not designed for those in retirement as title seems to suggest. (Examples: TRBCX, PRHSX).
The recommendation for their 2030 fund seems especially out of place, since it’s geared for someone 10 years from retirement. Doesn’t seem to fit with their long-term focus; but it isn’t designed for someone already in retirement either. They recommend PRWCX without noting it’s closed to new investors. One of their stated criteria is cost. Yet there are much lower cost providers than T. Rowe if that’s what you’re seeking.
A sham job by U.S. News .
@JohnN - Why did you think it imperative to bump this over to the Discussions+ section of the board? Are you normally accustomed to “discussing” matters with yourself? Kindly refrain from doing so here.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/funds/articles/top-t-rowe-price-funds-for-retirement
6 Top T. Rowe Price Funds for Retirement
T. Rowe Price funds can add diversification to a retirement portfolio.
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2030 Fund (ticker: TRRCX)
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2040 Fund (TRRDX)
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Fund (PRWCX)
T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund (TRBCX)
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Fund (RPMGX)
T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund (PRHSX

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1657267/000089418919008228/mhft_497e.htm
497 1 mhft_497e.htm SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Miller/Howard Drill Bit to Burner Tip® Fund
Class
Ticker Symbol
Class I
DBBEX
Adviser Share Class
DBBDX
(A series of Miller/Howard Funds Trust)
Supplement dated December 9, 2019 to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated February 28, 2019, as amended
Based upon a recommendation by MHI Funds, LLC (the “Adviser”), the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Miller/Howard Funds Trust (the “Trust”) has approved a plan of liquidation for the Miller/Howard Drill Bit to Burner Tip® Fund (the “Fund”) as a series of the Trust, pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated on or around December 31, 2019 (the “Liquidation” or the “Liquidation Date”). The Adviser has determined that the Fund has limited prospects for meaningful growth. As a result, the Adviser and the Board believe that the Liquidation of the Fund is in the best interests of shareholders.
In anticipation of the Liquidation, effective as of the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“close of business”) on December 10, 2019, the Fund will be closed to new investments. In addition, effective December 9, 2019, the Adviser may begin an orderly transition of the Fund’s portfolio securities to cash and cash equivalents and the Fund may cease investing its assets in accordance with its investment objective and policies.
Shareholders may voluntarily redeem shares of the Fund, as described in the Fund’s Prospectus, before the Liquidation Date. Shareholders remaining in the Fund just prior to the Liquidation Date may bear increased transaction fees in connection with the disposition of the Fund’s portfolio holdings. If the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction by the close of business on December 31, 2019, your shares will be automatically redeemed on the Liquidation Date. Shareholders will receive a liquidating distribution in an amount equal to the net asset value of their Fund shares, less any required withholding. For shareholders that hold their shares in a taxable account, the redemption of Fund shares will generally be treated as any other redemption of shares (i.e., a sale that may result in a gain or loss for federal income tax purposes). Your net cash proceeds from the Fund, less any required withholding, will be sent to the address of record.
If you hold your shares in an individual retirement account (an “IRA”), you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to reinvest or “rollover” your proceeds into another IRA in order to maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund’s transfer agent at 1-845-684-5730 prior to December 31, 2019 of your intent to rollover your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your proceeds.
If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account, such as an IRA, the redemption proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation. You should consult with your tax advisor on the consequences of this redemption to you. Checks will be issued to all shareholders of record as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date.
Please contact the Fund at 1-845-684-5730 if you have any questions.
This supplement should be retained with your Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI for future reference.

https://investorplace.com/2019/12/5-etfs-for-oodles-of-monthly-dividends/
5 ETFs for Oodles of Monthly Dividends
Dividend ETFs can provide plenty of needed monthly income in retirement

T. Rowe Price has two series of target date funds: the original series now called Retirement Funds and its newer more conservative series that it calls Target Funds.
Price describes the latter as "offer[ing] lower volatility -- and lower potential long-term growth -- than Retirement Funds by emphasizing bonds near the target date."
M* shows the glide path of the former as having a high, but not the highest, equity allocation as seen in the graph on this page:
https://news.morningstar.com/pdfs/STUSA04OMN.pdf
Fidelity has so many lineups it's difficult to keep track of them. Its Simplicity RMD funds were formerly Income Replacment Funds that were overhauled in 2017. It has Managed Retirement Funds, Freedom Funds, and Freedom Index Funds.
Regarding the latter, M* observed that "Despite the notable cost advantage, each Freedom Index fund lagged its Freedom series counterpart since the Freedom Index series' late-2009 launch through December 2018 .... The absence of active management and certain subasset classes, like high-yield bonds, from Freedom Index contributed to these results."
Then they've got a series I'd never heard of: Freedom Blend Funds. In case you can't decide between active (Freedom) and passive (Freedom Index) management, these "blend" funds use both. Did I mention that Fidelity also has Fidelity Advisor (load) versions of these funds as well?

Yes, TRRIX looks good to me, apart from the paltry dividends. I still am enjoying my own mix. In order of size: PRWCX RPSIX PRSNX PTIAX PRIDX VEIRX (wife's 403b soon to be moved to TRP as a rollover IRA.) and lastly, PRDSX. .....In full retirement, and wife will commence work again in 2020. I'm paying monthly rent. Nobody wants to still be doing that in retirement, but it simplifies everything, with water and electric included. And I'm rid of a house the family had owned since 1959--- which I've hated for as long as I can remember. And snow is now a thing of the past for us. ...Though I did get caught in the rain on my walk today. 5 mins. from the house. The little guy here just lights up your heart when he smiles at you. We're sharing with cousins. It really feels like FAMILY. :)

“we got the name wrong on our first try” or “we’re not achieving what our fund name suggests”?

I get your point. Not knowledgeable about these guys, so I’ll take a pass.
About 8-10 years ago T Rowe did the same thing with TRRIX. Changed name from “Retirement Income Fund” to “Retirement Balanced Fund.” I was fine with that. I took them at their word that the new name better reflected the fund’s existing framework. Possibly the “income” part of the original name was misleading to some investors and suggested a less risky approach than the fund pursues. Also (I think importantly) prevailing interest rates in the U.S. and globally had fallen steeply during the fund’s relatively brief existence so that less income was being generated from the bond component than earlier envisioned.
Another one that baffled me a bit was TRIGX. Initially it was named T. Rowe Price International Growth and Income Fund. Than (also about 8-10 years ago) they renamed it International Value Equity Fund. They gave the same reason: to more accurately represent the investment approach the fund follows.
Shakespeare might say, “What’s in a name ...?” For mutual fund managers who find themselves in the midst of an investor class action lawsuit, perhaps quite a bit. Case in point - Oppenheimer’s “Core Bond Fund” which lost 36% in 2008. http://shareholdersfoundation.com/case/oppenheimer-core-bond-fund-investors-class-action-lawsuit-05282009 One can surmise that the litigation, ill will and investor exodus occasioned by this episode did much to hasten the demise of Oppenheimer.