I've admired this managers skills even way back when he ran FBR Focus. When I moved my retirement money to Schwab back in 2014, I think I remember AKREX had a TF to buy, so decided not to hold it.
Long story short, I noticed no TF at schwab now so I decided to do a 1 for 1 swap. Back in Feb. I bought AKREX to take the place of GTLOX, another really good large cap growth fund. So now I hold the manager I've wanted for the last 10 years.

THEY want to focus on their core business. Well, okay; have at it, then. Better yet, just go away; as it seems lies and cheating are inside this business model. Hand slap fines don't cut it.
Oh, well. WFC won't ever have any of our money to play games with; nor anyone's, who asks my recommendation.
Article

Kudos to Ted for linking to a Barron's article republished with free access in its sister publication, Marketwatch.
A more detailed analysis is provided by Kitces, in a column I've linked to before:
https://www.kitces.com/blog/tax-efficient-retirement-withdrawal-strategies-to-fund-retirement-spending-needs/
A summary of his summary might be: Rather than follow conventional widdom (tap taxable accounts first), do incremental Roth conversions in early retirement to reduce future RMDs, and then tap both traditional and Roth IRAs to optimize use of tax brackets.
(The MarketWatch column also says this, but much more tersely.)

FYI: Which way are interest rates headed? Retirees have been asking this question for the better part of a decade—and that conundrum continues. Just when it seemed that rates were finally moving higher, the Federal Reserve turned dovish in late March, sending bond markets into a tizzy.
Price fluctuations are a source of angst for investors who trade in and out of bonds, or own them in mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. But for investors who own bonds to maturity, it’s no big deal. As long as an issuer doesn’t default, which is pretty rare, investors who own bonds until their expiration dates can count on getting back their initial investment, plus the interest they earned along the way.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/retirement-income-bond-ladders-51554500911?mod=barrons-on-marketwatch

FYI: As an investor, it’s easy to blow it. You could sell too early, buy too late. Bet on a loser or pass over a winner. But often the most damaging mistake has nothing to do with the selection or timing of investments—it is carelessness when it comes to managing a portfolio for taxes. This is particularly important when you’re planning how you’ll take withdrawals for retirement income.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/have-multiple-retirement-accounts-use-them-in-this-order-51553425225?mod=mw_latestnews

Thx... Lots folk at mfo near retirement may have got out right time
Mother portfolio adjusted 70s% bonds recently

FYI: If spending $5 a day on fancy coffee puts your retirement at risk, you’ve got bigger problems.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-03/buying-a-latte-every-day-won-t-ruin-your-retirement

@Derf: I try not to post over something that has already been put up. But, at times, it happens.
Perhaps, the class needed another lecture on the subject and there just might be some that simply missed its first posting as I did. Often times, a professor will offer the same lecture more than once. And, besides @hank, @Old_Joe and @MikeM had a great discussion and exchange going between themselves on this very subject; but, under another thread topic.
For me, what is important about this study, with me being in retirement, is that it reflects that a 50/50 portfolio can substain a 4% withdrawal rate and grow principal over time as the 50/50 portfolio averaged an 8.5% return over time. I'm thinking, the 4% withdrawal rate would have to be computed on the portfolio's average value. This is why I set my own withdrawal rate to generally not exceed a sum of what one-half of my five year average return has been. I found in doing this about twenty years ago when I governed my parents portfolio's provided them ample income plus grew their principal. Now, I have adopted this very same distribution withdrawal method.
Sorry @Ted. My bad. I simply missed it's first posting.
Skeet

I was intrigued by the absence of Janus from the short best balanced list, and of Wasatch from the short best SC list, and must investigate that further. What was most striking to me, though we all know how conservative DS tends toward in this long richly valued market, was:
"In general, for non-retirement investors, stocks should be treated like cooks treat habañero peppers: cautiously and with a clear understanding that a little bit is good and a lot is disastrous. Asset allocation research from T. Rowe consistently illustrate the risk: stock-light portfolios make a bit above 5% annually, stock-heavy portfolios make a bit below 6% annually while nearly quadrupling your risk."
If I had followed that thinking for long at almost any point during the last 40y, I would have had great difficulty privately educating my two kids, and my wife and I would have never been able to endure forced retirement ~6y ago.

Hi @Old_Joe
This is Morningstar's convertibles funds list.
Numerous duplicates among fund families due to the "R" type for dedicated retirement accounts and some institutional that may not be available to us regular folks.
You can sort the return list with a click upon the "year".
Course, I don't know what you may have access to via Schwab. I've not used their web site for a long time; but wondering what they show for a search list or investment style list.
Being a Fidelity acct. I chose their similar fund to chart against The Franklin fund, which appears to have the edge over other similar funds for the past several years......
Chart here
If you find something available at Schwab, use this active chart and add a comma and the ticker and click GO. The time frame should remain the same if the new add has long enough time frame.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834419005915/fp0040734_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
SUPPLEMENT DATED APRIL 1, 2019
TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND PROSPECTUS FOR
THE GRANDEUR PEAK INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND (THE “FUND”)
DATED AUGUST 31, 2018, AS SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME
Effective April 15, 2019, the Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund will no longer accept purchases through financial intermediaries unless the purchase is part of:
● a retirement plan which held the Fund prior to this closure,
● an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund, or
●a de minimis annual rebalancing approved by a member of the Grandeur Peak client team.
The Fund will remain open to new purchases from existing shareholders and to new shareholders who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

If I'm told that sometimes I act like an idiot (as I likely am by interjecting in this nonsense), I take that as a comment on my actions, not my mental acuity.
ISTM that "Here is a Link that identifies 3 candidate Monte Carlo codes that are available on the Internet" is an example of a statement that falls into the dimwitted category. The referenced page doesn't laud Monte Carlo simulators per se.
Rather, it states unambiguously that not all three "codes" use Monte Carlo simulation. It goes out of its way to make that point:

Two of the finalists have this [Monte Carlo or backcast capability], but one doesn’t, by design. ... The Ultimate Retirement Calculator from Todd Tresidder ... [has] is no Monte Carlo or historical simulation, so the calculator won’t tell you the probabilities for failure of your scenario. (Understand that is by design: Todd believes probabilistic retirement planning is fundamentally flawed.)

On another page, the same writer critiques those calculators from the referenced page that actually do perform Monte Carlo simulations:

Some higher-fidelity calculators try to model the fluctuations of the markets by incorporating Monte Carlo algorithms into their calculations. You input statistical measures of the range of possible values for important parameters like inflation and investment returns. The calculator then picks random values from those ranges, combining them into hundreds, thousands, even millions, of variations. It sounds very comprehensive, but it turns out that markets aren’t actually completely random. And the randomness they do exhibit is not the kind of randomness most often used in Monte Carlo calculators.

@MJG, you really present as a windy dimwit sometimes. You posted an article with the hed the 3 Best Free Retirement Calculators and subheds Final Three and Conclusion. It is six years old and out of date and likely superseded and updated and the methods and sophistication of the data usage. One specific criticism charged within it is probably fixed. Who knows? You did not dive into each program and check for the latest state of play. You did not survey the field to see what is new. And now you just go off about asking me whether I think the rules still apply. Wrong question! What is wrong with you that you would miss the obvious and simple point and then still argue about it?? It is the programs we are talking about and historical databases. The car analogy was hasty but is fully apt. Would you accept from anyone an article that says these are the best cars today and stopped at 2011 models?
Please just sometimes think before posting one of your automatic windy responses. Who said anything about taking exception to the advice? Find a latest-state-of-play article to post instead.
When someone points out foolishness on your part, you come back with wait, wait, what about the content? I mean, the old cars still roll and work and have wheels and follow the laws of gravity. Jeez, man.

Basically you could subscribe, use the services to set up your financial plan and opt-out after you had what you needed. Bet this new pay scheme might have been in response to people doing just that.

If one uses their services wisely to set up their retirement, estate planning, and others, the on-going service could be very useful as the client's mental capacity decline slowly over time. The article also questions how deep the advisory team is? Certainly this is beyond a robo type service.

@DavidV: Thank you for your question about my all weather asset allocation.
My all weather asset allocation of 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity affords me everything necessary to meet my needs now being in the distribution phase of investing. The benefit of this asset allocaton is that it provides sufficent income, maximizes diversification, minimizes volatility, and provides long-term returns.
The 20% held in cash area provides me ample cash should I need a cash draw over and above what my portfolio generates plus it can provide the capital necessary to fund a special investment position (spiff) should I choose to open one during a stock market pullback. In addition, cash helps stablizes a portfolio during stock market volitility.
The 40% held in the income area provides me ample income generation to meet my income needs in retirement. It is a well diverisfied area that incorporates a good number of diverisified income generating type funds including a commodity strategy fund that has a yield of about 11%.
The 40% held in the equity area provides me some dividend income along with some growth that equities generally provide that offsets the effects of inflation plus, over time, they tend to offer up a growth of principal benefit as well.
I found years back this asset allocation model gave me good comfort when I ran my parents money during their retirement years. It is also the model my parents broker recommended that I follow which worked well for them and now I have adopted it.
My father's all weather model had less risk than the one I have described above. His model was 25% cash, 25% fixed income, 25% stocks and 25% real estate. Also know he was raised during the depression and farm land was a cherished asset.

Yes, a great deal depends on one's circumstances, prospects and specific desires as to what to actually DO with retirement income. I could forget about Medicare and live like a king in The Philippines, even after needing to buy an insurance policy over there which covers my long list of prescriptions and doctor/hospital care. (Wife is from there.) But the food and the climate in The Philippines both really suck. I could, as an Irish citizen, move there, too. But the health insurance system is not as good as some others within the EU. I do know for certain specifically that diabetes needs are covered 100%, totally free, in Ireland. And I'd first have to establish residency in Ireland for long enough to be able to fill out a form which transfers my health coverage to a different country within the EU which I actually want to live in--- maybe the south of Portugal, where it's sunny and warm for more of the year.
But as long as my wife remains 19 years younger than I am, there is a very reasonable expectation for as long as I live that at least one full-time income can be depended upon, between the two of us. That's like an "ace in the hole." My income-producing mutual funds only continue to grow, too. So, we can afford to leave the principal behind me, so that she will get it after my passing. Which I hope will be many years away. Our Will provides the specific destinations for various percentages of what we will both leave behind, once that happens. It is satisfying to be able to do this, emotionally and spiritually. But I worry about my son's prospects re: retirement. Nothing like my own case. He's 25. ... Re: healthcare, just imagine how much easier and stress-free everything would be if we could provide decent healthcare to everyone, globally?! ...It would require some very stoopid countries to get smart, though. I'm talking about IQ as well as putting POLITICAL stoopid-ity behind them!

It's about time:
https://washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/28/wells-fargo-ceo-tim-sloan-step-down-immediately/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b3b4845a290b
Crazy he gets paid this after what happened:

Making matters worse was the bank’s disclosure earlier this month in a regulatory filing that Sloan received $18.4 million in compensation in 2018, about a 5 percent bump from the previous year..
“About damn time. Tim Sloan should have been fired a long time ago,” Warren tweeted Thursday. “By the way, getting fired shouldn’t be the end of the story for Tim Sloan. He shouldn’t get a golden parachute. He should be investigated . . . And if he’s guilty of any crimes, he should be put in jail like anyone else.”
Sloan has earned more than $150 million in compensation since 2011, according to Equilar, a data firm that measures executive compensation. His retirement package will include outstanding stock worth more than $24 million, the firm said.

Thanks for the clarification.
The paper cited in the article is talking about all Personal Retirement Assets (PRAs), which it says "include[s] 401(k)s, IRAs, Keoghs, and similar plans." So while RMDs begin at age 70½, withdrawals are not required for Roth IRAs and 401(k)s and 403(b)s at your current employer.
From that paper:

Figure 5-1 pools data on households of various ages in all cohorts to summarize the average patterns of withdrawals at different ages. It shows that the average percentage of households who own a PRA who make a withdrawal increases from 11.4 percent at age 60 to 24.8 percent by age 69. This percentage jumps to over 60 percent by age 71, when the age of the household head exceeds the age at which RMDs must begin.

@msf- Yes, it's definitely a theoretically decent alternative approach. To me, though, the weakness lies in the statement (from your article):
"secure in knowing that all payments beyond that point will be covered by the longevity annuity and backed by the longevity insurance company."
I may be unduly cynical, but I have very limited faith in the desire of insurance companies to stay in any business if things go wrong and the future doesn't unfold according to their expectations. The fact that our long-term health care insurance, originally carried by General Electric, has been sold several times because GE and subsequent carriers didn't see enough profit potential makes me very uneasy about any insurance companies long-term annuity promises.
ADD:
I continued to read the article (it's pretty lengthy) after posting the above comments, and can recommend that it's well worth your time to do so. It gives a fairly balanced and quite interesting analysis of various alternative retirement schemes, and honestly concedes that in some cases an equity-based retirement approach may give superior long-term results.

Hi Guys,
The correctness and applicability of the 4% drawdown rule is situational dependent. What is the asset allocation distribution? What is the expected future annual returns? How solid is the economy? An endless array of questions and uncertainties exist.
When uncertainties exist, Monte Carlo codes rise to the top of candidate tools to explore these uncertainties. Given my earlier posts, this suggestion likely surprises no one. Here is a Link that identifies 3 candidate Monte Carlo codes that are available on the Internet:
https://www.caniretireyet.com/the-3-best-free-retirement-calculators/
The author rated 3 codes as best from the many he tested. He highlights the pros and cons of each code.
You get to pick the tool that you find most attractive for your purposes. These tools are all fast, free, and easy to use. Give them a try. What-if scenarios are easy to do, and will yield insights into what uncertainties greatly influence successful outcomes. Good luck to all.
Best Wishes