Investors often have an understandable but ultimately irrational fascination with "better" vs. "worse" as a binary value. If they lose money on an investment, they will often wait to break even (not be worse off) before selling a clunker. Whether an investment beats its benchmark by 1% in half the years and underperforms by a few basis points in the other half (a superb overall achievement) or the reverse doesn't matter by this metric.
Jeff provides better insight when comparing long term performance with volatility of excess performance. Volatility is not a binary value.
It's not surprising that funds with the best (and worst) long term performances have the highest volatility. Index huggers with their low excess return volatility would be expected to fall within the middle quartiles of performance. OTOH, even funds that are in the top decile year after year won't beat their bogies by a similar amount each year. They'll likely be more volatile. And the worst performers are their mirror images.
But is volatility vis a vis benchmark performance even what investors care about? When @DrVenture writes of possibly wanting lower volatility in retirement portfolios, is the good doctor thinking of excess volatility vs. a volatile market or absolute volatility? I suspect the latter.
If the whole market is down 40% when retirement money is needed, is one really going to be happy that one's investment is down "only" 30%, even though that's a 10% outperformance?
Finally, I agree with @Observant1 (lumpy fund performance) and Jeff's conclusion that:
"long-term winners often take a circuitous route to outperformance, perhaps topping their indexes over a span of a year or two, then lagging, only to resume their winning ways."
Look at VPMAX. Out of the ten calendar year M* reports (including 2026) it outperformed the index in five and underperformed in five. And three consecutive years of abysmal performance (2019-2021).
As of the end of 2024 it had a ten year performance that was half a percent (annualized) below its benchmark (per prospectus). As of Jan 12, its ten year performance is nearly a percent above its benchmark (per M*). Showing that snapshots in time of "lumpy" funds may be meaningless. Even long term snapshots.

In my experience, the funds that have the best long term results are the most volatile. So, consistency is not something that I require in my high performers. Maybe for a retirement portfolio, I may prefer it. Something for me to consider.

Thought this article, from Fidelity, would be appropriate for this thread.
bear-market-discipline

Their Retirement Plan:
After talking it over with their advisor, Jordan and Shawna decided to invest $1 million in a diversified, professionally managed account. "When devising a plan for a client, we start by evaluating their needs," says McAdam. "We want to know what their goal is and what it is they’re saving for, so we can better understand their tolerance for risk. When we can determine how much money they might need to achieve that goal, that helps us design a portfolio that’s equipped to help them reach it." Based on Jordan and Shawna’s expected needs, the couple determined that they would need to withdraw $40,000 in the first year of retirement to fund their lifestyle and planned to increase their withdrawal amount by 2% each year, to account for inflation.
Market Turns Bear-ish the First Year of Their Retirement Plan:
Jordan and Shawna’s million-dollar investment runs headfirst into the 2008 financial crisis. In the very first year of their retirement, Jordan and Shawna watched their portfolio—their hard-earned savings—lose more than 30% of its value. And after withdrawing the $40,000 to pay their day-to-day expenses, they were left with about $650,000 and a feeling of unease about what the future might hold for them and their portfolio.

Hatred can make people irrational. Hatred and anger can be funneled in the wrong direction - and Trump has done this extremely well.
The MAGA 40% are so angry at the world that losing their own health benefits and their meager retirement benefits takes a back seat. Lower their standard of living? Meh. The hatred simply rules all.
It's chilling in that this kind of manipulation is difficult to correct/unwind. Thus the cult-like atmosphere in certain parts of the US. Very sticky and very destructive.

If you had bought GLOFX a while ago you would be laughing now to see it running ahead of the 500 these past 12 months.
I have a modest slice in the taxable I bought in 2022. Dumping it from the IRA in the quest for "simplification" was one of the dumber things I have done with my retirement investments recently.

Same. I was in it probably 10 years ago and sold out ... should have just set it and forgot about it. Wish they'd make an ETF version of it, though.

If you had bought GLOFX a while ago you would be laughing now to see it running ahead of the 500 these past 12 months.
I have a modest slice in the taxable I bought in 2022. Dumping it from the IRA in the quest for "simplification" was one of the dumber things I have done with my retirement investments recently.

As I enter my 8th year of retirement and concerned about the nosebleed equity valuations, and low return, high risk of HY bond funds, I’ve been in the process of reducing our bond risk by shifting from HY funds to JAAA, NEAR, and VCSH; each short term and covering the corporate and securitized areas. It’s challenging to let go of funds such as OSTIX and RSIIX but don’t feel compensated for the risk. The transition is incomplete because I really like the managers and how they communicate in language I understand.
Our equity allocation is at 38% and mostly index funds, so to reduce the focus on mag 7, I’ve moved a chunk from VTSAX to VPCCX. Still have the lion’s share in VTSAX and VDADX. I want to add to the small investment in FPCSX from mmkt but will wait for an opportunity.

@sma3- Thank you for your response. Our income is derived from three sources: SS, pensions, and investment income, which at this time is from fixed income and MMKT funds. The SS income will "only" drop less than $5k (due to IRMAA), the pensions have COLAs which likely will offset the IRMAA reduction, and the investment income will gradually taper down as interest rates drop.
So it will be a while before the retirement income will drop far enough to justify the appeal process. But that's definitely a very good thing to keep a close watch on, and I thank you very much for that information.
OJ

I would look to previous examples to anticipate how that might play out. Mainly leaving those already on (or close to) SS as is, Raising retirement ages, lowering monthly amounts for future recipients, elimination of COLA (perhaps). I suppose a big infusion off cash from somewhere is also possible.
If that were where the tariff tax income were being funneled, I'd possibly be more supportive. SS pays out ~$1.3 trillion annually.

Well, we're back in SF, and looking at the SS notice it is indeed IRMAA, and the increase is based on our 2024 income. So this is going to go on forever. Doesn't make any difference why or what they call it- the result is lower SS income every year- I suppose forever.
MFO comes through again. Thank all of you very much for your insight and help on this. At least we don't have to fight with SS or the IRS... that's something, I guess.
But the end result is pretty much the same- in planning don't necessarily expect a SS increase every year. In fact if you have substantial retirement income you might plan on what amounts to a "Minus COLA" kicking in at some point.

@WABAC Because of step-up basis?
I'm with you, no mortgage, no car payments, no educational expense, no paying FICA or funding a 401K, no child-related expenses, all adds up to higher cash flow. Here, we also pay no tax on retirement income.

Ok, here is an interesting document that basically covers my scenario: https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10069.pdf
The relevant example:
"Let’s say you aren’t yet at full
retirement age at the beginning of the
year, but reach it in November 2026. You
expect to earn $68,520 in the 10 months
from January through October. During
this period, we would withhold $1,120 ($1
for every $3 you earn above the $65,160
limit). To do this, we would withhold the 2
benefit payments for January 2026 through
February 2026, your first 2 checks of
the year. Beginning in March 2026, you
would receive your $600 benefit, and this
amount would be paid to you each month
for the remainder of the year. In 2027,
we would pay you the remaining $80 we
withheld in February 2026."
How would they know what you were going to earn in a shortened year?
"We adjust the amount of your Social
Security benefits in 2026 based on what
you told us you would earn in 2026. If
you think your earnings for 2026 will be
different from what you originally told us,
let us know right away."
The best I can figure is that that if I go over by $15, 000 they will subtract $5000 from my benefit. It appears I still come out ahead by 3x $4000 for three additional months of SS, So, $12,000 in SS, minus $5000, with a potential positive outcome of $7000.
The wife gets a spousal benefits increase. And I still defer Medicare Part b and Medigap for both of us a few months more until I officially retire. Probably, I am missing something.

I agree with @Observant1. I waited to start SS until I was 69 and wish I had waited until 70. The annual cost of living adjustments are a huge advantage with SS. One of the biggest uncertainties of retirement is how long you will live. Social Security is basically an insurance policy in case you live longer than expected.

You would think that this should not be happening- from YBB's link-
"Starting with the month you reach full retirement age, we will not reduce your benefits no matter how much you earn."
But they have been. I guess that I should try to contact SS, though with my hearing issues I can't use the phone, so that should be an experience to look forward to. I have no idea where to even start on this.

"Social Security provides an annual COLA which makes it more attractive than
most (all?) single premium immediate annuities or deferred income annuities.
I recently retired at age 62 and I'm single."
Be aware that the SS COLA can be a significantly negative number. This year and last our monthly SS was reduced because our total income from all sources, as reported to SS by the IRS, was above whatever limit that SS uses to adjust their payment. I don't have the information paper handy right now so I can't quote it exactly. But our combined SS monthly payments went from-
2024: $5334
2025: $5185
2026: $4987
Annually that's-
2024: $64010
2025: $62220
2026: $59844
So in just three years there's been a reduction of almost $4200 in SS income. Add the actual rate of inflation to that, and our actual income is significantly decreasing rather than increasing. This will be the first year that our expenses will exceed our combined SS and pension income, and that we will actually start to decrease (draw down) our retirement savings total rather than increasing that.

Some people view Social Security primarily through the lens of break-even amounts.
I look at it mostly as longevity insurance.
Social Security provides an annual COLA which makes it more attractive than
most (all?) single premium immediate annuities or deferred income annuities.
I recently retired at age 62 and I'm single.
My current plan is to start Social Security payments shortly after reaching age 67 (full retirement age).
You may want to play around with Social Security's "Online Benefits Calculator"
and the "Open Social Security Calculator" if you haven't done so already.

Right, I should have said "reduce". Fixed. Thanks.
And wouldn't that statement still apply if I signed up right now? IOW, I would only be subject to the higher reduction threshold, as this is the year that I reach "full retirement age"?
Also, saw this: "Starting with the month you reach full retirement age, you can get your benefits with no limit on your earnings".
I take this to read that since June is the month that I reach full retirement age. Only any SS amounts from Jan 1 to May 30 are counted towards any SS reduction limit ($65,160). Which would be possibly 3 months. How that works in reality is anyone's guess.

"If you will reach full retirement age in 2026, the limit on your earnings for the months before full retirement age is $65,160, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above this limit."
If I am reading this correctly, They will only tax SS at the 1/3 rate on earned income above $65,160?

That's when you are already took Social Security early. And that isn't tax, but a reduction in SSA payments being received.

"If you will reach full retirement age in 2026, the limit on your earnings for the months before full retirement age is $65,160, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above this limit."
If I am reading this correctly, They will only reduce SS at the 1/3 rate on an amount equal to earned income above $65,160?
I'd consider leaving earlier than planned to stay below this limit, but then I lose my employer insurance and salary for those months. And then have to pay Part B and Megigap for two additional months. The trade off does not seem worth it.
I.e. - I go $20,000 $15,000 over the $65,160 limitation and lose 1/3 of 2 months @ $4000 per month Social Security benefit. So, a loss of $2666 versus a gain of $20,000 salary, plus deferring Part B and Medigap (for both myself and spouse) for two additional months.
Edit: OOPs - bad math, I would lose 1/3 of the earnings amount over $65,106, not 1/3 of the SS amount. So more like a $5000 reduction from SS, adjusting my previous example to a more likely $15,000 amount above threshold.
Also do they calculate on gross earnings, MAGI or net (after 401K) earnings? I am assuming gross earned income, unless I discover otherwise.

Playing with SS calculator today. If I wait until full Retirement age (June 2026) I get $114 more per month.
Meanwhile, I forego about $20,000 waiting 5 months. It will take 175 months (14.6 years) to recoup.
As I will only be receiving salary for 6 months this year (thinking of taxes here), I am thinking it is foolish not to sign up now. I haven't done a full analysis (again, taxes), but wonder what I might be overlooking.