Some cold water --- a longer and broader historical view:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/think-you-can-rely-on-the-4-rule-in-retirement-think-again-11617913126

It makes a lot of sense. Just not for me. I can handle retirement better by keeping things simpler even than that: I check my investment total against last year's, at the New Year. As long as the total has grown, I know I have at least that much leeway to withdraw money from my accounts, using whichever mutual funds seem best to me. The difference between last year's New Year's total and this year's New Year's total gives me a measure of progress (or caution, if the portfolio had a down-year.) If the portfolio did not rise, or lost money, I don't tap the portfolio. And in the meantime, there are monthly dividends that will come in. If they don't, then it's time for a revamp. If need be, those dividends could be used. And in a future year, the portfolio might be expected to do better.

As the article points out, a younger investor might comfortably remain invested 100% of the time (10 of more years away from retirement).
Using Portfolio Visualizer one can back test balance funds such as VBINX or FBALX and analyze their 3 & 5 year rolling returns back to 1994. Their 3-year rolling returns went negative twice (June 2002 - Oct 2003) and (Sept 2008 - Dec 2010). It appears a balance portfolio in retirement might want to avoid withdrawals during these types of time frames. The longest of these time frames being about 2 years. It would seem appropriate to keep two years worth of spending out of the market so that it could be spent during these negative draw down periods. Maybe more if you are strategically trying to use cash to "buy" when the market swoons.
PV link (click on the rolling return tab)

Unfortunately people have a tendency to bail at the worst times. One will do better by making a plan, any plan, whether it is self-managed retirement, an annuity, target date funds, or anything else and just unemotionally sticking with it.

Excellent observation.
That's why if you treat a fund as an annuity, stick to it. You can't run and dump an annuity once you're under contract (or not easily/quickly/without penality) so you should treat that 'annuity' fund the same way. Don't look at it more than 4x a year and set the automatic withdrawls/sales to take place automatically if you can -- but otherwise, leave it alone unless it's imploding for real reasons (firm goes bust, fund changes mandate drastically, etc) not just market volatility.

It looks to me VGHCX was a grand slam !!!
That's assuming investors have the stomach for it. It went through a patch where excluding withdrawals, it dropped 33.17%. How many people would have stuck with it, let alone taken the scheduled withdrawals, which would have increased the drop to 42.88%? And that's just month-to-month calculations. Daily peak to daily trough was likely worse.
That drop lasted the better part of two years (1 year, 9 months), and the fund took nearly an additional two years (1 year, 10 months) to recover.
Investors may have had an even harder time sticking with PRWCX: max (monthly) drawdown of 36.61% with no withdrawals, 45.38% including withdrawals. That fall took the same 1 year, 9 months as it did for VGHCX, though PRWCX recovered faster, taking "only" 1 year, 2 months.
(Some drawdown figures come from the "Drawdown" tab on the PV page.)
I'm not saying that past results including these bumps in the road aren't impressive, or don't suggest a good likelihood of doing very well by investing aggressively. I am asking, when people do encounter sizeable bumps (even with a small withdrawal rate), whether they will hang on. Unlike using an annuity, they have no guarantee of success with funds: "past performance does not guarantee future returns."
Unfortunately people have a tendency to bail at the worst times. One will do better by making a plan, any plan, whether it is self-managed retirement, an annuity, target date funds, or anything else and just unemotionally sticking with it.

Using Portfolio Visualizer's portfolio analysis tool I wondered if the "safe withdrawal rate" data could be used as a substitute for an annuity rate. SWR is a historical data point that changes depending on the historical start and end date. An annuity is a guaranteed income based in part on today's low interest rates. Obviously two different approaches to securing income in retirement. I'd like to consider part of my retirement income being derived from a Safe Withdrawal of stocks, bonds, and alternatives.
Exploring some older mutual funds (VWINX, VWELX, PRWCX, and VGHCX) I discovered the following SWRs (found within the Metrics tab):
VWINX = 7.18%
VWELX = 8.02%
PRWCX = 9.16%
VGHCX = an astouding 14.31%
In other words, for each $1,000 invested in these four funds, each could safely pay out their SWR each year of:
Year 1:
VWINX = $71.80
VWELX = $80.20
PRWCX = $91.60
VGHCX = an astounding $143.10 (close to double VWINX's SWR)
note: the annual dollar amount would adjust based on the annual mutual fund's dollar value at the end of each year:
Using VWINX's SWR (I set the annual withdrawal of a fixed percent of 7.18%) and I tested all four funds over the past 35 years (back tested from 1986 - 2021). All four survived a 7.18% annual withdrawal. Both VWINX and VWELX ending "cash value" were impacted by inflation. The 2021 (inflation adjusted value) of VWINX being only $567 of its original $1,000 value. Both PRWCX and VGHCX value stayed ahead of inflation while paying out 7.18% annually. VGHCX's value grew four fold over the last 35 year time frame. As a result it paid out larger and larger amounts annually compared to the other three fund choices. While VWINX paid out a pretty steady amount over the 35 year time frame (between $70 - $100), VGHCX's pay outs grew from $70 in year 1 (1987) to over $400 - $600 annually (years 13 - 35).
Most annuities don't provide inflation riders and many do not offer a cash value upon death. So strictly speaking even VWINX would be a good substitute for an annuity that pays out 7% with a ending cash value of $1,351 (equivalent to $567 back in 1986). The other three funds were an even better "annuity income" choice at that SWR.
None of these funds busted (went to zero) at this 7.18% Safe Withdrawal Rate. In fact, VGHCX's inflation adjusted cash value was $4,141...four times what was invested back in 1986. In addition, VGHCX provided larger and larger annual income pay outs that kept up with (exceeded inflation). Will the healthcare sector, and more importantly this fund, continue to offer such great performance?
Here's the link to PV with these four funds. The "Metrics" tab has the data on SWR (Safe Withdrawal Rate). Let me know if you find a fund with a SWR higher than VGHCX (14.13%).
PV Link

I found this very interesting and worth sharing.

Two of the most popular posts I’ve ever written are about The Bucket Strategy, and how we’re using it to fund our spending in retirement.
But…you still have “Bucket Strategy Questions”. Today, we’re answering specific questions raised by the readers regarding the bucket strategy, and how it actually works in retirement.

https://theretirementmanifesto.com/your-bucket-strategy-questions-answered/

@Mark I'm not really disagreeing with you about purchasing return of capital at a discount. There is a value to the amplification of the yield from the discount regardless what the source of the yield is. But I do think there is often an intention to mislead investors with managed distributions. Consider why CEFs exist at all. At a discount they can be great investments. But think about the time when they're first issued. Who exactly is buying these CEFs at the IPO at full price and why are they buying them? In fact, it may even historically have been more than full price for CEF IPOs as the issuer and underwriter would charge commissions. In my experience, anecdotal though it may be, new CEF IPOs are sold to not bought by unsophisticated investors, often senior citizens seeking high income for retirement. The fact that the income could come from a return of capital eludes many of them. The ETF is a far more efficient lower-cost mechanism. And I think there is a reason why in recent years there has been a decline in new CEF issuance and especially permanent-capital CEF issues, as opposed to target date ones with a liquidation date that make more sense. The new CEF is generally a ripoff, and the high payouts they have, which lures income hungry seniors, often an illusion propped up by return of capital and/or leverage, which works well on the way up and cuts badly on the way down. By contrast, the deeply discounted CEF can be a great investment, regardless whether its income comes partially from return of capital or not.
In other words, regarding the aforementioned story this thread began with, UTG maintaining its distribution is far less interesting to me as an investor than what its current discount is to NAV, how well its manager has performed versus its category peers on a total return basis, what its fees are, how much leverage it has, and whether the manager has done shareholder-friendly things like buybacks when the discount is wide. The distribution itself when return of capital is involved becomes a somewhat illusory source of return and shouldn't be the primary selling point.

....And @Simon: my whole intention in opening the TRP brokerage was to use it for single stocks. I already like my stable of TRP funds. I don't really want to add to any, either, because they are all T-IRAs, and there's retirement income here at my house, but no EARNED income to report. (So, contributions would be non-deductible.) TRP won't even let me start the monthly $100 and assign it to the brokerage's "sweep" account: PRTXX. Not unless I already had the minimum $2,500 in there. (And why would I choose to grow THAT one, unless doing so in order to buy a bigger chunk of a single stock, eh? I can do that at my own discretion. MM funds pay virtually nothing.)

I’m such a simpleton... with rare exception (bonds for ballast? / which I exited) - I compare all equity funds I’m considering to the S&P 500 benchmark. If that’s what Buffet advises to do with retirement and plans to do for his family...it seems reasonable to me. I think FLPSX is an ok fund. But I did exit from it several years ago when it was no longer a small cap. It’s “not fair” to compare it against SPY but I do... like all my funds. When I do, SPY outperforms most years but not YTD. Joel is having a good year so far.

I wouldn't be too concerned.
As @TheShadow mentioned, Mr. Stack's retirement has been planned for a while.
Wellington has a deep bench of managers/analysts.

One of @Catch22 funds FRIFX finally having a nice YTD. @hank, “I wonder if GNMA funds might be a better bond choice going forward.”

Yeah @bee. I pondered that long and hard early this year when I realized it was time to vacate some of the intermediate term funds I had. GNMAs provide a smoother ride with government backing. Return a bit more than treasuries (but unlike treasuries they’re fully taxable).
I’d have to read up on them again, but there’s something in GNMA’s nature that dampens volatility. Has to do with the way they’re structured plus typical homeowner behaviors re refinancing (or not) during periods of rising / falling rates. Vanguard used to have a good GMNA fund - probably still does.
We’re not going to get rich with them. Just something better than cash.
BTW - I noticed that Price’s TRRIX (retirement balanced) fund has a heavy weighting in their limited term TIPs fund and almost nothing in cash. Appears to me to be their answer to 0 rates on cash. I’ve largely followed suit with my own money.
Glad @Catch22 has had good luck with FRIFX. Invesco has a real estate income fund which I owned for a while. Was a nice supplement to the portfolio. Unfortunately, I don’t have a lot of $$ with Invesco and needed to re-deploy that money into a different fund.

New Series from Market Watch:
best-new-ideas-in-retirement

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/105563/000168386321001656/f8307d1.htm
497 1 f8307d1.htm VANGUARD WELLINGTON FUND 497
 
Vanguard Wellington™ Fund
Supplement Dated March 29, 2021, to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Dated March 29, 2021
Important Change to Vanguard Wellington Fund
 
Effective at the close of business on June 30, 2021, Michael E. Stack will retire from Wellington Management Company LLP and will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for Vanguard Wellington Fund.
Loren L. Moran and Daniel J. Pozen, who currently serve as portfolio managers with Mr. Stack, will remain as portfolio managers of the Fund upon Mr. Stack’s retirement. The Fund’s investment objective, strategies, and policies will remain unchanged.
© 2021 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.PS 21G 032021
 
Vanguard Wellington™ Fund
 
Supplement Dated March 29, 2021, to the Statement of Additional Information Dated March 29, 2021
Important Change to Vanguard Wellington Fund
Effective at the close of business on June 30, 2021, Michael E. Stack will retire from Wellington Management Company LLP and will no longer serve as a portfolio manager for Vanguard Wellington Fund.
Loren L. Moran and Daniel J. Pozen, who currently serve as portfolio managers with Mr. Stack, will remain as portfolio managers of the Fund upon Mr. Stack’s retirement. The Fund's investment objective, strategies, and policies will remain unchanged.
© 2021 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.
SAI 21H 032021

update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1199046/000139834421006921/fp0063764_497.htm
497 1 fp0063764_497.htm
SELECTIVE OPPORTUNITY FUND
Supplement to the Prospectus
and
Statement of Additional Information
dated April 29, 2020
Supplement dated March 24, 2021
In a Supplement dated February 26, 2021, we notified you that the Board of Trustees has determined that it is in the best interest of shareholders to liquidate the Selective Opportunity Fund (the “Fund”), that as of February 26, 2021, the Fund is no longer accepting purchase orders for its shares, and that the Fund will close effective June 21, 2021 (the “Closing Date”).
Shareholders may redeem Fund shares at any time prior to the Closing Date. Procedures for redeeming your account, including reinvested distributions, are contained in the section “How to Redeem Shares” of the Fund’s Prospectus. Any shareholders that have not redeemed their shares of the Fund prior to the Closing Date will have their shares automatically redeemed as of that date, with proceeds being sent to the address of record. If your Fund shares were purchased through a broker-dealer and are held in a brokerage account, redemption proceeds may be forwarded by the Fund directly to the broker-dealer for deposit into your brokerage account.
In the Supplement dated February 26, 2021, we notified you that the Fund will continue to pursue its investment objective through the Closing Date. Effective immediately, the Fund will no longer pursue its investment objective and may begin to liquidate the holdings in its portfolio. The Fund expects that all holdings will be liquidated by April 12, 2021. The proceeds of liquidated holdings will be invested in money market instruments or held in cash.
Any capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional Fund shares, unless you have requested payment in cash.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax adviser regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another IRA within 60 days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you are the trustee of a qualified retirement plan or the custodian of a 403(b)(7) custodian account (tax-sheltered account) or a Keogh account, you may reinvest the proceeds in any way permitted by its governing instrument.
* * * * * *
This supplement and the Prospectus provide the information a prospective investor should know about the Fund and should be retained for future reference. A Statement of Additional Information dated April 29, 2020 has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is incorporated herein by reference. You may obtain the Prospectus or Statement of Additional Information without charge by calling the Fund at (434) 515-1517 or visiting www.selectivewealthmanagement.com.

Every time I see a new thread about bonds I smile. Yes, I'm the exception and have done it for years. I retired in 2018, we need only 4% (maybe less) including inflation to keep our living standard for the next several decades. I still want to make 6% with SD < 3. I'm mainly a bond OEF trader, probably close to 90% are from bond OEFs. I have invested mostly in 2-3 funds which means I only need 2 great performing bond funds. So far I made much more in the last than the goal + SD=2.5%. YTD already several % up.
More:
1) All the money is invested, no cash. Only in high risk market I'm out. In the last 10-11 years I was out under 2%. Before that I was in all the time.
2) Since the beginning in 1995 I hardly used alternative funds, definitely not for more than several weeks or a big %. I keep is simple, stocks, bond, and allocation funds.
3) Many average Joe retirees that have enough can do the following. They have some cash flow (from SS + distribution + pension + can sell something), in good times they can sell stocks and in bad times they can sell some bonds. Some of these bonds should be a ballast for stocks which means in market meltdown they will go up or have minimal losses.
4) Cash? I never believed in cash since the beginning even in retirement. You can have 3-6 months of living expenses and can sell something (per #3 above) 3-4 times annually. I never had an emergency I couldn't handle. I have used credit cards, then I have several thousands in cash and I can always sell my funds and get money in 2 days.

@msf, I really appreciate that you took the time to explain the of James Anderson of Baillie Gifford. He has done well for VWIGX when the growth stocks were in favor, but several scenarios may unfold after his retirement. For now I will stay put until Vanguard's board finalizes their decision. I invested with HAIGX in the past and decided to consolidate funds with Vanguard once I found BG and VWIGX. Schroder is also a good management firm but certainly a less growth oriented company.
BTW Tesla was recommended by Anderson based on the Barron's article. Also this stock has been actively managed by its position moving up and down in the fund's top 10 holding. As of 2/28/2021, it moved down to #4 from #1 in their reporting as its stock price rises quickly.

It's not uncommon for investment management firms to have separate teams for different strategies. For example, here are RW Baird's equity teams:
https://www.bairdassetmanagement.com/baird-equity-asset-management/team#GrowthTeam
Those divide along growth/value/int'l lines. For a company like Baillie Gifford that focuses on growth, its dividing lines are finer. Growth: large cap, or small cap, or all cap; "rapid" growth: broad or concentrated. Five different int'l teams with sometimes subtly different styles.
HAIGX pulls from the all cap growth team, while VWIGX and BGESX pull from the rapid growth (broad) team, and BTLSX is managed by the rapid growth (concentrated) team.
Here's BG's blurb on its five international equity strategies and teams;
https://www.bailliegifford.com/en/usa/professional-investor/literature-library/funds/mutual-funds/baillie-gifford-international-equity-strategies/
While some of the difference between HAIGX and VWIGX comes from Schroeders, much of it is due to the different BG teams managing the funds. You can test this by looking at the overlap between VWIGX and BGESX. The major (>2%) holdings of VWIGX that aren't in BGESX are Tesla (5.51%) and Illumina (2.30%). VWIGX has 13 holdings above 2%. All data from M* instant x-ray.
Likewise, you can look at the overlap between VWIGX and SCIEX (for the Schroeder team). The pure Schroeder fund doesn't hold Tesla or Illumina. So maybe these holdings in VWIGX came from the Schroeder team, thoujgh Schroeders is less growth oriented than BG. We may never know.
I'm glad you brought up HAIGX, because it serves to highlight an obscure attribute. Like many fund families, Harbor funds hire an in-house management company (Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc.) to manage the funds, to select and oversee the subadviser third party management firms (here, Baille Gifford Overseas Ltd.), and in the case of multiple subadvisers, to decide who manages what percentage of the funds.
2021 Prospectus, p. 41 (pdf p. 44)
When a Vanguard fund is managed by Vanguard, it hires The Vanguard Group as the management company. Though unlike Harbor, when a Vanguard fund outsources the day-to-day management of the fund it typically outsources the full management job. For these funds, the third parties are not subadvisors, but the actual advisors. The oversight responsibility is retained by the fund's board, as is the responsibility of deciding which advisory firm gets to manage how much of the fund.
2020 Prospectus, p. 16 (pdf p. 18)
This also means that what happens to VWIGX when Anderson retires in a year is up to the Vanguard fund's board. It could, for example, live with the remaining less experienced (by 16 or more years) BG fund managers while allocating a greater fraction of the portfolio to Schroeders. In that case, one might say that Schroeders would be the successor to Anderson.
For example, this is what Vanguard did when Barrow retired from Barrow, Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss:

Vanguard had been slowly redistributing Windsor II’s assets to other subadvisers in the years since BHMS founder Jim Barrow, who had managed the fund since its 1985 inception, announced he was stepping down at the end of 2015. At the time of Barrow’s retirement, BHMS managed about 60% of the overall portfolio. That number was nearly halved over the past four years, with the firm managing 37% of Windsor II’s assets at last report.

https://www.adviserinvestments.com/adviser-fund-update/vanguard-manager-firing-fails-to-fix-funds-faults/
A bit more on BG's international growth strategy and portfolio construction group:
https://www.bailliegifford.com/en/usa/professional-investor/literature-library/institutional-only-literature/philosophy-and-process/international-growth-philosophy-and-process/

Our benchmark remains FBALX. Yes, a bit "hot" for many in retirement, as an investment. Though not invested in the fund in 2008, it took a big hit, too; as with many other 70/30% funds. We have been able to get close to the 15 year return of 8.48, which has changed from about an average of 8.2% annualized as 2020 returns bumped this number. We attempt to get close to 7.5-8% annualized. 'Course, as expected, not unlike others; we've had the very good years get whacked by the poop years. Our largest portfolio benefit was to escape the 2000 and 2008 melts. Not fun to "make up" a portfolio loss from an actual sell. We have not yet decided whether FBALX will be a major percent holding when we stop meddling with our holdings. Our active would become a psuedo passive with FBALX management of the money.

YTD, 1-Year, 3-Year, 5-Year, 10-Year, 15-Year, Since Inception (7 periods time frame)
Returns 3.78% 59.15% 14.23% 13.68% 11.03% 8.48% 9.76%
Category Ranking % 21 32 7 4 3 4 7
# of funds category 695 697 664 639 571 411 300