Hello Mark,
Some investors believe very strongly in living off the income of their portfolio. Total return investors tend to raise cash as they rebalance. I care most about risk management. Having lower drawdowns with moderate total returns. As I near retirement I have been researching funds that also produce safe income.
The largest compelling reason to own DIVO is safer, higher income.

Income this year may be abnormally low. The IRS outlines how the Saver's Credit works for those who qualify.
retirement-savings-contributions-savers-credit

As I am getting close to retirement next year, I will complete conversion of DSEEX to PHSKX & VLAAX (reason - DSEEX March 2020 performance, too volatile).

I completely agree with the idea that many people should pay more attention to living and less to making a living. And if you're one of the fortunate minority at risk of dying with a surfeit of cash, there are many worthwhile things you can do with that money to solve this "problem".
But I do take issue with how the figures are presented.
" the average inheritance in the U.S. being $177,000(the median is closer to $69,000)"
The two numbers come from different sources. Which is curious, because the writer had available figures from the same source (Survey of Consumer Finances) on the page he cited:
$707,291 (average) and $69,000 (median).
By mixing numbers from different sources, he makes it appear as though average and mean are not all that far apart. So don't worry when he then gives only average figures:
"The average retired adult who dies in their 60s leaves behind $296k in net wealth, $313k in their 70s, $315k in their 80s, and $238k in their 90s."
However, from the source of that quote also comes this:

The median respondent that died in their 60s had about $3,000 in liquid investments within two years of their passing, which increased to $10,000 for respondents that died in their 70s and $15,000 for those that died in their 80s.

Without liquidating or otherwise monetizing their homes (if any) many people have virtually no assets to live on.

Indeed, about 46 percent of senior citizens in the United States have less than $10,000 in financial assets when they die. Most of these people rely almost totally on Social Security payments as their only formal means of support

https://news.mit.edu/2012/end-of-life-financial-study-0803
The shift from inheritance (used in the original piece) to liquid asset data in the quotes I gave is deliberate. If we're talking about trading money for time, we're talking about the money that you have to spend, not how much your heirs will inherit.
If one has the resources, or projected future earnings, to take more time for oneself, definitely go for it. But for far more people than his figures suggest, being able to do so is only a dream.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1697196/000158064220004585/acpmi497.htm
497 1 acpmi497.htm 497
AlphaCentric Prime Meridian Income Fund
(the “Fund”)
December 22, 2020
The information in this Supplement amends certain information contained in the Fund’s current Prospectus and Statement of Additional information (“SAI”), each dated April 24, 2020.
______________________________________________________________________________
The Fund’s Board of Trustees approved increases in the minimum purchase requirements for regular accounts from $2,500 to $10,000 and for retirement plan accounts from $1,000 to $10,000.
All references to the minimum investment amounts contained in the Fund’s Prospectus and SAI are hereby revised accordingly.
* * *
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Fund’s Prospectus and SAI, which provide information that you should know about the Fund before investing. These documents are available upon request and without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-888-910-0412, or by writing to the Fund at c/o U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC, 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

Just received an email from GP which states:
December 17, 2020
Dear Fellow Investors,
We are announcing today that the Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund (GPGIX/GPGOX) and Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund (GPIIX/GPIOX) (the "Funds") will close to new investors through intermediary platforms after December 31, 2020. The Funds will remain open to existing investors. Retirement plans and financial advisors with existing clients in the Funds will still be able to invest in the Funds for existing as well as new clients as long as their clearing platform will allow this exception. The Funds will remain open to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
Both Funds were re-opened during the market melt-down in the spring in order to provide an opportunity for investors to invest during the sell-off. With the strong rebound in the market, and even stronger performance by the Funds this year, they are back to assets levels where we feel it’s necessary to limit inflows. As you know, we carefully review capacity at the firm level and strategy level. We are committed to keeping all of our investment strategies small enough to be able to fully pursue their investment strategies without being encumbered by either their individual asset base or the firms’ collective assets. Achieving performance for our clients will always be our paramount objective.
As a reminder, these two Funds, as well as all of the Grandeur Peak Funds, will be making their annual capital gains and income distributions on December 29th, with a shareholder record date of December 28th. If you would like to make further investments in these Funds within taxable accounts prior to year-end, you may wish to wait until after December 28th to avoid the distribution.1
Thank you for your continued interest and trust. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to me or a member of our Client Relations Team.
Best Regards,
Eric Huefner
President

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834420024642/fp0060307_497.htm
497 1 fp0060307_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST: GRANDEUR PEAK FUNDS
SUPPLEMENT DATED DECEMBER 17, 2020 TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND
PROSPECTUS FOR THE GRANDEUR PEAK GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND AND
GRANDEUR PEAK INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND (THE “FUNDS”) DATED
AUGUST 31, 2020
Effective as of the close of business on December 31, 2020, the Funds will close to new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund through third party intermediaries subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors with an established position in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund. The Funds remain open to purchases from existing shareholders, and to new shareholders who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
The Fund retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund or limit inflows into the Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

- I’ve been slowly reducing exposure to this one for the last 9-10 months because it’s had a very good run in recent years and may be nearing some sort of retrenchment. The “slack” (so to speak) has been taken up by PBDIX and PRIHX, both of which I consider less risky - the former because of its higher credit quality (and lower ER) and the latter because of its shorter duration.

There are reasons to prefer muni bonds to taxable bonds (e.g. IRMAA in retirement, net investment income tax, etc.), but all else being equal, I'm missing some of the appeal of PRIHX.
As of Sept 30th, the effective duration of PRIHX was 4.34 years vs. 3.40 for DODLX (both per M*).
The SEC yields are 2.07% for PRIHX (as of Nov 30th), and 2.69% for DODLX (as of Sept. 30th). The latter translates to 2.04% after federal taxes of 24%, a virtual wash (albeit with a different reference date).
Where PRIHX looks better as a "regular" bond fund is in its much lower volatility (4.81 vs. 7.42 standard deviations) and much lower correlation with the equity market (0.21 coeff of correlation vs. 0.71 for DODLX), per Portfolio Visualizer.
As you wrote elsewhere, DODLX shifted 20% of its portfolio (into corporate bonds) in the first half of the year. It's a fund that (tries to) go where the market is moving, so I'm not particularly concerned about retrenchment. Though I do appreciate the desire to take some money off the table from the winners.

It's unclear what risk is to be mitigated. LLJB speaks of " put[ting] your kids in equities ... and very likely have dug them[] a deep hole after 7 years."
LLJB then goes on to put this in the context of sequence of return risk: "because they got unlucky with sequence of return risk." By definition, sequence of return risk assumes that you do not have insight into the sequence of returns.
Are we talking about sequence of return risk, where one does not know or have reliable guidance into the order of returns and where one may be lucky or unlucky, or are we talking about working with reliable guidance?
Given that this thread is about sequence of return risk, that this risk was specifically mentioned by LLJB, and that the article LLJB cited explicitly described accumulation phase sequence of return risk, I took "risk" to mean sequence of return risk. In that context, the unlucky sequence of returns that GMO predicted is merely one of many possible outcomes. One that will be realized "If they're right ...", but one with no greater likelihood than any other sequence of returns.
As I wrote before, if we're talking about a lump sum investment, there is no sequence of return risk. But there is in the accumulation phase if money is being added periodically. Here's a piece by Kitces on sequence of return risk in the accumulation phase.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/retirement-date-risk-how-sequence-of-returns-risk-impacts-a-pre-retirement-accumulator/
He writes:

the fundamental point is simply this: for investors that have no cash flows coming out or going in to a portfolio [lump sum investment], it’s feasible to just wait for long-term returns to manifest. However, for retirees taking distributions, or accumulators making contributions, the cash flows moving in/out of the portfolio introduce a sequence of return risk

Emphasis in original.
I also implied that accumulation phase glide paths are designed to mitigate the impact of poor returns when your portfolio is larger, i.e. to mitigate sequence of return risks. Kitces concurs:

the reality is that target date funds (or lifecycle funds), which typically take equity exposure off the table in the years leading up to retirement, arguably really do have it right when it comes to asset allocation for accumulators. Reducing equity exposure in the final years – as the portfolio gets largest and most sensitive to return volatility – is an excellent means to narrow down retirement date risk.

OTOH, should one assume "that GMO predictions are truly useful" then we're out of the realm of sequence of return risk and into market timing. Perhaps slow motion timing (seven years), but timing nevertheless.

"My take is So what? 40y??"
It sounds like you are thinking about a single 40 year investment. Of course if we invest money in something with an average return of X% over 40 years, it doesn't matter what the sequence of returns is. We wind up with (1 + X%) ^ 40 times the original investment regardless of how the annual returns are sequenced.
In the real world, workers invest money periodically over their careers. Sequence of return matters.
One way of thinking of the accumulation phase is as a decumulation phase in reverse. Run time backwards from point of retirement to point of hire. Instead of adding money periodically, as time goes backward you're withdrawing money periodically. (I have this mental image of someone walking backward out of a brokerage with a check in hand.)
If you have good years shortly before retirement (or shortly "after" retirement as time rolls backward), you do better. What "better" means here is that your pot at the point of retirement is larger. If you have bad years near retirement, you do worse.
This makes sense because the closer you are to retirement, the larger the portfolio and the more a bad year will hurt. This is the idea in using glide paths prior to retirement.

Attempting to sustain a fixed living standard using distributions from a portfolio of volatile assets is an inefficient retirement income strategy. This is a unique source of sequence risk.
There are four general techniques for managing sequence of returns risk in retirement:

the-hidden-peril-in-sequence-of-returns-risk

I have been using great risk reward funds since 2000 but in the last several years and especially since retirement I just sell to cash when I see extreme market conditions. It's the only sure way to protect my portfolio. When a black swan shows up is years such as 2008,2009,2020 there is no way to know what will work and what used to work before may not work in the future.

Thank you, FD1000,
I agree that each bear market is different and they are less predictable with massive quantities of stimulus. I reduce my exposure to stocks to 25% following Benjamin Graham’s guidelines late in the business cycle. MFO has been great to identify lower risk funds. I am pleased with the low downturns in my portfolio which is rising slow and steady.

Hello,
I'm new to this forum and curious which funds do you and others own?

I have been using great risk reward funds since 2000 but in the last several years and especially since retirement I just sell to cash when I see extreme market conditions. It's the only sure way to protect my portfolio. When a black swan shows up is years such as 2008,2009,2020 there is no way to know what will work and what used to work before may not work in the future.

Thank you, FD1000,
I agree that each bear market is different and they are less predictable with massive quantities of stimulus. I reduce my exposure to stocks to 25% following Benjamin Graham’s guidelines late in the business cycle. MFO has been great to identify lower risk funds. I am pleased with the low downturns in my portfolio which is rising slow and steady.

Hi Lynn, great article.
I have been using great risk reward funds since 2000 but in the last several years and especially since retirement I just sell to cash when I see extreme market conditions. It's the only sure way to protect my portfolio. When a black swan shows up is years such as 2008,2009,2020 there is no way to know what will work and what used to work before may not work in the future.
I have several criteria but the easiest one is the VIX, when...VIX>30 get ready...VIX>35 start selling...VIX>40 rapid selling. The catch of course is not to stay out for longer term. I have been out of the market about 3% of the times in the last 10 years.
As you said correctly: "All Weather" Permanent Portfolio created by Harry Brown in 1980's. It was made of four equal weighted assets of gold, cash, stocks, and long term treasuries. It's performance has worked well in some environments and not others. This portfolio performance was poor since 2010 (PRPFX isn't exactly it but close enough) compared to VBINX(60/40) and VWINX(40/60) see (link).

I too want to thank you for all your hard work and interesting ideas. As a recent retiree I am concerned about the potential for significant losses early in retirement that will never be made up, having lived through 1974 and later bear markets. Many other portfolio recommendations ( ie AAII) claim that there has never been a five year period of negative returns on various indices so if you just can leave your equity position alone and have a 5 year supply of resources, don't worry.
My math show the negative period is in fact longer but it really depends on "hanging on" as you see your net worth drop by 30 or 50%. This works far better at age 25 or 35 than 65, believe me, and almost all of the previous periods did not start from such insane valuations.
The only concern I have with your suggestions is Hussman. Many of us were quite convinced Hussman knew what he was doing with HSGFX in the run up the 2008 but his fund did especially poorly since, and I can't say I feel comfortable believing him now. There is very little recent data ( since June) on HSTRX even on his web page. The data on M* is equally unhelpful.
As for Gold, I have owned a small % for years as inflation hedge. Seems to work OK although some mining stocks would pay a dividend

RMD distributions
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/05/strategicrmds.asp?utm_campaign=quote-yahoo&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral
Stay safe, Derf

I own Oakmark funds, both in taxable and Roth accounts. Have long been a fan of the firm and their process, and more concentrated portfolios.
OAKBX appears to have really lagged a surprising number of "usual suspect" actively managed funds over a moderate time period. At one time I thought OAKBX would be one of the folds I'd hold until well into retirement; maybe I still will, but I have reduced my position there substantially.
I have posted here how OAKEX (which I also used to hold both in Roth and taxable) has really been lackluster vis-a-vis any other number of actively-managed competitors. I haven't held it for ages and doubt I will return.
I still hold OAKIX. I have held OAKGX in taxable and non-taxable, and may do so again.
There's not a lot of active managers who wow me at the moment; I try to be reasonable on timelines, because a value mindset has kept me in markets when others I know have panicked. I look harder now at indexing than I did years ago, but I haven't fully drank that Kool-Aid yet.

Good article. I've traveled a lot. I used school and then work as the means to do it. Living in places for a few years at a time, like a serial-location monogamist. When, after a few years into retirement, the time to leave that safe and secure address came, I knew it. Because it wasn't safe and secure, anymore. CRIME! So, I could not let inertia hold me there any longer. Family connections provided a new opportunity. And the marriage part? I still don't have to like it, but by now, I'm accustomed to the way my wife "communicates." Her ability to plan ahead seems to have a three week limit into the future. Even about major stuff. There are things I can easily agree to. But I have to say "no" to the long-term items on her wish-list which she seems to think are short-term items. Because "long-term" is not a thing she comprehends. ;) Changes? I can enjoy the beach again, since I discovered what water shoes are. The rest is easy: I need to get up to DO stuff only rarely. I LIKE that! I'll be so glad for LIVE music again, and the LIVE opera-on-screen, when covid is behind us. I use the local library a lot. I learn on YouTube. For FREE. And I give myself permission not to respond when my wife reminds me that she doesn't like the fact that she still has to work--- at age 47. :) LOL.

There are many wise and thoughtful contributions from several of the varsity team here on MFO. When I held one of the Fidelity Asset Manager funds way back when, then OAKBX, and then BRUFX, I believed (probably naïvely) that what I had were "all-weather" funds. The past few years have demonstrated that allocation funds work great when markets are "behaving" as they usually have. Interest rates and rates of inflation rose and fell with a certain regularity. Value stocks and growth stocks alternated with being the flavor of the year or two, but there was an alternation. Nowadays, interest rates remain far below historical levels and value securities can't find even hold-the-nose buyers. My thought is that the weather has changed so drastically that it's pointless to expect a balanced fund to thrive in this climate.
While I hold PTIAX and TMSRX in my taxable portfolio, what I expect from them is not that their managers hedge their stock holdings as a balanced fund manager might do, but that they will provide a steady stream of income or capital appreciation that does not depend on the performance of my stocks and equity funds. I have a small slice of RPGAX, but no other allocation fund in my taxable portfolio. As for my TIAA retirement account, I let Vanguard's retirement target fund managers decide what bonds to buy. The only decision I make is on the year (2025, 2030, etc.). Those mixed asset funds-of-funds represent approximately 40% of the portfolio, which is tilted farther towards equities than most 78-year-olds can tolerate. Not advice, just observations.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/so-much-of-retirement-planning-is-wishful-thinking-what-ive-learned-after-3-years-of-actually-being-retired-11607448083?siteid=yhoof2
Stay Safe, Derf