@Hank I share your frustration. I am early in the "distribution phase" and take seriously the models that show major losses early in retirement are very hard to make up. I dont see much out there that has a margin of safety needed to avoid a 30% haircut. FUTY crashed with everything else in February.
The fact that the stock market has made a V shaped recovery does not mean the next leg down will snap back as quickly. Conservative dividend stocks didn't drop as much so I am putting most of my equity exposure ( still a low %) there and trying to find alternatives from the MFO commentary and staying in short term bonds.
I also think Energy will eventually have to rebound. Everyone hates this sector, but buying well capitalized companies or conservative funds will likely be smart in two or three years

Our state retirement board makes the plans.
We have both Fido and TRP as plan providers (VALIC was dropped a few years back) ... I found it noteworthy that a) 3 of TIAA's most prominent VA offerings were nixed from *their* plan offerings, and b) replaced with funds that were higher-cost.
I always find it fascinating the seemingly random nature of independent fund picks in plans ... you'd think plans would stick with big names like TRP, Vanguard, AF, Blackstone, etc. Victory RS? I never heard of them.

Today I received a note that Maryland's ORP (403b) program is changing some of its TIAA-CREF lineup. Of particular note is that although TIAA CREF is one of the 2 plan providers, they're dumping CREF Stock, Growth, and Global Equity VAs for actively managed funds. To my amazement, the 3 replacement funds all have noticeably higher ERs:
Old ...
CREF Stock Account Ticker Symbol: QCSTIX Net Expense Ratio: 0.30%
CREF Growth Account Ticker Symbol: QCGRIX Net Expense Ratio: 0.23%
CREF Global Equities Account Ticker Symbol: QCGRIX Net Expense Ratio: 0.27%
New ...
Hartford Core Equity Fund Ticker Symbol: HAITX Net Expense Ratio: 0.39%
T. Rowe Price Instl Large Cap Growth Fund Ticker Symbol: TRLGX Net Expense Ratio: 0.56%
Victory RS Global Fund Ticker Symbol: RGGRX Net Expense Ratio: 0.55%
They did swap VINIX (.04) with lower-priced VIIIX (.02) for a passive index, which was nice to see.
Granted, I am all-in with the LCV AF RWMGX (.29) in my 403B and would be glad to start regularly putting some money into TRLGX now that I have access to a solid TRP fund there. That said, while none of these fund fees are especially egregious in my view, I still find a retirement plans' move toward funds with *higher* ERs to be rather odd, especially in 2020 ... and articularly for a state university system that normally qualifies for the lowest-cost class in funds.
(Yes I'm making enquiries.)
.... which reminds me again why I don't like or trust state investment boards or advisors.

Likewise, I neglected to mention that even IRAs inherited from the same person can't be combined if they are of different types. However, there may still be a way to combine accounts (again, assuming inherited from the same person), because some of them are 403(b)s.
Here's a 2016 article from Kitces that covers rolling over inherited 403(b)s. Take it with a grain of salt, as the more recent SECURE Act has changed some things (e.g. eliminating stretch IRAs if the original owner died after 2019, but extending the non-stretch period allowed from five years to ten years).
https://www.kitces.com/blog/non-spouse-beneficiary-stretch-of-inherited-ira-and-401k-or-403b-employer-retirement-plans/
One of the things Kitces points out is that one has (or had?) the option of doing a rollover Roth conversion of the 403(b). That is, rolling the inherited T-403(b) directly into an inherited Roth IRA. Of course taxes would be due upon conversion. This could provide Mrs. Ruffles a way to increase the assets in that small inherited Roth IRA, assuming both the 403b and Roth IRA were inherited from the same person.
Of course this would not eliminate RMDs.
Even if the 403(b)s could not be combined with existing inherited IRAs (Roth or Traditional), rolling them over could still simplify administration. OTOH, Mrs. Ruffles may have investment options in the 403(b)s that are unique to them (e.g. stable value or TREA, or R6 share class of funds, or ...).

I know I can’t avoid a drawdown but I want to try and keep it manageable to one that will recover in a reasonable amount of time. While this account is a tiny portion of her portfolio, she doesn’t like seeing the balance drop precipitously. She’s happier hitting a solid double than taking a chance on striking out going for a grand slam.
As she’s still working, she doesn’t need (or even want) the RMD (and its taxes) from this or her other much larger inherited accounts but just wants to make sure the entire nest egg stays relatively healthy until she reaches retirement.

This helps quite a bit in understanding the situation. I gather that Mrs. Ruffles did not inherit these IRAs from Mr. Ruffles (you), so she can't roll them into her own IRAs.
If she inherited multiple IRAs from the same person, she could combine them into a larger inherited IRA. That wouldn't solve the problem of having to take RMDs, but it could simplify and/or give her more flexibility.
As @Graust points out, thinking in terms of investment stability, she can virtually ignore the fact that there are RMDs. RMDs are more of a tax event than a forced change of investments.
Regarding specific investment suggestions to achieve "doubles", you've already gotten some good suggestions and I'm sure you'll get some more.

Thanks all.
BRUFX is out because of its standalone status. I have PRWCX in my IRA but there’s no way to get it in this account because of the soft close.
@catch22 I know I can’t avoid a drawdown but I want to try and keep it manageable to one that will recover in a reasonable amount of time. While this account is a tiny portion of her portfolio, she doesn’t like seeing the balance drop precipitously. She’s happier hitting a solid double than taking a chance on striking out going for a grand slam.
As she’s still working, she doesn’t need (or even want) the RMD (and its taxes) from this or her other much larger inherited accounts but just wants to make sure the entire nest egg stays relatively healthy until she reaches retirement.

A young investor should be at 70/30, maybe even 80/20. I started investing in my late 30" and was at %100 stocks. After about 5 years I changed to about 85-90% stocks and only about 8 years prior to retirement I changed gradually but rapidly to more bonds when I was sure to hit my retirement date.

Not fantasyland huh? Consider these points:
1. 76 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck
2. 62 percent of Americans have less than 1,000 dollars in their savings account
3. 65 percent of those 65 and older have less than $25,000 in retirement
4. 21 percent of all Americans have no savings account at all
5. 43 percent of American households spend more money than they make each month
6. Middle-class Americans today make up a minority of the population. In 1971, 61 percent of all Americans lived in middle-class households
7. In the last 14 years, median income of middle-class households declined by 4 percent
8. Median wealth for middle class households dropped by an astounding 28 percent between 2001 and 2013
9. Middle class take-home pay before expenses has plummeted to just 43 percent of gross pay, compared to 1970 when the middle class took home approximately 62 percent of all income
10. There are still 900,000 fewer middle-class jobs in America than there were when the last recession began
11. According to the Social Security Administration, 51 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year
So yeah, I think saving $750/mo is out of reach for a large percentage of the US population.
More Here

The above report is from 2015. What happened to Median household income in the United States from 1990 to 2019? It went up very nicely from 2015 to 2019 under you know what president (link)
(link)

Tomorrow (September 30) Price’s 40/60 conservative balanced fund TRRIX celebrates its 18th birthday. Since inception, Lipper shows the fund averaging 6.25% - not too far from the 7% figure being batted around here. That was than this is now? Think again. Over the past 5 years the return is even better - averaging 6.47%. Lipper
My own take (based on recollections) is that 7% was pretty easily attainable for a conservative investor in the 70s thru the 90s and up until roughly 5-10 years ago when bond yields began to scrape bottom - where they remain today.
It’s hard finding anything good on the subject. Google it and you’re apt to get a bunch of investment advertisements promising to bring you remarkable returns. Sure! I’m linking an article from The Motley Fool I think does a decent job on the 7% subject. Fool

Not fantasyland huh? Consider these points:
1. 76 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck
2. 62 percent of Americans have less than 1,000 dollars in their savings account
3. 65 percent of those 65 and older have less than $25,000 in retirement
4. 21 percent of all Americans have no savings account at all
5. 43 percent of American households spend more money than they make each month
6. Middle-class Americans today make up a minority of the population. In 1971, 61 percent of all Americans lived in middle-class households
7. In the last 14 years, median income of middle-class households declined by 4 percent
8. Median wealth for middle class households dropped by an astounding 28 percent between 2001 and 2013
9. Middle class take-home pay before expenses has plummeted to just 43 percent of gross pay, compared to 1970 when the middle class took home approximately 62 percent of all income
10. There are still 900,000 fewer middle-class jobs in America than there were when the last recession began
11. According to the Social Security Administration, 51 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year
So yeah, I think saving $750/mo is out of reach for a large percentage of the US population.
More Here

CDs (3.0 to 3.55% APY rolling off in ~3.5 years), 77%
on line savings, 5%, currently paying 0.60% APY
Dominion DERI account, 6%, currently paying 1.75% APY
IQDAX, Infinity Q, 5%
FPFIX, FPA Flexible Income Fund, 2%
ROSOX, Rondure Overseas Fund, 2%
AKREX, AKRE Focus Fund, 1%, phasing out aggressively
TGUNX, TCW Premier New America, 1%, phasing in during down days, will take this up to ~5% of portfolio
AWK, American Water, 1%
Obviously very conservative, current portfolio supports lifestyle/expenses, me thinks current market is a complete farce due to gov't intervention/manipulation and that within 5 years we will all be "investing" in sports gambling thru our phones to fund our retirement
Do own two homes clear, likely going to sell home in high tax, mis managed Illinois within a year or two, maybe much sooner and move to other home in the mountains of NC
Younger wife still working, good salary, me...not sure if I'm retired or not, not working, not looking but kind of miss the corporate battles but then during a nice day hiking or on the beach don't miss it at all, I'm in my late 50s
Posting for entertainment purposes only.
Good Luck, Good Health to all, go Vote as you see fit,
Baseball_Fan

Just wondering on your rationale for selling AKREX? By my reckoning it may be the fund of the decade when taking risk into account.

We have transferred our TRP retirement accounts to two separate brokerages. It was pretty straightforward after filling out the paperwork online. We transferred our TRP funds were in-kind to the new brokerages since they were all closed funds. Fidelity was quickest while Vanguard took several week longer.

Yes! I wanted to confirm TRP did participate in ACATS and was looking for example where IRA Account was transferred from TRP. I'm paranoid of me or TRP messing up closing account and giving me a check which I have to then send to broker.
Thank you so much!
And thank you MSF. I just didn't know TRP qualified as "broker". As long as its possible I'm good. I'm okay money going as cash to brokerage.
If anyone curious why I'm doing it, I'm convinced I can make this money grow faster selling puts like I've been doing last 5 months in my regular account and I don't have to worry about taxes.

We have transferred our TRP retirement accounts to two separate brokerages. It was pretty straightforward after filling out the paperwork online. We transferred our TRP funds were in-kind to the new brokerages since they were all closed funds. Fidelity was quickest while Vanguard took several week longer.

A pretty obvious academic exercise, but basically a straw man.

The key, here, is the ... sentence: once a portfolio is going to be rebalanced every year, the impact of decision rules is made null and void and the buckets are essentially just an asset allocation mirage, because the total amount of withdrawals is always the same (regardless of which asset classes it’s taken from) and the final allocation is always the same (due to the rebalancing).

The latter part of the sentence provides the explanation of why the two approaches come out the same. Hence my characterization of the substantially equal results as pretty obvious. However, the assumption that the portfolio be rebalanced annually, even if stocks and bonds are both down, is not realistic. Hence I take this theoretical equality to be a straw man.
If the cash bucket is to be replenished annually come hell or high water, what's the point in keeping more than a year's worth of expenditures in that bucket? In the real world, that cash bucket serves as a buffer for extended periods when both stocks and bonds are down. As Christine Benz describes the cash replenishing process:

In a good year for stocks, like 2013 or 2014, the retiree will be selling highly appreciated parts of the equity portfolio. If bonds have gained at the expense of stocks, the retiree would be lightening up on bonds. And if neither stocks nor bonds had appreciated, the retiree might allow bucket 1 to be drawn down, or even move into "next-line reserves" in the bond portfolio.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/754593/retirement-bucket-basics-a-qa-with-morningstars-ch
You might have better luck with Moshe Milovsky's work, since he looks specifically at using the cash bucket without replenishing in down years. In a simplistic example, he shows that in the worst case (when the cash bucket is too small) the bucket approach can leave one with less. Fair enough, but is that an argument against the bucket approach or for allocating an adequate cash bucket?
He goes on to observe that in his example "there is a 60 percent chance [that a bucket approach] will be better off and a 40 percent chance [that a single balanced fund] will be better off. Indeed, the odds might favor [the bucket approach], but this is not a guaranteed way to avoid a poor sequence of returns."
https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2007/06/01/lesson-5-spending-buckets-and-financial-placebos/
P.S. Kitces describes the superiority of the bucket approach:

[A]s advocates of the strategy often point out, the bucket approach is arguably superior from the perspective of client psychology; it fits far better into our mental accounting heuristics, and makes the portfolio easier for clients to understand. Furthermore, clients may have an easier time staying the course through market volatility when they can clearly see where their cash flows will come from in the coming years, and that they truly have a decade or more to allow for any declines in the equity bucket to recover.
...
[E]ven if a bucket strategy merely produces the exact same asset allocation and portfolio construction, but does so in a manner that makes it easier for clients to stick with and implement the strategy, it is arguably a superior one.

Your comments are pointed, ego-centric and certainly not generic. Don't post to any of mine. Please :)

ego-centric, wow, what a guy.
I have been reading plenty of articles and research about the bucket system and can't see its necessity and superiority.
Kitces is one of my favorite writers. See his (article)
quote below

many advisors and their clients use strategies that will avoid taking distributions from asset classes like equities during down years – for instance, setting aside “buckets” as a reserve against market crashes, and/or creating a series of “decision rules” that might simply state outright that equities will only be sold if they’re up, otherwise bonds are liquidated instead, and cash/Treasury bills will be used if everything else is down at once.
Yet when such a decision-rules strategy is paired with simple rebalancing, it turns out that the outcome is no better than merely managing the portfolio on a total return basis without the decision rules at all! The key, as it turns out, is that rebalancing alone already has an astonishingly powerful effect to help avoid unfavorable liquidations, as the process systematically ensures that the investments that are up (the most) are sold, and the ones that are down (the most) are actually bought instead! Which means in the end, we may not be giving rebalancing nearly the credit it deserves to accomplish similar – or even better – results than buckets and decision rules alone, and that such approaches are better purposed as explanatory tools for clients than actual systems for generating cash flows in retirement!

That alleged TR advantage is premised on the basis of never touching your balance and allowing it to just grow and grow and grow. Tell me, who does that? Who just lets it sit there forever and ever? This constant battle between dividend growth/income focused investors and TR investors is a total waste of time and nonsense. Who cares as long as the investor is getting what they want.
Sure I can sell shares but there are no guaranties that I will always be selling them at an advantage. Similarly theres no guarantee that a dividend is safe and secure forever but it's more likely. And no where is it written that all income investors go after higher yields all the time.

IMO M* is almost always negative about dividend investors. One of the reasons I stopped subscribing. Seems to me that their TR story is wrapped up in the market of the 80's - 90's they grew up with.
On your other topic:
When it gets to the stage that you have to sell retirement assets because of need, or legal requirement, this is where I think about turning our IRA's into annuities. My wife is already in the TIAA-CREF ecosystem. And theoretically she will out live me.
The accumulation of retirement assets phase is one thing. The liquidation of those assets in the best possible way over the next thirty years is another phase altogether.

Geez - Looks like I stumbled into some extra work.
74, single, retired 22 years. Pension from State of MI in the upper 40s with a 3% annual increase on the original “base” amount. So the 3% annual increase doesn’t compound. Still it’s helpful. That’s an option I paid for in the working years. Social Security adds a bit more but only a fraction of what the pension garners. Had a 403B in workplace dating to the mid 70s, and converted it to IRA after retirement. Own a home with small mortgage and 10 years remaining. Plan to pay it off sooner so that the current payment will convert to a annuity-like income stream. No hurry, as the mortgage rate is well below what my funds generate.
Most years I draw 5-7% from investments to supplement the above mentioned income stream. And roughly every 5-6 years I’ll pull a larger amount out for major expenses like a new vehicle. The original nest-egg has more than doubled over those years (in nominal terms only) despite taking annual distributions. About 70% now in a Roth from 3 post-retirement conversions. I’m slightly more aggressive in the Roth. Some funds like TMSRX are held in both the Roth and Traditional IRA. The Roth is spread directly among 4 fund houses. The Traditional is 100% at TRP and really simplifies the annual RMD calculations.
I’ve always believed in diversifying not just among equity funds, but also into different asset classes, into “oddball” funds (like TMSRX, PRPFX) that might hold up better during an equity rout, and among three or more different fund companies (currently 4). My best guess is my holdings won’t suffer more than a 20% drop in any given year, nor lose more than one-third of their value over a multi-year stretch. That’s merely a guess. I’m comfortable with that degree of potential loss. Being invested directly with several houses is a throwback to earlier years when that was more common. I feel it exerts discipline on me not to “shop around” excessively among a near infinite number of fund offerings out there today.
I don’t run the M* analysis which breaks down total holdings into various assets as @Crash appears to have done. I have my own assessment of what each fund is likely to contribute (or take away from) the portfolio. So each fund is a separate entity with risk / benefit perimeters based on nearly 50 years investing in funds. I’ve always tried to have during retirement an “auto-pilot” portfolio that needs little tinkering. The 5 sleeves are: Balanced Funds (25%), Diversified Income (25%), Alternative Investments (25%), Real Assets (10%) Cash & Speculative (15%). Currently that last one is 2/3 in cash equivalents and 1/3 in 3 speculative equity fund holdings. So net-net cash is at 10%.
I don’t know if this helps anyone else. More important than what I or another here does is the importance of having some kind of plan. Once you have a plan continue to monitor performance and refine it as necessary. Should go without saying that I’ve gradually nudged the plan into a more conservative position with increasing years. My idea of a “good day” is beating the return on TRRIX, a 40/60 balanced fund I’ve long tracked, but don’t own. So If TRRIX falls 5% one day and my holdings only fall 4%, it’s been a successful day. I strongly recommend finding some fund you admire and which meets your risk profile. Compare your returns to that, not to what some anonymous poster on a board says he earned. You don’t know if it’s true or not. And you don’t know or fully appreciate the degree of risk involved in producing that return.
Best investing wishes to everyone.

CDs (3.0 to 3.55% APY rolling off in ~3.5 years), 77%
on line savings, 5%, currently paying 0.60% APY
Dominion DERI account, 6%, currently paying 1.75% APY
IQDAX, Infinity Q, 5%
FPFIX, FPA Flexible Income Fund, 2%
ROSOX, Rondure Overseas Fund, 2%
AKREX, AKRE Focus Fund, 1%, phasing out aggressively
TGUNX, TCW Premier New America, 1%, phasing in during down days, will take this up to ~5% of portfolio
AWK, American Water, 1%
Obviously very conservative, current portfolio supports lifestyle/expenses, me thinks current market is a complete farce due to gov't intervention/manipulation and that within 5 years we will all be "investing" in sports gambling thru our phones to fund our retirement
Do own two homes clear, likely going to sell home in high tax, mis managed Illinois within a year or two, maybe much sooner and move to other home in the mountains of NC
Younger wife still working, good salary, me...not sure if I'm retired or not, not working, not looking but kind of miss the corporate battles but then during a nice day hiking or on the beach don't miss it at all, I'm in my late 50s
Posting for entertainment purposes only.
Good Luck, Good Health to all, go Vote as you see fit,
Baseball_Fan

"I do have a pet peeve in that it seems to me 90% of our allocation and fund discussions (for a very long time now) omit reference to the type of individual who might benefit from this or that particular type fund."
66, retired, with 20% of a $1M invested. Yes, in round numbers, my entire pot is something more than $200,000.00 right now. A quarter million is in sight, but I'll never get there. I'm MARRIED. ;) What I need from my allocation fund (PRWCX) is great management, performance, and the sense of reassurance I get knowing that in not-so-good years, I'll be getting SOMETHING from the bond portion of the portfolio. As for BRUFX: wife's Trad. IRA. Moved it from 403b with MassMutual. Those suck-holes charge too big of a redemption fee. And lately, the news broke that they are selling their retirement sleeve to another outfit, anyhow. But BRUFX was chosen for stellar consistency, safety, and solid performance--- even though it won't ever "shoot the lights out."

Only 7 holdings. Cut way down on stocks, in retirement. But gotta have enough in stocks to MATTER, and to keep up with inflation.
>No RMDs yet. 6 years to go. But I've begun to tap my biggest holding on a schedule, just once per year--- providing Mr. Market is in a good mood. Otherwise, we can certainly live without it. And I only want to take an amount that I figure will GROW BACK, so it comes out "even-steven." And we're in the 10% bracket, so there's not much of a reason NOT to do it; plus, I have $5,000 in NON-DEDUCTIBLE IRA contributions. I'd like to get my hands on that money, on a schedule, as part of the once-yearly "raid" on the biggest of our holdings.
In order, biggest to smallest:
PRWCX .....30%
RPSIX .....27%
PRSNX ......22%
PTIAX .........8% (non-retirement.)
PRIDX ......6.60%
BRUFX .......4% (wife's IRA, TRAD.)
PRDSX ........2%
57 bonds.
35 stocks
6 cash (among the funds)
2 "other."
The objective is to live comfortably, not exhorbitantly. Enjoy life here in the tropics. The damn Covid killed the opera season, and that sucks. I can't see traveling at all, wearing a f*****g mask. It (mask-wearing) must be done, but I'm not going to CREATE situations that will make me miserable, like a long flight back over to the Mainland. There's enough really stupid people, doing really stupid things, always in the seat right next to you, anyhow. Even in 1st Class. Like the moron next to me last time, who decided the entire cabin needed to be afflicted with the industrial-strength menthol aroma he was inhaling via his nostrils through some stupid contraption made for that purpose--- as if he were sitting alone and in his own living room.
Wifey and I have different tastes. "Opposites attract." The last event we went to TOGETHER was in Honolulu to see "Big Head Todd and the Monsters." It was just ok. A lot of the music was TOO loud and cranky. But THIS one is really good, I think:

Follow-up
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1580733/000119312520250984/d42150d497.htm
497 1 d42150d497.htm BMO LGM FRONTIER MARKETS EQUITY FUND
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration No. 333-193915
BMO LGM Frontier Markets Equity Fund
Supplement dated September 22, 2020 to the Prospectus
dated December 27, 2019, as supplemented
Fund Liquidation and Elimination of Quarterly Repurchase Policy
Shareholders of the BMO LGM Frontier Markets Equity Fund (the “Fund”) have approved the proposal to liquidate and dissolve the Fund. On September 30, 2020 the Fund expects to make its first liquidating distribution to shareholders. The initial liquidating distribution is expected to comprise approximately 90% of the Fund’s assets. The Fund will continue to make liquidating distributions quarterly until all Fund assets are distributed to shareholders and all shares are redeemed. Shareholders (other than tax-qualified plans or tax-exempt accounts) will recognize gain or loss for tax purposes on the redemption of their Fund shares in the liquidation.
As a result of actions by the Board of Trustees and shareholders, the Fund will no longer invest pursuant to its investment strategies or achieve its investment objective of capital appreciation.
Shareholders also have approved the elimination of the Fund’s fundamental policy of making quarterly repurchase offers. Accordingly, the Fund is discontinuing that process.
Important Information for Retirement Plan Investors
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares or of any IRA or retirement plan distribution, the ability to roll over any distribution, and any tax-savings options you may have. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you may be able to roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account. If you are eligible to do so, the rollover must occur within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income. You can make only one tax-free rollover from an IRA to another IRA in any 12-month period (regardless of the number of IRAs you own). Any subsequent distribution of untaxed amounts from an IRA within the 12-month period would be included in your gross income, and may be subject to a 10% early withdrawal tax. The previously described limitation allowing only one tax-free rollover per 12-month period does not apply to (1) rollovers from traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs (conversions), (2) trustee-to-trustee transfers to another IRA, (3) eligible rollovers from an IRA to a retirement plan, (4) eligible rollovers from a retirement plan to an IRA, and (5) eligible rollovers from a retirement plan to a retirement plan.
Please retain this Supplement with your Prospectus for future reference.