I was also distressed that TDA bought Scottrade, so distressed that I immediately began partial account transfers to my other brokerages. I wanted to avoid a financial Dunkirk by rescuing my funds from TDA !

I split my risks. Moved my wife's IRA to Schwab when TDA bought Scottrade. Now my IRA will move automatically to Schwab.
And BIVRX STILL does not show NTF at Schwab.

Thanks @bee. This is what I most enjoy about MFO - the free exchange of ideas. I am not a financial advisor or expert. Just my “gut” reactions (worth maybe a nickel).
#1: Put It All In One Fund - Not me!
#2: Create Your Own Yield - I like the term “stream of return” better. One needs to have a reasonably steady stream of return in retirement as averaged out over the short / intermediate term. This may be accomplished with a broadly diversified portfolio and some prudent hedging and / or cash reserves. Unless it’s a tax consideration, I don’t think it matters whether that SOR comes from “income” or capital gains - particularly in tax-deferred accounts.
#3: Don’t Buy A Long-Term Care Policy - I’m agnostic on this one. Don’t know enough about the subject.
#4: Cut Your Portfolio Management Costs - Yes. Of course. But I won’t be driven into index funds. I still retain confidence that the good actively managed funds will do comparably well over longer time spans, in spite of indexing being all the rave today. Active is what I grew up with. I’ll stick with what I know (but have owned index funds on some rare occasions).
#5: Pay Off Your Mortgage Rapidly - Both sides are right. No correct answer. I’m happy to be carrying a small 3% fixed-rate mortgage on main residence. Also own a couple parcels that are paid off. Knock on wood - but I’ve been able to pull much higher than 3% annual on my (tax sheltered) conservative investments over more than 20 years in retirement. There’s an added advantage in having more liquidity at your disposal than if that money were sitting in the home. Like I said ... I can see both sides of this one.
#6: Moonlight - Hell no (not me)! - but others will feel differently. I’ll say here that I perform a lot of home maintenance which others would pay to have done. So, in a sense, I am working. But it’s my schedule - not somebody else’s.

Articles in The Economist and the Financial Times are also UK articles. That doesn't make them of less interest to US investors. It's only when they discuss specific foreign securities and that fact is not flagged up front that readers can feel misled. That's not the case with this article, which offers general observations.
Sure it mentions UK politics: "greater clarity regarding a potential Brexit outcome (following Boris Johnson’s convincing victory in the UK election)". But it puts that in a global context: "this sent shares to record highs in many parts of the world." It even mentions "the US Federal Reserve’s policy reversal."
So don't worry just because a publication is not based in the US. But do try to take a quick glance through an article, and think twice about posting if, say, all it talks about are UK gilts or perpetual bonds.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinsosnoff/2020/01/22/how-to-maintain-and-compound-inherited-wealth/#3f98161f2f58
How To Maintain And Compound Inherited Wealth
First, a brief history of financial markets:
Stocks beat bonds over a 25- to 50-year time span.
Volatility of fixed income investments can equal that of equities in both directions.
The market (S&P 500 Index) can sell at book value, now at two times book. Bond yields can range from 1% to even 15% when inflation rages.
Thirty-year Treasuries, currently yield 2%, but in 1982 during FRB tightening hit 15%. Five-year paper, a comparable trajectory.
Inflation, now at 2%, rose to 8%, early eighties. It made our country uncompetitive, as in General Motors.
Dollar depreciation or appreciation can range between minus 25% to plus 25%.
Deep-seated financial risk lurks in almost every type of asset. Banks capitalized at $200 billion can self-destruct with hidden bad loans. American International Group needed a government package of $180 billion to remain solvent after guaranteeing sub-prime loans.
Municipalities, even countries, in turn can bankrupt themselves. Consider Greece and Venezuela. Brazil, Iceland and Thailand were world destabilizing forces through their overleveraged banks even though their GDPs were miniscule. Chicago, Detroit, Sacramento, possibly New Jersey currently and New York City some 20 years ago saw the wolf at their door.
Puerto Rico now hovers near basket case status, even shamelessly falsifying their hurricane mortality numbers.

This was good. No-nonsense, simple, straightforward, without insulting the reader. Even a beginner could grasp it--- if that beginner is the sort who's not ALLERGIC to things financial. There's a lotta that around. Thanks, @bee. As for me: I can't bear to keep things THAT simple. But I do have some proportions in mind, to aim for. I'm comfortably NEAR those round numbers I've set for myself: 35% global stocks. 65% bonds of different sorts. (Though I don't own any EM bonds anymore. I have found other, less risky bonds that deliver decent yield--- even better monthly pay-outs than EM.) Having never built a cash position, I see that my fund managers together have got me into a 9% cash position these days. And my true allocations tonight are 33% stocks and 56% bonds. With 2% "other."

but finpr0n articles like this don't make that distinction too often, or clearly.

Sad but true. Sundays (when this went up) tend to be “lighter” reading days. That said - the article is badly (and misleadingly) titled. Being perhaps the “hottest”, “juiciest”, or “fastest moving” funds of the past few decades in no way makes them the “best.” I think readers here are smart enough to figure that out on their own.
I’d liken reading this to gazing at some photos of $200,000 sports cars you’ll never own, tropical vacation spots you’ll never visit or gorgeous women (or men, as the case might be) you’ll never meet - let alone marry. I don’t see the harm in looking - especially if you’re older than 18 and presumably competent to make decisions for yourself and to discriminate between “fluff” and serious financial journalism.
-
I’ve rechecked to make sure @equalizer posted the title correctly. He did. The article’s author is John Waggoner. His work often appeared here and on FA when he wrote for USA Today prior to retiring several years ago. Waggoner endured his share of slings and arrows back than, as many writers do, but was by and large recognized as a serious and accomplished financial writer.
“John Waggoner ... was a senior columnist for InvestmentNews and, prior to that, USA TODAY's personal finance columnist for 25 years. He has written for Morningstar, The Wall Street Journal, and Money magazine. Waggoner has also written three books on finance and investing. He has an undergraduate and graduate degree in English literature and is working on his Certified Financial Planner designation. He lives in Vienna, Virginia.” https://www.kiplinger.com/fronts/archive/bios/index.html?bylineID=532

"Soupkitchen">I have a full position in PIMIX and am debatting whether or not to invest more money in PIMIX or start a new position in JGIAX for diversification. I'm near retirement so I want to build my income stream. It seems like PIMIX is the less risky fund, but who can be sure? Most of my bonds are in plain vanilla type funds. Any advantages in diversifying into JGAIX?
Soup, I am not inclined to act like a financial advisor, and I believe the answer to your question has a lot to do with your personal portfolio objectives, how important "diversification" is to you, and what kind of risk factors enter into your decision. From a personal standpoint, I look for funds that fit my very low risk, conservative style of investing. There were several threads at M* that discussed JGIAX, JMUTX, and PUCZX, as possibilities in portfolios, often in comparison to PIMIX. My personal conclusion is that from a risk analysis, the least risky of these 4 funds is PIMIX, followed by JMUTX, JGIAX, with the most risky fund being PUCZX. At the end of calendar year 2019, I personally decided to keep PIMIX, and not add the other 3 funds to my portfolio, especially dismissing JGIAX and PUCZX as having more risk than I personally preferred. I came close to adding JMUTX as a fund to complement PIMIX, but ultimately decided to go with a lower risk non-traditional bond oef IISIX, which is very nicely diversified but fit my risk and return profile better than JMUTX. I will note that PUCZX and JGIAX produce more yield, which you may prefer, at a higher risk level than PIMIX, so it boils down to your own personal risk/return criteria for your personal portfolio.

In self defense, I don’t think anybody expects to unearth brilliant investment opportunities by subscribing to a magazine priced at $1 a month (web-based) and under $2 a month mailed to your home. Hello?
My interest in the magazine is for entertainment value. As one who seldom trades, I just find financial stuff highly interesting. That’s all. Sorta like one doesn’t have to be planning a vacation on Mars to enjoy reading astronomy. :)

Hi @dtconroe
As to the Kiplinger list; and your notation, " Over time, I have had to continually assess the amount of "risk" I am willing to take, to generate the "returns" I am willing to make." Yes, we all have to assess our risk based upon many factors.
I'm only aware of the age range of a few here at MFO; but attempt to consider the age ranges of those who may only read here and never comment. So, I consider this thread to have more value for some age groups and their risk assessments, versus others.
My only particular problem with the list, is the inclusion of "front load" funds; although many of these are available at some platforms without the load. Past this, I'm not going to challenge the list, nor other sector candidates that probably, "almost" made the list.
From a personal point for our household investments, our backgrounds are in tech. and healthcare; and from this exposure in particular, we were in a constant continuing education mode, as both areas were and continue to be, in full and never ending change.
Our investment slant has always had focus to these two growth sectors in particular; with exceptions being limited by choices via an employer offering. Yes, these areas have their quiet, lazy and sideways periods.
Overall, we still prefer growth to other investment styles; although the "risk" of a potential bigger face slap from a market pullback is present, due in part, to the larger potential gains obtained with these types of holdings.
Your point regarding risk is always valid, relative to investor "X's" overall financial circumstance.
For the young ones today, with what ever amount they can dedicate into company plans and/or a Roth, go full ahead with growth in favored sectors or broad-based. Their young age will allow them to survive a market melt/mean reversion, as their investment friend will be compounding with time in the markets and ability to continue to contribute monies going forward.
As always, remain curious in life,
Catch

@MikeM - I’d call Kiplingers mostly good “financial porn“. Nothing deep or actionable. Just a light read. I actually went with Amazon’s Kiplingers offer today thinking it would be nice to have some print copies lying around the house in addition to the constant stream of news & info on the tablet. In fairness to Kips, I believe they do have some good common sense suggestions for homeowners, consumers and the like.
Agree that Barron’s really has a lot of substance in it. But after subscribing / reading it for a couple years, I’d had my fill. And it’s not cheap (unless they send you the occasional $96 “new subscriber” promotional offer).

The Leland Reuters Family consists of three funds: Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund, Thomson Reuters Private Equity Buyout Index Fund, and Real Asset Opportunities Fund.
We’ll focus on the first of these.
Objective and Strategy
It’s complicated.
First, the TR Venture Capital Research Index looks at 22,000 U.S. firms and all of the VC/PE deals that occurred over the previous quarter, analyzes them, and places them in the seven sectors that comprise the index to see how these companies are performing and estimates their value using data stemming from IPOs, stock buybacks, and surveys.
Then, the TR Venture Capital Index (TR VC Index) seeks to replicate that risk/ return profile of the TR VC Research Index by using the same process to identify a set of publicly listed assets that when properly weighted replicate the returns of the TR VC Research Index.
Rather than investing in venture capital/private equity companies directly, the TR VC Index seeks to replicate the industry’s returns by constructing a portfolio of liquid, U.S. large cap, listed equities, (e.g., Apple, Dow Chemical, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.).
This portfolio is designed to mirror the characteristics and returns of the VC/PE markets, which is tracked and calculated by Refinitiv in the Venture Capital Research Index.

Additionally, it uses economic factors and market indicators to calculate optimal asset weights and modifies the portfolio over time to reflect changes in the venture capital universe. Small leverage is commonly used so that the tracking portfolio’s risk loadings match those of the VC/PE industry in aggregate.
The Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund acquired all of the assets and liabilities of the MPS Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Fund (the "Predecessor Fund") in a tax-free reorganization on September 24, 2015. (SAI)
Adviser: Good Harbor® Financial, LLC develops and manages a comprehensive suite of investment solutions designed to fit into a wide range of portfolios for institutions, private investors and their financial advisors. Based in Chicago, the firm provides actively managed access to a broad range of global capital markets.
Managers
Neil R. Peplinski, CFA. Managing Partner, Good Harbor Financial LLC, worked as a portfolio manager for Allstate Investments overseeing a $400 million portfolio of collateralized debt obligations. Neil earned his MBA with High Honors from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He also holds a MSEE in Electromagnetics from The University of Michigan, and a BSEE in Electromagnetics from Michigan Technological University where he graduated summa cum laude.
David Armstrong, portfolio manager. He is primarily responsible for working with advisory firms and investors to understand tactical asset allocation as they assess Good Harbor and its investment strategies. With 28 years of professional experience, David’s previous companies include Honeywell, RR Donnelley and Oracle. Prior to joining Good Harbor, he was a director of research conducting analysis on the nature and structure of competition in the credit card market for financial firms. David earned his MBA from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a BA from Knox College.
Yash Patel, CFA, Chief Operating Officer, has served as a Portfolio Manager since March 2010 at Good Harbor Financial and also serves as its Chief Operating Officer. Yash brings 14 years of professional experience to the firm. His responsibilities include the management and leadership of operations, technology, trading, and portfolio management. Prior to joining Good Harbor Financial, Yash was a quantitative equity analyst for Allstate Investments, developing and implementing model-driven trading strategies. Previous to that, he worked and consulted for hedge funds including Bridgewater Associates and Citadel Investment Group. Yash earned an MBA with Honors from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a BS CSE from The Ohio State University.
Managements stake in the fund
As of 9/30/18 (the latest available), Mr. Peplinski owns between $100,001-500,000 amount of the VC fund; Mr. Armstrong $10,001-50,000; Mr. Patel $1,000-10,000.
None of the five trustees own shares of the fund.
Opening dates
LDVIX 10/2/2014; LDVAX Class A 10/2/2014; LDVAX w/load 10/2/2014; LDVCX 9/23/2015
Expense ratios LDVIX 1.51; LDVCX 2.51; LDVAX 1.76
Minimum investment
LDVIX $250K Regular, IRA; LDVCX Regular $2,500, IRA $1,000; LDVAX Regular $2,500, IRA $1,000
The funds have limited brokerage availability. All are NTF at TD; Fidelity LDVAX TF;
Schwab LDVIX Institutional Class $100K Regular, IRA; LDVAX $100, Regular, IRA
Other Facts
As of 12/31/19, the AUM of the Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund was $122,987,322. According to M*, the fund currently has $141.7M in assets.
The firm reports turnover for the Leland Funds on a fiscal year basis (9/30). For FY ending 9/30/2019, the turnover for the Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund was 115%. It was 47% in 2018 (9/30).
The prospectus states that typically the TO is over 100%.
AUM at the firm on 9/30/19 was $280.4M EOY, a decline from $440M from the previous EOY.
The overall AUM decline is mostly due to outflows in their Good Harbor Tactical Core US strategy (both in the mutual fund version and SMA). There have also been outflows in the Leland Real Asset Opportunities Fund as well.
Here is the link of the fund’s holdings that seek to track the Index.
http://www.lelandfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_12_Leland-TR-VC-Index-Fund-Holdings.pdf
Performance information of the Index:
https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/fact-sheets/venture-capital-index-fact-sheet.pdf
Comments
The gentleman who asked about the fund mentioned the three-year performance of LDVAX, a 5.75% load fund.
I’ve chosen to cite the I class LDVIX and C class LVDCX and the Primecap POAGX, the aggressive mid-cap fund with a stellar record since its inception in 1984 and currently closed with $6B in assets. Like the Leland funds, POAGX is concentrated in tech and healthcare.
Also, he also owned POAGX but sold it in 12/2018.
How have these funds performed?
As of 1/16/20, the dollar value of LDVIX is $24,670, LDVCX $23,979, and POAGX $15,709 at M*.
As of 1/16/20, LDVIX has gained 9.56%, LDVCX 9.57%, and LDVAX 9.59%. All have 5* ratings for overall performance at M*.
While these funds have some significant headwinds, their performance to date has managed to overcome them. Additionally, if one looks at MFOP for the three-year metrics that the gentleman cited ending 12/31/19, you'll see this:
LDVIX MAXDD 12/18 -23.1; Recovery Rtg. 1 (Best) 7 mo.; Sharpe Ratio 1.38 5 (Best); Martin Ratio 5.13; Ulcer Index 6.3
LDVCX MAXDD 12/18 -22.3; RR 1 (Best) 7 mo., SR 1.33 1.33 (Best); MR 4.85; UI 6.4
POAGX MAXDD 12/18 -22.3; RR 5 (Worst) 16+ mo.; SR 0.73 (Worst 1); MR 1.69; UI 8.1
The overall success of these funds may result primarily from the ability of the managers in the alternative class space to match the performance of their bogy with well-chosen public companies.
I do not own this fund and won't be buying it.
I researched this fund because a board member asked for information about it, I had already been researching it at MFOP, and because he had received no replies, I wanted to
contact him.
I’d like to thank everyone who participated in the search for this gentleman and hope that what I have written may be of some value.

The Financial Times has very useful and (may I say) beautifully designed set of tools, at their markets.ft.com minisite, which includes both Morningstar and Lipper fund metrics.
Here - for example - is link to T Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Fund:
https://markets.ft.com/data/funds/tearsheet/summary?s=PRWCX

A great article (link). Below are several quotes from this link.
========================
What do you expect to be the key driver of stock market performance over the course of 2020?
Markets climbed a wall of worry in 2019 and nearly all risk assets did very well - essentially the opposite of 2018. We believe we have entered the fear of the fear of missing out. One thing we are watching closely are equity fund flows that were down last year. It's very rare for fund flows in stocks to be negative when the market is up so strongly. But recent data suggests that may be turning. It would be a bearish signal for us to see a large amount of new money flow into equities.
According to Goldman Sachs, two thirds of the market move since 2009 has been earnings growth. However, in 2019, just 8% of the S&P 500 move is explained by earnings growth.
We tend to be bullish when others are bearish and tend to get bearish when others are bullish. Last year, investors were maybe not bearish but definitely cautious given the trade worries and other geopolitical issues. However, today we seem to be moving toward a more euphoric phase which does have us concerned.
What do you expect out of the yield curve in 2020 and what impacts will that have on the bond market and the economy in general?
On the long-end of the curve, we think rates could inch higher but shouldn't jump significantly like we saw in 2017. If I had to make a bet where the 10-year yield will be at year end, I would say around 2.15%.

What are some portfolio tilts and sub-sectors you think investors should focus on this year?
We believe this year could look a lot like 2017 with some minor changes. First and foremost, we think the dollar rolls over and starts to decline. Dollar strength was largely due to the Federal Reserve raising rates for the last few years through 2018. With the Fed lowering rates three times last year (-75 bps) that should start reverberating throughout the markets this year, especially the dollar.
If the dollar does start to decline, we think international equities could finally shine. They have drastically underperformed US equities in the last 10 years. However, they should rebound. Europe and Japan have experienced much slower growth than the US during the recovery and continue to have worse demographics.
In fact, from a valuation standpoint, US stocks have never been more overvalued relative to the rest of the world. This is eventually likely to mean revert and we think a lot of it is due to the negative sentiment regarding the euro and Brexit.
Value stocks may finally do better than growth stocks thanks to the steeper yield curve. The thesis of owning growth stocks during a flattening yield curve and value stocks during steepening could prove true here. We also like small caps more so than large caps (and especially mid caps) given the 20-year low relative valuations. Emerging markets look particularly interesting.
I would still stay away from energy which looks like is going through a secular shift away from fossil fuels.
In fixed income, where are you allocating capital for 2020?
1) Municipals: We've been pushing munis for most of the last year as rates appeared poised to drop. Even today, we think rates pushing 2.00% are not a bad place to put capital. And when you factor in the tax equivalent yields of munis (especially muni CEFs), and consider the risk of these securities which is extremely low, it's hard to beat this sector.
(2) High Yield / Floating Rate: . At these levels, we would say investors in high yield are coupon clippers, meaning that you are likely to receive the yield only with little to no capital gains. The risk is to the downside.

Our favorite area of the market remains mortgages (for the third year in a row). We place them into the high yield/ floating rate sector simply because of our focus on non-agency MBS, which tend to be unrated or lumped into non-investment grade/high yield. Many of these mortgages also are floating rate. Our thesis remains that the investors tend to fight the last battle, which with the Financial Crisis centered on the mortgage market.
(3) Real Assets / REITs: The sector was an under performer in 2019 and we think could be one of the best performers in 2020 as rates stabilize. The fourth quarter of 2019 was the driver of that underperformance as investors moved back to a risk-on environment and away from the "bond proxies."
Total cash returns could be as good as 9% in 2020 with approximately half coming from the yield and 4% to 6% earnings growth. If we see rates meander lower, we think there will be renewed interest in the sector which could help push up prices further. Fundamentals in the sector are strong with property values continuing to move higher.
(4) Preferreds:The asset class is small and has low liquidity which tends to exacerbate the moves lower. It's when these liquidity-induced selloffs occur that you should be buying shares of high quality names. While most talking heads poo-poo preferreds when rates are rising due to their perpetual maturities, this can be an advantage for retail investors. When rates fall, the issuer can call the shares at their discretion and replace them with a lower yielding issue. Today, we are seeing "refinancings" occur even if they can save just 50 bps of interest expense. If rates rise, while the "perpetual value" of your shares may go down, it does lock in your income stream for longer.
=====================
FD: and this is why most of my money is in HY Munis + Multisector specializing in MBS/Securitized

Boost Your Retirement Income With Tricks The Pros Use
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/retirement/retirement-income-strategy-pros-use/
Finding retirement income is still a challenge. Interest rates remain low. But you can borrow a key trick financial advisors use to solve this puzzle.
For every $100,000 you invest in this group of funds, you could have created. Bond Fund (PEBIX) for a 4.5% yield plus gains from the bond prices."

The spousal Roth IRA has been discussed here previous; but I'll add this again, as many remain unaware of this provision.
From personal experience, I've helped 12 married couples discover this little known provision. Obviously, a married couple needs to have the financial resources to fund a spousal Roth IRA; but even a few hundred dollars annually makes a difference going forward. The common circumstances I encountered were: one spouse retires several years earlier than the other, or one spouse has a temporary or permanent job loss.
"Generally, you need earned income to contribute to a Roth IRA. For married couples, there is an exception. You can contribute to an IRA for a non-working spouse, up to the maximum annual limit. A spousal Roth IRA isn't a joint account, but can be an effective way for couples to double their retirement savings."
Aside from the IRS link below, do a broad search for spousal Roth IRA to discover more details.
IRS pub. here .....read Spousal IRA section
As always, remain curious,
Catch

I was also distressed that TDA bought Scottrade, so distressed that I immediately began partial account transfers to my other brokerages. I wanted to avoid a financial Dunkirk by rescuing my funds from TDA !

My exposure to bond investing, as well as other asset categories of investing, was through employment retirement programs. Financial Advisors would meet with our employees, and recommend a series of fund options, based on a variety of factors associated with diversification, total return objectives, and various levels of risk. As I experienced the impact of fund performance, in a variety of market conditions, I became much more interested in the funds I owned and how they were performing. At any rate, I reached a point in my life where I was being asked for advice about fund choices, and my standard response was to wade into the bond investing world, with relatively low risk and safer bonds, study what impacted performance, and start forming ideas of how to diversify into other bond categories and learn by ownership to a large extent. I think a good place to begin is to select an investment grade short term bond fund, and move some of your cash out of a banking account, and learn about what is involved in watching some of the fluctuations of performance in this bond fund, in order to produce a higher yield or total return, than you would get from a savings or money market fund. That is a good first step before moving into more risky and more volatile bond funds from other categories--but I always think its important to have a high risk of success with safer options and then slowly evolve to more risky options. Try to learn by owning a fund, and watching performance, but do it in a way where you can minimize odds of trauma with beginning investment decisions.

I spent a lot of time on Page 63.
Paints an interesting picture.
-The negative volatility of stocks is very similar to bonds over a 5 year rolling average...negative 2% vs negative 1%...interesting.
- An all bond portfolio performs equally well compared to a 50/50% (stock/bond) portfolio over a rolling 10 year average...very interesting
- Over long rolling periods (20 years) stocks are 3 times more profitable and less risky than bonds. Or another way of looking at it, it would require only 33% funding in stocks to equal 100% funding in bonds to reach the same financial goal. Also, an all stock portfolio has a greater chance of earning a significantly higher "low end" long term return (6% vs 1%) vs an all bond portfolio over a 20 year rolling period.
Thought on Retirement strategies:
-Fund Long term (rolling 20 year needs) using a 100% stock portfolio, expect 8X on the initial investment.
-Fund short term (1-5 year) retirement needs with 100% bonds
-Fund mid term (rolling 5 years, rolling 10 years, rolling 15 years) retirement needs with a 50/50 portfolio of stocks and bonds. Might look like VWINX (40/60).
Page 62
At age 65, a husband and wife have a 90% that one will live to 80 years old and a 49% chance one will live to 90. Plan for 35 years of retirement withdrawals.
Fund age 65 - 70 withdrawal needs with an all bond portfolio. The likelihood that you will pull money from this portfolio at a loss is lower compared to the 100% equity portfolio and the 50/50 portfolio over this 5 year rolling period. The bond portfolio has a potential maximum loss of (-8%) verses (-15%) for the 50/50 portfolio and (-39%) for the all equity portfolio. Plan for these kinds of negative outcomes (sequence of return risks).
Funds for age 70 - 75 withdrawal needs (5-10 years away) might best be constructed as a balanced 50/50 portfolio. Weigh the risk / reward to ST/low duration bonds or cash like substitutes to the Total Bond Index to the Total Stock Index.
Fund age 75- 80 (10-15 years away) as well as Age 80-85 (15-20 years away) with:
-100% equities which would add more downside risk (only -1%), as well as higher possible positive returns (19%)
- 100% bonds portfolio or 50/50 portfolio provide almost identical returns variances with the 50/50 portfolio having slightly better downside risk. Neither of these two portfolios lost principal. Funding for worse case outcomes plan for the withdrawal amount to at least equal the investment amount.
Fund ages 85-100 withdrawal needs with an all equity portfolio. Determine each years Inflation adjusted withdrawals. Worse case scenario for an all stock portfolio over 20 years is a positive 6%. Fund for the kind of outcome. Fund this portfolio at 33% of the withdrawal need...for example if you will need $10K (in today's dollars) and (inflation adjusted @ 2% for 15 years), your total need would be about $350K for these 15 years of withdrawals, so one would need to fund 33% of $350K or $117K in today's dollars. $117K hopefully grow to at least $350K in 20 years in a buy and hold all equity portfolio.

First time poster, greetings to all, posting some investment thoughts via stream of consciousness, all feedback welcome
I'm heavily invested in Dominion Energy Reliability Notes, paying 2.7% / $50k+ investments, you are lower on the capital structure here, full access to your funds at any time, no FDIC but backed by the financial strength of the company. Does anyone have any experience investing in these Notes or have additional input?
Following closely the Bond OEF Investing for more Conservative Investors...does anyone on that thread really trust/know what their funds are invested in? Even conservative funds with asset backed holdings rated highly by the rating agencies you have to wonder don't you? Crazy how many high priced homes I see owned by folks who drive older beat up cars. Don't want to sound elitist but something tells me they are leveraged to the hilt which could spell trouble if interest rates/job market/economy changes. Driving up Sheridan Road in the affluent North Shore burbs of CHI seems every fifth McMansion is up for sale...and same homes been for sale seems like over two years...escape from taxes and/or many of those folks living in those expensive homes know we are in an epic asset bubble?
Heavily invested in Brookfield Asset Management (BAM) and Berkshire - B (BRK/B), consider them a sort of "defacto", well managed, mutual funds without the fees. Follow Akre and Ackman via GuruFocus new holdings, have invested in Agilent (A) and Descartes Systems Group (DSGX). Heavily invested in Medtronic (MDT) and Teleflex (TFX), we're all getting older and looking for the repeal of the ridiculous Medical Device Tax (taxes profits not revenue, huh, who thought that was a good idea, companies thus cut jobs or sent solid paying jobs overseas).
Not a fan of Mutual funds, no out performance, "skimming off the top" with their management fees. ETFs are not for me, do like their low cost but too linked to herd behavior, what goes up must come down, no? I'm amazed by how many folks who invest in their 401Ks etc just follow what they are told by the "plan representatives" and have no idea how the markets work or what they are invested in.
Investment style is "anti-fragile" ala Taleb. Majority % of investments in safe, very conservative investments (T-Bills, 5 year CDs), smaller % in DERI Dominion Notes and ~15-20% in handful of stocks mentioned above.
Comments?
Good investing to all,
B

the secrets of lazy financial journalism