Not so fast. While it could be a one time "blip" in 2015, that the US life expectancy for men and women did in fact decline for the first time. If it holds up and the decline continues, the probable reasons are...
. obesity epidemic
. opioid epidemic
. economic decline of the middle class, especially since 2008
. suicide
. increases in Alzheimer's disease, respiratory disease, kidney disease and diabetes. Some of which may be attributed to the obesity epidemic.
Did you know that obesity with respect to women in the US, has shot up over 40%? And in case you think I'm "fat shaming", I too am struggling with my BMI now over 25. Of course, losing an inch and half in height over the last twenty years, doesn't help the number. (Taking calcium supplement with vitamin D3.)
Anyway, I was only grasping at a financial laugh. Enjoy your RMD!
Life expectancy in the US declines in 2015
Obesity rate for women

Could not agree more. I am biased but I can't think of anything more important than being thin as we get older. Excess weight causes a host of problems too numerous to detail here. And by being thin I also mean no pot belly. I have read that regardless of weight, a pot belly can be a real killer.
Edit. As pertains to the topic of RMD my biggest financial mistake was no Roth. My annual living expenses increases some 60% this year because of the taxes on my RMD.

So much has been in the financial news lately about index funds and etfs beating mutual funds, so I decided to look at my holdings in Morningstar Portfolio and see how mine have done, I do use etfs and have about 6 individual stocks, but I do have about 2/3 of my retirement portfolio (non retirement portfolio is mostly bonds) in mutual funds. Amazingly, 60% of the funds are beating the S + P, and 78% of them are beating their benchmark. Only 2 of the 32 funds I have missed the mark by 1% or more, but barely. For those that think this is too many funds, I recently cut it back, and got rid of a few that I felt were overkill.
I am very much aware all this could change in a moments notice with the market being so high, but thought I would report my surprise finding for those that think indexes are the only way to go.

FYI: Acknowledge, allow and accept. This advice will help you to endure the inevitable pain caused by the next bear market. Experts in the centuries-old practice of meditation have a formula for suffering.
S = P x R. The amount of suffering you experience is equal to the actual Pain (P) times the mind’s Resistance (R) to the pain. So, S = P x R. The idea is to stop resisting the pain to lessen it. Since anything that is multiplied by zero equals zero, you see where this is going.
Regards,
Ted
http://tonyisola.com/2017/06/the-financial-pain-equation/

Posted today on The Independent Adviser for Vanguard Investors forum.
Summary
Some really good actively managed funds are being overshadowed in the current index fund craze.
Vanguard Wellesley Income is a nearly 50-year old fund with a stellar track record of delivering shareholders strong returns while limiting downside risk.
This fund may particularly appear to retirees given its 3% dividend yield and its history of limiting shareholder losses in down markets.
With so much attention focused on the billions and billions of dollars flowing into passively managed index ETFs, you might be surprised to find that actively managed mutual funds still exist! But they do, although the reasons that this segment of the market is shrinking are easy to understand.
For most funds, the cost of active management continues to be prohibitive. The average expense ratio for an actively management large cap mutual fund is around 1.25%. The average for an S&P 500 index fund? About 0.15%. That difference of over 100 basis points annually combined with the difficulty of trying to consistently pick outperformers over time has proven a steep hill to climb. Roughly 80% of active funds fail to match their benchmarks over time.
But not all active funds should be kicked to the curb. Some funds have great long-term track records, low expenses and smartly managed portfolios. At Vanguard, one of their oldest funds is also one of their best.
The Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund (MUTF:VWINX) is a nearly 50-year old fund that maintains a balance of around 60-65% bonds and 35-40% stocks. The mix of investment grade bonds and large-cap stocks makes it an ideal choice for retirees, those planning for retirement or new investors right out of the gate.
This is particularly intriguing for folks in or near retirement who may not have a great deal of time or resources in order to bounce back from a significant market decline.
The S&P 500's biggest drawdowns occurred during the tech bubble and the financial crisis. In each of those situations, the index retreated around 45-50% off of its near-term highs. The Wellesley Fund on the other hand has only twice experienced a drop of 15% over its five decade history and one of those times wasn't even during the tech bubble.
The other factor I look at is the fund's downside risk. How well does the fund protect investors when the market's winds start shifting? In Wellesley's case, pretty darn well.
In almost every long-term period, the fund has been able to deliver category-matching returns when the bulls take hold, while reducing market losses by around one-third when things start heading south. The one exception has been in the last year when a number of the biggest tech growth names have provided market leadership.
Digging into the fund, the fund's 0.22% expense ratio (0.15% if you qualify for the fund's Admiral shares) falls well below the Lipper category average of 0.81% and remains true to Vanguard's low-cost theme. Dividend seekers will enjoy the fund's 3.1% yield, a number that's boosted by its focus on corporate fixed income issues over government bonds (about 85% of the fund's bond holdings are corporate). The bond portion's 6.5 year duration is a little on the long side but provides a nice balance between yield and risk.
One important note to make is concerning the fund's long-term average annual returns. Wellesley boasts a nearly 10% annual return over the life of the fund, but investors should be cautioned against expecting those returns going forward. Those returns have been boosted by one of the longest fixed income bull markets in history and an equity market that continues to hit record highs and has not posted a calendar year loss since the financial crisis. With stocks looking relatively expensive and interest rates looking to continue heading higher, shareholders may want to temper expectations in the near-term. Investors looking for a heavier equity allocation might want to consider the Vanguard Wellington Fund (MUTF:VWELX).
Conclusion
Wellesley Income continues to be one of Vanguard's shining stars. The fund remains a popular option in workplace retirement plans so savers who don't have access to good index fund options (or even if you do) might consider this as a core 401(k) holding.
Even in the current era of index fund popularity, Vanguard Wellesley Income should be considered just as good a fund as you'll find in the marketplace today.
[seekingalpha.com]

FYI: So far so good?
On May 25, Wall Street closed the 100th trading day of 2017, with the S&P 500 having risen 7.9% over that period. That’s a strong start to a year—the fourth-best start of the past 20 years—but don’t worry if you didn’t miss the rally. According to data from LPL Financial, not only has the market never ended a year with a negative return after such a start, but such a beginning typically augurs well for gains through the rest of the year.
Since 1950, there have been 23 years, not including 2017, where the S&P rose at least 7.5% over the first 100 trading days. In all those instances, the market ended higher on the year, with an average annual gain of 23.4%. Based on where the market ended 2016, such an annual gain would mean the benchmark index SPX, +0.76% ends the year around 2,760.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-sp-500-has-never-had-a-down-year-after-a-start-like-2017-2017-05-31/print

FYI: U.S. stocks edged lower on Tuesday as weakness in the energy and financial sectors outweighed gains in technology shares.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-29/asia-stocks-face-mixed-start-euro-down-on-draghi-markets-wrap
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN18Q14O
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-hold-steady-but-analysts-say-the-bull-market-is-back-2017-05-30/print
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-close-slightly-lower-microsoft-reaches-record-high/
CNBC:
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/30/us-markets.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS?SITE=AP
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Mixed
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

For disclosure purposes... I do own OAKIX, WAIGX and TAREX. Some of my domestic equity mf's have anywhere from 0-20% international exposure. My portfolio currently sits @20% international equity... enough??? Do I need 8-10 mf's dedicated to international/Asia??? Just saying...

I will let someone else attempt to give you a definite answer. I will give you mine.
IMHO, you have demonstrated you have a sound head already. You have already concluded you do not, or you wouldn't have asked the question. Because it is quite clear it does not make sense to you. Or sense FOR you. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. If it indeed has to be so then YOU in time will figure it out, and that is good enough. I have learnt from my mistakes. I never learnt from OTHER people's mistakes.
If you listen to "expert" telling you US is dead, International reigns supreme, you could go 100% international. Whatever you decide one thing to remember is that you don't make a living the same way as this "expert" does. HE (and I don't say SHE because we know gender diversity does not exist in the field of "expertise" we are talking about) has already made his money shoving his "expertise" down your throat. Those are HIS earnings. What you do makes no difference to HIM. It will make a difference to YOU.
YOU decide. And once again, when I say "expert" I meant the financial pron stars. MFO "experts" are not experts, they are your well wishers and your "teachers". That's how I see it.
Happy Anniversary to ME. No, REALLY. Now let me sell some of my international holdings and show my wife a good time.

According to the Orbis site, the fund is not available to individual investors, financial advisors, or asset management platforms in the US.

Interesting, that these tech market leaders have nothing to do with Trump's stocks - industrial, financial and defense. Tax cuts if that happens would equally affect all companies, big and small. So what is a reason for that frenzy?

FYI: People often argue that financial knowledge can be acquired with experience. But if the evidence from a new survey index is any indication, that way of learning may, in fact, be very slow or not work well at all.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-driving-blind-when-it-comes-to-financial-decisions-2017-05-25/print

TBHDX ? If so IMHO they rely too much on financials and healthcare companies (read: low yields) in the construction of their portfolio with little to nothing in the usual dividend paying suspects like utilities and telecom. I somewhat understand that since they tend to be a 'value' shop but....
Also, again IMHO, their 'high' dividend is roughly what the S&P 500 pays and their ER cuts that in half. One would be better off in SPY or at least SCHD. For what my non-economic/financial background opinion is worth.

Here's another regret they might have--not having lived while they're young. The idea that all meals out with friends and family--moments you may treasure for the rest of your life--are "mindless" or that buying coffee to say study for a test or just for the sheer pleasure of being alive and enjoying a coffee is always a waste sounds like the typical view you hear from these financial planning types. They're busy wagging their fingers at kids when in fact young people are making less money today in low-end jobs on an inflation-adjusted basis than they did thirty or forty years ago in many states. It also makes the assumption that every young person will live to retirement age when in fact they won't. It's a matter of achieving balance--enjoying some daily pleasures--and saving. It's also a matter of paying young people appropriately.

FYI: Millennials, here’s one way to avoid a regret that’s plagued people for generations: Start saving for retirement immediately.
Nearly 3 out of 4 adults have financial regrets, with not saving enough for retirement sitting at the top of that gloomy list at 22%, according to a Bankrate survey released Tuesda
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/young-people-should-put-down-their-smartphones-step-away-from-the-avocado-toast-and-do-this-2017-05-23/print

FYI: This isn’t my forecast. But it’s a good reminder that you should ignore all such forecasts. And it’s a good example of why I keep a file of forecasts—the financial media almost never hold forecasters accountable because that would ruin the game, and people would cease to “tune in.”
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-forecasters-not-held-accountable?nopaging=1

While Bloomberg called her a "seasoned financial reporter", in her WSJ article Fuller states up front that "I don’t have a finance beat".
Her WSJ bio talks about her work process (with spreadsheets and databases), but virtually nothing about domain (subject area) expertise, i.e. her beats. It only says that she began by working on stories "related to education data" and that she reports on data. Nothing I see there about data acquisition skills, just data analysis and graphing.

http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/32897/what-s-my-investing-fee-a-frustrating-quest-how-to-get-a-straight-answer
(No follow up discussion, just Ted's links including link to original WSJ article.)
I agree that the article was lame. More column inches to fill. Fuller complained that she couldn't get an "all in" figure (including underlying fund fees) from her adviser. I guess looking up these figures (as David suggested), computing a dollar-weighted average, and adding them to 0.85% exceeded her ability as a specialist in data analysis.
The Bloomberg piece is disingenuous. It states that the fees are "quasi" hidden (e.g. in plain sight if one looks at prospectuses rather than at brokerage statements). Yet it accepts without question that even this "hiding" is too much for a professional to deal with: "If even a seasoned financial reporter has to spend hours just to find out the price that she’s paying ..."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081400/000108140017001077/smallcompanygrowthPROsupp.htm
497 1 smallcompanygrowthPROsupp.htm SMALL COMPANY GROWTH FUND SUPPLEMENT
SUPPLEMENT TO THE PROSPECTUSES
and SUMMARY PROSPECTUSES
OF WELLS FARGO EQUITY GATEWAY FUNDS
Wells Fargo Small Company Growth Fund(the “Fund”)
Effective July 31, 2017, the Fund is closed to most new investors. For further information, please see the section entitled "Additional Purchase and Redemption Information" in the Fund’s Statement of Additional Information. Wells Fargo Funds Management, LLC reserves the right to reject any purchase order into the Fund if it believes that acceptance of such order would interfere with its ability to effectively manage the Fund.
May 18, 2017 EGIT057/P904SP
OR
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081400/000108140017001078/smallcompanygrowthSAIsupp.htm
497 1 smallcompanygrowthSAIsupp.htm SMALL COMPANY GROWTH FUND SAI SUPPLEMENT
SUPPLEMENT TO THE STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (“SAI”)
OF
WELLS FARGO EQUITY GATEWAY FUNDS
Effective at the close of business on July 31, 2017, the following information is added to the section titled “ADDITIONAL PURCHASE AND REDEMPTION INFORMATION – Investors Eligible to Purchase Closed Funds” in the SAI.
All classes of the Small Company Growth Fund (the “Closed Fund”) are closed to new investors, except in connection with the closing of a reorganization or as outlined below. Additional investments will not be accepted in the Closed Fund unless the investment falls within one of the below referenced categories. If you believe you are eligible to purchase shares of the Closed Fund, Funds Management may require you to provide appropriate proof of eligibility. Funds Management reserves the right to reject any purchase order into the Closed Fund if it believes that acceptance of such order would interfere with its ability to effectively manage the Closed Fund.
Existing Shareholders. You may continue to purchase shares of the Closed Fund if:
You are an existing shareholder of the Closed Fund (either directly or through a financial intermediary), with an open and funded account, and you wish to:
add to your existing account through the purchase of additional shares of the Closed Fund, including the reinvestment of dividends and cash distributions from shares owned in the Closed Fund; or
open a new account that is registered in your name or has the same primary taxpayer identification or social security number (this includes accounts where you serve as custodian, such as UGMA/UTMA accounts). Please note: Selling agents who transact in the Closed Fund through an omnibus account are not permitted to purchase shares of the Closed Fund on behalf of clients that do not currently own shares of the Closed Fund.
You are the beneficiary of shares of the Closed Fund (i.e., through an IRA or transfer on death account) or are the recipient of shares of the Closed Fund through a transfer and wish to utilize the proceeds of such account to open up a new account in your name in the Closed Fund.
You sponsor a retirement plan, benefit plan or retirement plan platform (collectively, “Retirement Plans”) that currently offers the Closed Fund as an investment option. Each such Retirement Plan may add new participants, and the sponsor may also offer the Closed Fund as an investment option in other retirement or benefit plans offered by the same company, its subsidiaries and affiliates.
New Investors. Certain new investors who meet the conditions and/or criteria outlined below may qualify to purchase the Fund:
New Retirement Plans;
For centrally managed (home office) model portfolios, new accounts may be opened, and additional investment for current accounts may be made, in the Closed Fund if they are made through existing fee-based investment products and/or existing mutual fund wrap programs (e.g. through a broker, dealer, private bank and trust company or consultant) that currently use the Closed Fund; however, new model portfolios introduced in existing products and platforms must be preapproved by Funds Management;
Separately managed account clients of, or investors in a pooled vehicle advised by, the Closed Fund’s sub-adviser and whose assets are managed by the sub-adviser in a style similar to that of the Closed Fund (either presently or within the last 60 days of their request to open a new account) are allowed to open a new account;
Registered investment advisers who currently utilize the Closed Fund in their asset allocation programs will be able to open new accounts and/or continue to invest in the Closed Fund;
Private bank and trust platforms that currently offer shares of the Closed Fund are eligible to add new accounts if approved by Funds Management;
Non-centrally managed discretionary and non-discretionary portfolio programs that currently offer shares of the Closed Fund or share the same operational infrastructure as programs that currently offer shares of the Closed Fund if approved by Funds Management; and
Funds of Funds advised by Funds Management may purchase shares of the Closed Fund.
May 18, 2017

What an interesting story. Thanks. That fifo override thing is wild.
I do not use an adviser anywhere.
I like ML a lot and like Fido a lot. I was just pretty duh about what I was seeing in the columns without drilldown, and I even posted here about how lamely I was doing w PDI from having skipped the initial reinvestment.
ML is also trying to catch up and compete with all of the others. Their yodlee aggregator thing (My Financial Picture), which I find extremely handy in retirement, is MUCH more up to date and supple and hence accurate, compared w Fido's identical FullView. Also more reliable in its intercourse w other institutions.
The Fido people I complained to about FV asked me to send screenshots of discrepancies, as where it shows a Fido account w one total and right next to it is the actual account with the more recent total. I did this several times and eventually they said, Oh, yeah, right, there is a lag in the updating, sure, we knew that.
ML's MFP is up-to-date.
I also pay no commissions at ML for any etfs, not the case at all at Fido.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Banks and other financial stocks took off to the upside after the November election, but their performance so far this year has been disappointing. The KBW Bank Index is up less than 1% year to date, compared to a 7% gain for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index—while bank exchange-traded funds are actually down a fraction of a percent.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=+Banks+Still+Look+Like+a+Good+Investment+

FYI: Researching my upcoming weekly column for The Wall Street Journal reminded me of the mania for investment trusts in the late 1920s, which I had first written about more than 20 years ago. Here’s a look back at that early article, which — despite its ludicrously wrong call on Berkshire Hathaway toward the end — still isn’t a bad survey of the long history of fads and crazes in the financial markets.
Regards,
Ted
http://jasonzweig.com/a-short-history-of-folly/