We all are pretty familiar with the 4% rule which provides a mechanism to adjust one's SWR or "safe withdrawal rate" based on one portfolio value. In a year like this, any percentage withdrawal feels anything but "safe".
For example, if one started the year with a portfolio value of$1M and took a 4% withdrawal for the up coming year, one would have pulled ($1,000,000* .04) or $40,000. If after that withdrawal one's portfolio fell 20%. That $1M portfolio minus $40,000 (withdrawal) minus a 20% market correction, is now $768,000.
This math frightens retirees. It's human nature to see this 24.2% portfolio drop as a permanent loss. This can trigger some of us to "sell low" and other poor timing strategies.
For me, years before pulling from my retirement portfolio, I tried to determine what my yearly withdrawal needs were going to be and decided to separate those 3-5 year needs into lower volatility assets. In a sense, try to insulated these near term withdrawals from near term volatility. I would give up some upside to protect against the downside. So instead of selling equities into down markets, I positioned 3-5 years of withdrawals in assets that were less exposed to equity assets volatility. For me, these lower volatility assets are CASH, ST Bonds (VFSTX), and conservative allocation funds (such as VWINX).

I position 20% of my retirement portfolio in low volatility assets. Collectively the losses in these assets YTD has been close to (-6.5%). with this in mind, I have reduced my 4% SWR by 7%. So instead of my normal 4% SWR of $20,0000, I limit myself to 7% less or $18,600. I am hoping it is a helpful adjustment that my budget can handle.
Any criticisms, comments or strategies welcome.

Thank you. I saw your earlier posting too. Just want to inform the broader audience on the longer duration TIPS (10 and 30 years) are also available.

Has any country ever targeted a set level of inflation and adhered rigidly to it? I’d be interested in examples. Sounds like a dubious proposition. Many external factors enter into the level of inflation - not the least of which are the prices of imported products. Than there’s immigration levels (supply of laborers), foreign currency exchanges, technological innovation, climate (effect on crops), wars, etc. I’m not aware of the U.S. ever having an official inflation target up until the time the Fed began targeting 2% (5-10 years ago) because they were scared silly of deflation developing (negative inflation / falling prices).
I don’t think Paul Volker ever set an “inflation target” either. What he did was jack up overnight lending rates to around 20%. That in conjunction with Regan’s war on PATCO (the opening salvo in a long running war on labor unions / diminishing pay and benefits for union members) threw the country into the worst economic morass since the Great Depression with unemployment remaining near 10% for two years. (Akin to swatting a fly with a ball bat.)
The Regan Recession
Inflation will vary year-to-year and region to region. CHART In 1990 it was running between 5,5 and 6% in the U.S. In Sweden it was 11%. In Japan about 4%.. And 7.5% in Great Britain.

Great cartoon. Anybody who shopped for home furnishings and/or wood products during the past couple years had to be struck by the scarcity of supply and exorbitant prices. Seems like everyone decided to add a new deck to their home or replace worn LR furniture at the same time. I really can’t explain it. Here’s an OT post I submitted more than a year ago voicing some of that frustration. It only got worse as the summer progressed. Furniture Shortage?
While I haven’t yet read it, Barron’s this week has an article about plummeting lumber prices. Go figure!

The captain obvious explanations are not needed for me. I know them. I have heard them. I view them as more lies told by the regulators/politicians.
Between Jan 2010 - May 2022, the price level has increased 35%. Since Jan 2000, a 73% increase in the price level.- That is using the CPI, which severely undercounts real changes in cost of living. - The source of that stat is from bls.gov's CPI price calculator.
A 35% debasement of buying power over 12 years is not "price stability"
These jokers have failed. The institutions have failed -- They have a "mandate" then they construct policies with the predictable result of avoiding the mandate.

OK, so what was the point of your smart drivel?

The captain obvious explanations are not needed for me. I know them. I have heard them. I view them as more lies told by the regulators/politicians.
Between Jan 2010 - May 2022, the price level has increased 35%. Since Jan 2000, a 73% increase in the price level.- That is using the CPI, which severely undercounts real changes in cost of living. - The source of that stat is from bls.gov's CPI price calculator.
A 35% debasement of buying power over 12 years is not "price stability"
These jokers have failed. The institutions have failed -- They have a "mandate" then they construct policies with the predictable result of avoiding the mandate.

Giruox has been a master in using bond & cash positions to counteract his equity risk. His goal is to provide equity-like return while maintain below market risk over a 5 years period.

+1. Yes indeed. Gotta remember to buy some more PRWCX if it falls a couple of bucks further.

Giruox has been a master in using bond & cash positions to counteract his equity risk. His goal is to provide equity-like return while maintain below market risk over a 5 years period.

There isn't much AUM at launch and PGIM hasn't seeded it with its own capital, so the ERs look huge but are capped. I have seen high but capped ERs at launches but not this high.
Alternative ways to launch funds are 1) use seed capital from the firm that is withdrawn a few years later, 2) lineup some institutional buyers/sponsors ahead, or launch a fund on institutional request(s) but open it to others, 3) use the weird subscription process of several weeks that Vanguard uses where the money collected just sits in m-mkt funds until deployed (I don't understand who these foolish investors are who fall for this).
PGAEX Prospectus from PGIM Site https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/PNET/summary.asp?clientid=pi&fundid=74440K512&doctype=pros

The same manager in a related ~ 2 years old fund in UK : https://markets.ft.com/data/funds/tearsheet/summary?s=IE00BKV41X02:AUD

Ahhh someone's monetizing the famous buy-at-close, sell-at-open strategy that's worked well in the futures markets off-and-on for years. Interesting.

Any time I see a post about DSEEX or CAPE I think of poster @davidmoran, who from my memory was the first to bring attention to these funds years ago. I don't catch everything here, but I haven't seen David post lately. Hope all is ok.

Maybe, though recognize that correlation is not causation.
DoubleLine has not especially impressed with its enhanced version of CAPE (DSEEX). It has generated negative "enhancement" relative to CAPD over the past five years (11.13% vs. 12.50%), three years (11.35% vs. 13.50%), and one year (-8.01% vs. -5.86%).
No matter, they've both underperformed the S&P 500 over the past five years (13.09% return), three years (14.62%), one year (-1.23%). All figures from M*, through June 8th. At least through the last quarter (March 31st), CAPD has outperformed the S&P 500 over the past five, three, and one year periods, though DSEEX remains the worst of the three.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=DSEEX
(Add CAPD for performance comparisons)
FWIW, M* reclassified DSEEX as large cap blend in 2019. Until then it had considered the fund to be a large cap value fund. In contrast, CAPD (formerly CAPE) maintains its classification as large cap value.
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/capd/performance
DoubleLine could be taking a reputational risk as a bond house by starting a CAPE ETF that might outperform the bond-enhanced DSEEX, just as CAPD has outperformed DSEEX. Or perhaps not, since its CAPE ETF is not going to track the CAPE index (unlike the equity portion of DSEEX).
The ETF's stated "objective is to seek total return which exceeds the total return of the S&P 500 index." (One might ask why then is it using the Schiller CAPE index as a reference, since that's underperformed the S&P 500 for years; but that's a separate question.)
The ETF merely "considers the underlying constituents of the Shiller Barclays CAPE® US TR USD index ... Because the Fund is actively managed, the Adviser has the discretion to invest in securities not included in the index and may over or underweight a particular sector as it deems appropriate in seeking the Fund's investment objective."
In short, "the Fund does not seek to track or replicate the Index."
CAPE ETF Summary Prospectus

It appears that DoubleLine, which manages the CAPE-Shiller strategy in a new ETF, got the desirable trading symbol away from Barclays. From my observations, Barclays ran the ETN under the symbol CAPE for several years, but it had to change its symbol to CAPD when the Gundlach team got into the ETF game. DoubleLine has run the MF versions of the strategy since inception, I believe. No idea how this played out behind the scenes. Maybe Barclays isn’t as big a gorilla as the US firm.

Checking out TIPs (and bonds) performance for the past 10 years -- which coincidentally is where Portfolio Vizualizer shows to be FIPDX's commencement, annual CAGRs for TIP, VIPIX & FIPDX clock in at 1.83%-1.94%. The CAGR of the general bond market (VBMFX) was 1.54% (all through May 2022).
By replacing FIPDX in PortViz with TLT (nominal LT Trsys), history goes back to 2004. TIP CAGRs were 4%, VBMFX was lower at 3.27%. TLT was 5% --- but with materially greater volatility vs both TIP & VBMFX.
Looking forward, unless one's view is that deflation will take hold, TIPs, post-bond selloff, strike me a marginally more attractive than nominal Trsys.
Opinions, pro or con?

One way to do it is to select a date range from the chart that incorporates the dates you're interested in (in this example three years would work). When the chart pops up move your cursor along the graph and you'll see daily dates whirring by. Find the one you want, but note you'll have to do your own math in order to determine the return during that custom period. The other way to approach it is to slide along the graph at the bottom of the chart but it's pretty fussy and difficult to pinpoint the dates you're interested in. Those are my work-arounds, so far at least.

With the preface, that I am a novice at TIPs, having thought them overpriced for so many years. --- so please pardon the following questions... I am dipping my toe in them now (via ETFs), since the general sell-off in bonds.
1.What is the rationale to buy individual TIPs vs an ETF. -- And especially VTIP, which holds short-term TIPs? any reason other than one has a finite duration instrument when buying the bond directly?
2. As I look at Fidelity's list of 2ndary-market TIPs, it appears shorter-term TIPs are still priced high with negative real-yields, while longer-term TIPs do have a modest (meager) posiitve real-yield. -- So why not go for longer-duration, especially, since the inflation-adjustment feature should serve as a mitigant to the longer duration?
3. More generally, as regards constructing the Treasury sleeve of one's portfolio, mightn't it make sense to populate the longer-duration portion of one's holdings with TIPs, rather than nominal bonds? --This would serve to protect one's buying power in the "outer years". And because TIPs are still risk-free (i.e. issued by Uncle Sam), they still seem to benefit from a flight to quality during risk-off periods. - I guess my point is if one is going to own ANY longer-duration Treasurys here, wouldn't TIPs have the edge over nominal bonds?
Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts/comments on the above.

In terms of risk, we may be talking about two different things. You're looking at short term predictions (early 2020 presaging March events) as exemplified by this IBM commercial. It dramatizes how Watson could predict that an elevator might fail without maintenance.

Morningstar is talking about intrinsic risk in portfolios, which might, I suppose, be analogized to two different elevators, one built with reliable parts and one with third rate reconditioned parts. Or two different portfolios, one built with bonds (BND) and one built with stocks (VTI).
Certainly a higher sampling frequency would facilitate the detection of short duration events. Worth doing. Standard deviation can be used in identifying changed conditions (see, e.g. Westinghouse Rules, aka WeCo Rules) so long as the sampling rate is high enough. That's different from asking whether volatility (taken over years at any sampling frequency) is a good measure of risk.
https://ats-help.com/ATS_Inspect_6_3/Variable_Data_Collect/WECO_Rules.htm

I'm really not clear on what's being said here.
The data lag issue may be explained by the use of monthly data for MPT stats by M*
BECAUSE M* uses monthly data, its MPT measurements lack sensitivity that weekly (or daily) data may capture.
These are two different issues. Lag (or latency) is merely the delay in reporting something. Sensitivity is the ability to detect small changes. M* is not saying that there's a lag in identifying risk - unless one is suggesting that there's a multi-year lag (due to monthly sampling) because some markets have been sedate for years. Rather, M* is saying that because volatility is not the same as risk, and because there can be risk without volatility, volatility may be a poor metric for it.
On a daily basis, the market is close to a random walk with a positive (upward) drift. I'm still working on finding a good citation for that. Think of it as flipping a biased coin. In the long run, you'll get more heads than tails, but toss by toss, the pattern looks random. Virtually all noise. I've played very little with daily returns and volatility, and not for some time, but what I recall is that it was not especially informative data.
Likewise, I'm not clear on what's being said here:
It IS a circular argument as yogibearbull says
What is the argument you see M* making, and why is it circular? I don't see what you're getting at.
Certainly if one assumes that volatility and risk are one and the same, then a period where volatility is low would of necessity mean that risk is low. That's not circular, it's a tautology.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/34409/difference-between-tautology-and-circular-reasoning
Regardless, volatility and risk are not one and the same. Let me try an analogy - Russian roulette where one spins the chamber after each shot.
After three, after five, after how every many shots you like, you find that you are still alive. Does that mean that there's a low risk of shooting yourself, verily, getting lower each time you survive? Or does it mean that your survival to date is not a good indicator of the risk inherent in the "game"?

That page is not substantially different from the 2020 report where the Section H options were likewise numbered H2-H7, and generally the only difference was that the years for implementation were one year sooner. See p. 31 (pdf p. 32):
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions_tr2020/summary.pdf
As I wrote above, nothing new to see here, move along. Just the same "news" pieces trotted out as though they were reporting on new proposals.
I suspect that if you go back year by year, you'll see very little different in the proposals aside from the dates. Here's where you can find earlier years:
https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/