I've cited this Kitces piece before:
Tax-Efficient Spending Strategies From Retirement Portfolios
https://www.kitces.com/blog/tax-efficient-retirement-withdrawal-strategies-to-fund-retirement-spending-needs/

The conventional view is that taxable investment accounts should be liquidated first, while tax-deferred accounts are allowed to continue to compound. ...
However, the optimal approach is actually to preserve the tax-preferenced value of retirement accounts and to fill the tax brackets early on, by funding retirement spending from taxable investment accounts [while doing Roth conversions] ...
... tap investment accounts for retirement cash flows in the early years, [and tap] a combination of taxable IRA and tax-free Roth accounts in the later years

Emphasis in original.

Interestingly, DODGX (Dodge and Cox Stock) wasn’t opened for more than 30 years (1965) after the inception of DODBX (Dodge and Cox Balanced) in 1931. I’m thinking that 1931 probably wasn’t an opportune year in which to try and sell the public on a stock fund. :)
1 MFS Massachusetts Investors Fund (MITTX) 1924
2 Putnam Investors Fund (PINVX) 1925
3 Pioneer Fund (PIODX) 1928
4 Century Shares Fund (CENSX) 1928
5 Vanguard Wellington Fund (VWELX) 1929
7 CGM Mutual Fund (LOMMX) 1929
8 Fidelity Fund (FFIDX) 1930
9 Dodge & Cox Balance Fund (DODBX) 1931
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/oldestmutualfunds.asp

@young - I have no bias against TCW because frankly I don't know that much about them. However, the particular fund you inquired about gives me pause because:
°It is a very concentrated fund, +52% in the top ten holdings, +12% in the top holding, There's nothing wrong particularly about that except be very aware of what you're buying.
°The fund has a pretty short history (3 years). I'd like to see a longer performance history, more info on the manager, and more info on how the fund is managed.
°Expenses or should I say the expense ratio, is all that you can control when choosing funds and this one is a bit high given most of the other growth fund options out there.
°This is a small fund in terms of AUM, $87 million. Given the concentration of the portfolio you'd better hope that the manager is on his stock picking game.
So again I repeat, there's nothing inherently wrong here but be very aware of what you're buying.

Some history, courtesy Edward Luce, Financial Times:
In 1832, the British aristocracy saved itself by agreeing to loosen its grip on power. … The [passed] bill widened Britain’s electorate and diluted the political stranglehold of its landed elites. This was a key reason why Britain escaped Europe’s wave of 1848 revolutions. …
Much the same thing happened again in 1911 …. Once again, the Lords … opted for compromise over the threat of extinction … [voting] in favour of the Parliament act, which deprived the aristocracy ever again of the power to block fiscal legislation. This was how British welfare state was born. Meanwhile, the country’s peers continued to enjoy their status at the top of the ladder. It seemed like a reasonable trade-off. The working classes received social insurance; their social betters got to complain ad nauseam about “Le weekend”.
I was reminded of these key turning points — and indeed of the New Deal … — a few days ago when Ray Dalio, the hedge fund billionaire, wrote a plea to reform American capitalism…. few people have benefited more from today’s capitalism …. The system will never change unless more people like Dalio come round to his way of thinking. One or two others, including JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, are also making similar noises, which is good news. But too many still belong in the camp of Steve Schwarzman, the private equity billionaire, and Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks chief executive, both of whom have likened the idea of a wealth tax to Venezuela. A few years ago, Schwarzman compared the proposed — but still unenacted — closure of the “carried interest” loophole to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. I wish I were making that up. Alas, he really did.
As long as the bulk of America’s superwealthy continue to equate progressive taxation with fascism, or communism, they will hasten into being what they most fear. History tells us that elites who do not share power are ultimately doomed (see French revolution). Those with the wisdom and foresight to bend find they are far less likely to eventually break. The question America’s financial and tech elites must ask is “what price social peace?” I would say social peace is worth several carried interest loopholes.

Hi @Seven:
You bring up an interesting point. I am better playing the upside than I am the downside. This is the reason that I am currently running a 20/40/40 portfolio. Once, the downside comes then I can put some cash to work in an equity spiff position to benefit from the upside. Thus far, over the past ten years my average returns are higher than if I had just invested in some of the better rated hybrid funds over just letting the money sit in these funds.
By playing spiff position (from time to time) increased my total returns in the range of one to two percent per year. And, based upon the size of my portfolio this made playing the spiff position endeavor worth while for me.
I'm thinking we all need to invest to our strengths. As in investing, generally, no two card players are alike and the better ones will prevail with the better returns over time.

“I do know that I have bettered the returns of some of my hybrid funds over the past ten years ... “
“How others have faired I have no idea.”

The validity of your first assumption rests largely on your belief that your overall market risk exposure during those 10 years corresponded closely with that of the funds you’ve chosen to benchmark against. How one goes about that type of comparison is beyond my expertise and that of the vast majority of investors. But if you were running incrementally greater risk over the period than those funds were exposed to (in aggregate), than the assumption you’re attempting to demonstrate would be faulty. If, on the other hand, your overall risk exposure (to market fluctuations) was identical to or lower than those hybrid funds assumed, than you did indeed beat those fund managers at their own game. Since the decade was generally favorable for both equities and bonds, an accurate assessment of comparative risk (you vs the hybrid funds) becomes problematic.
Your follow-up statement (or question) is easier to address: Provided the risk level in your investments remained essentially the same as or lower than that of the hybrid funds you selected as benchmarks, than investors in those funds did fair more poorly than you over that 10-year period. Importantly, their lower returns were due in some small measure to the fact that you successfully gamed the system to your advantage by side-stepping the market losses they sustained - while at the same time not having to assume a higher level of risk in your portfolio.
One problem comparing oneself to mutual funds is that they possess both structural advantages and disadvantages which individual investors don’t have. One advantage for funds is having access to lower fee institutional class shares. Another is (sometimes) having access to funds created solely for in-house use. Reduced brokerage fees buying / selling in lots reflects another advantage. And, to the extent that fund managers can better afford, and are better afforded, access to company data and management, it’s a structural advantage that should serve to lower risk compared to individual investors. One big structural disadvantage however, is that they have little control over “hot money” entering and leaving their funds - especially money running away during downturns. This may force them to sell assets at temporarily distressed levels. Also, their ability to short-term “market time” is greatly constrained; though, as I’ve argued, that may well constitute a longer term advantage.

Hi @hank,
I think some try to go all in when the investing climate is in an uptrend and the all out with the climate becomes stormy. For me, I'm a long term investor that will move between certain ranges within my established asset allocation. Did I better the swing type investor or the one that goes in and stays in through the ups and downs? I'd like to think so ... but, there is no way to really tell because I've changed my asset allocation a couple of times over the past ten years.
But, I do know that I have bettered the returns of some of my hybrid funds over the past ten years. Three that I have marked myself against are FKINX, AMECX and CAIBX.
So, if I am able to increase my portfolio's returns by just 1% over what they have done annually pays me an addition 10K , or more, per year. For me, this makes being active in the markets worth while.
How others have faired I have no idea.

Folks, this is a well written article that provides some good thoughts as to how the average retail investor can become a better one. Perhaps Carl (the subject in the article) along with a good number of my friends should start reading the MFO board as they tend to buy high and sell low as Carl has done. I have found through the years the best avenue, for me, was to follow my asset allocation and when one area got heavy (or light) then rebalance. Plus, I like to play around the edges from time to time with some spiff money.
In order for me to better follow the movement of the stock market I came up with my market barometer which scores the S&P 500 Index based upon three main data feeds. They are an earnings feed, breadth feed, and a technical score feed. Generally, when the barometer indicates that the markets are oversold I will do a little buying; and, when it reflects that the markets are overbought I'll trim my equity positions if warranted based on where I bubble within my asset allocation.
Most on the board know of my monthly (and sometimes weekly) postings of my barometer report.
If you are not familiar with it I have provided a link below to the my April report. Perhaps, in reading Old_Skeet's Barometer Report will instill some ideas that you might carry forward in developing a system of your own to become a more skilled retail investor.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/48963/old-skeet-s-market-barometer-report-thinking-for-april-2019-april-18th-update#latest
Wishing all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

Too many children. Now, there's an interesting financial subject that I can't recall being discussed on MFO in the last ten years or so.

No more kids for you @old_joe?

@MFO Members The thrust of the article was to focus on a fund in the healthcare sector that had outstanding yield with reasonable capital appreciation. The poster chose to compare GRX strictly on capital appreciation bases totally is unfair !
Regards,
Ted
P. S. GRX yield has been income with no capital gains or ROC for the last two years.

Part of this CEF distribution in 2017 was return of one's own capital invested.
Being curious....., the below 3 healthcare related were chosen, for about 5.5 years of compare.
GRX FSPHX FHLC FSMEX compare chart starting Oct. 2013
GRX has performed well during the past 3 week healthcare whack. It appears they are able to use a percent of the money for derivatives functions; and have it right at this particular time frame.
However, we remain a total return investor; not for the yield/distribution function.

Too many children. Now, there's an interesting financial subject that I can't recall being discussed on MFO in the last ten years or so.

Accustomed to pointless useless movie clips from one member here, I nearly didn’t click on the one above. But I must commend @Ted for that one and highly recommend it if you have time on this somewhat busy news day. (I sampled it but haven’t watched the full 30-minutes.)
It’s a half hour Consuelo Mack production. Begins with Buffett’s apparent affinity for index investing and than goes into a lengthy interview with Winters. I disagree with Buffet. And recall long discussions here years back when he revealed his investment strategy for his wife’s inheritance after his passing. (No desire to wade through that muck again.)
The interview is typical optimistic charming David Winters. He was an apprentice under renowned activist deep value investor Michael Price decades back, who managed the Mutual Series (later acquired by Franklin Templeton). Price had a style for pushing management to make changes which often resulted in quick appreciation of their stock price - possibly at the expense of longer term value. Winters’ approach to Wintergreen likely reflected that deep value approach. I was tempted to send money when he opened Wintergreen but resisted. The high fees were a turn-off. Charm and pedigree can only get you so far. So Winters’ act turned out to be not a “Michael Price II” - but a failure instead.
To me this has as much to do with the fickleness of investment trends as anything else. We have very short memories and tend to think things will always remain as they are. It’s possible Winters had it right, but was out of step with the current indexing / momentum driven investment climate. Who knows? I don’t pretend to. But don't dismiss Winters as an investing lightweight. The picture is a bit more complex than it might appear on surface.

@johnN
Please start a new post; as this thread is already too much off track.
Thank you.
I personally don't follow what you are asking about with your below statement.
different ?: how much should we cash out from IRA/401K/pensions plans monthly if we retire at age 62?

I agree that question needs to be rephrased by @JohnN. Sounds more like something related to longevity issue and making savings last over a lifetime. Unfortunately, some workers do “cash out” 100% from these plans and spend the money right away or within a few years of retiring. Poor planning - but all too common.
Somewhat related to Catch’s original question - These workplace plans do not need to be rolled over into an IRA if worker prefers not to. My own personal thinking (based on something I read at the time) was that while in the employee plan your investments are still partially controlled by the employer who administers the plan. But, once in an IRA (“I” for individual), control of the plan shifts completely to that of the the individual. Probably oversimplifies it - but I was more comfortable moving to an IRA and having full control.
It was simpler back than (90s). There was still a loophole in the 403B Regulations allowing participants to transfer assets to a custodian of choice. So, TRP had received most of those assets (originally with Templeton) while I was still working. They remained a 403B with TRP until I retired and elected to rollover the assets into an IRA. Very simple. A few pages of documents which I signed off on.
Lots of things to consider, including the comments by @msf above. Gets into questions of investment choices, fees, possible confiscation of assets by creditors under some circumstances - depending on type of plan selected.
-

FYI: “YOU’RE FIRED” was made famous by Donald Trump as host of The Apprentice. Imagine my surprise when my broker delivered the same message to me two years ago.
Regards,
Ted
https://humbledollar.com/2019/04/unloaded/

@MFO Members: Who would have thought that David Winters, who honed his skills under Max Heine and Michael Price at Mutual Series, and once considered a rising star in the fund world, would come to an end after fourteen years at the helm of Wintergreen Fund. But the numbers tell the story of his downfall, the fund was in the 100% percentile during it's life.
Regards,
Ted

@Derf
I don't know why Vanguard would have a problem allowing more than 1 beneficiary. We've set primary and secondary beneficiaries "on-line" through our accounts. I've seen primary, secondary and/or co-beneficiary listed as choices at various accounts over the years.
Beneficiaries/co-beneficiaries would be of the same legal status with a 401k, 403b, 457, traditional or Roth IRA to the best of my knowledge. To the point of superseding a will for purposes of distribution at death. Beneficiary is the first trump card.
If any know of a variance with the above; please let us know.
ADD: Derf, here is the Vanguard link explaining beneficiary designation.
Ok.......you're on your own from here tonight. Early rise next day and pillow time calls.

Hi Catch - By “vendor” I’m assuming you mean a mutual fund family or other fiduciary like a bank or insurance company. I can’t think of any reason for not combining. However, the vendor might be able to answer that one for friend.
I do know Price used to try to “keep straight” in their in-house records whether IRA funds I had with them had come from a “rollover” out of a 403B (like your friend) or whether they had been “transferred” in (as from one IRA custodian to another IRA custodian). Their reasoning at the time was that a rollover from 403B had for a number of years the ability to be rolled again back into another employer’s 403B should I return to work again.. Muddle the distinction in the sourcing of the funds and that option becomes impossible.
Price long ago gave up the ghost on that one - at least as far as my money is concerned. So, in all practicality, I think JoJo is correct that it doesn’t matter.

Does anyone have John Hussman’s own remarks to his investors for what went wrong here? Since it appears other Hussman funds are remaining open or being opened, it would be out of character of him not to comment on this closure. Not that anybody cares. But it would be interesting to some of us, anyway, to hear what he sees as the primary reason for the fund’s failure.
You could argue that there’s more - or at least an equal amount - to be learned from failure than from success. I think Musk had 3 Falcon 1 rockets blow up before one actually made it to space. There was a “cute” cliche widely touted in education seminars 30 years ago: “Monitor and adjust.” - :) Of course, that gem can be applied to most disciplines.
PS - While I found one poster’s video amusing, most will agree Hussman had more education and intellect than the fictionalized 60s television persona the poster linked above. It doesn’t take a lot of brains to lose money, but having the afore-mentioned education / intellect is no guarantee that you won’t either.

"Wealthfront, for example, harvests losses by switching between the Vanguard ETF and the Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sec-fintech/sec-sanctions-robo-advisers-wealthfront-hedgeable-idUSKCN1OK22E
Wealthfront, for example, was fined $250,000 by the SEC for allegedly making "false statements about a tax-loss harvesting strategy it offered to clients."

The company had told clients using the service that it would monitor all clients’ accounts for transactions that might trigger a sale of securities that would diminish the benefits of the tax-loss strategy but it failed to do so, the SEC alleged.
For a period of over three years these sales occurred in at least 31 percent of accounts enrolled in the company’s tax-loss harvesting strategy, the SEC alleged.
[The SEC also claimed that Wealthfront paid bloggers for client referrals w/o disclosure, and that it posted performance figures that included less than 4% of their clients' accounts - the better performing ones, of course.]

Definitely beware the bold claims when they're paid testimonials and rigged numbers.