@MJG- You've just touched on a subject that has been a bugbear of mine for many years: the inability of some persons to simply say "I don't know". For whatever reason there seems to be a whole lot of people who would rather waste everyone's time with some long-winded "answer" to a question that turns out to be nothing more than guesswork or a compendium of misinformation.
In my former occupation I frequently needed to obtain specialized information from others, and vice versa. When I was asked a question, unless I was absolutely certain of the answer I would give my best guess or estimate, along with a comment to the effect that "I'll give that an (insert percentage here) chance of being correct. If I had no idea, I would simply say so.
Occasionally someone would apologize to me for not knowing an answer- my reply was simply "there's not a darned thing to apologize for... I don't know the answer either or I wouldn't be asking the question".

Thanks both for the input. Having deliberated this a while, I want to concede that my analysis is quite distorted in that it may suggest only taking from investments near market peaks. Of course that’s not realistic. So, proponents of the bucket approach need to plan ahead as to when something would “trigger” withdrawals from said bucket - as well as to when they would begin “refilling” it.
What I’d fear most with this approach would be that when my bucket had dropped below the “25% remaining” level (maybe 4 years after I began withdrawing from it), I’d panic and sell some securities at very depressed levels to add to that bucket (similar to noticing your gas tank is below quarter-full and not knowing how far away the next gas station is).
Those with good memories will remember that by the end of ‘08 almost everyone was expecting things to get even worse. Of course, 2 months later the recovery began.
@MikeM - Yes, you make good sense. By pulling from your cash bucket (as you explain it) you are in effect increasing your allocation to equities & other risk assets. Generally, that’s a smart thing to do in a falling market (but psychologically difficult).
@OldJoe - Yep. I sleep well too. Always something in the basket that increases in worth - even on the worst days - (but sometimes only the cash portion) :)

@MikeM- Your way of looking at the situation is very similar to mine. But I have to concede that @hank has a couple of good points too. We've been told that we could have done much better over the years had we not been so conservative. Probably true, but on the other hand, we never lost much sleep, even during major downturns.

Food for thought - I’ve never subscribed to this popular notion of maintaining a separate “bucket” of cash to “tide you over” during temporary declines. My approach has been to create a (1) reasonably stable portfolio with growth potential and to (2) take small enough distributions so as not to deplete significantly the overall portfolio. Yes - you lose some ground by taking distributions from the investment pot during bear markets. But you’re farther ahead during up markets by having 100% invested (includes allocations to cash / bonds). Decision making related to how much cash to hold and trying to time when to dip into that bucket are substantially reduced. Albeit - you may also lose ground during bull markets as well because you’re not as aggressively invested as you might be (having a sizable bucket of cash in reserve). Since Ms Dizubinski and a number of smarter people here than me favor this bucket approach, I’ll defer to their judgement. No intent to give investment advice. Not an expert (Only “C“ s in math).
Proponents of the approach Dizubinski advocates often point to the duration (in month’s) of a bear market. However, a more accurate way to examine this is to look at the number of months from market peak to full recovery. Since the bull market always begins at the bottom of a bear market, the climb back up to the earlier high can be long. I suppose the proponents of the cash bucket approach intend to rely on the bucket during the full recovery period?

Just estimating here -
- Looks like it took about 10 years for the S&P to fully recover from its high reached in 1906 (Dividends / compounding aren’t included* / A world war transpired).
- About 25 years elapsed before full recovery from the 1929 S&P peak (A world war intervened).
- After the 1968 peak, nearly 20 years elapsed before all the S&P losses were recovered.
- The S&P partially recovered from the 2000 sell-off (in 7 years) by around 2007. Than the “big fall” we’re most familiar with occurred.
- From that interim high in 2007, the market recovered in just 5 years. To some extent, that rapid recovery may have taught us the wrong lesson.
- Full S&P recovery, however, from its 2000 high took something in the vacinity of 15 years.
Admittedly, the above analysis is at least partially flawed: *(1) It doesn’t account for compounded dividends paid investors along the way, (2) It assumes (suggests) that investors dipped into their cash bucket immediately after a significant decline from “peak” occurred and relied on it until full market recovery, (3) It fails to acknowledge most investors are diversified into domestic equities, international holdings and debt instruments in addition to the S&P. To this last point ... If you own an actively managed fund of just about any sort you’re automatically exposed to some fixed income (typically cash) held by the manager for liquidity purposes.
Here’s the source of the chart and some accompanying analysis:
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2019/04/01/a-perspective-on-secular-bull-and-bear-markets

It used to be printed, then about 5 years ago they announced that it no longer would be, but that it could be accessed online (until now).

1-2y true cash may be a little scant, though I just commenced moves to result in 5y cash or bonds and that seems excessive, some days

@davidrmoran, I've gone back and forth with myself what that 'number of years' cash bucket should be also. I was initially pretty conservative with a plan to hold 4 years living expenses in cash. I've reduced that # in my plans. The object for me is make sure I don't have to sell equity funds in a bear market. I think from what I've read the typical bear lasts about 14 months. Average recovery about 5 months. So given that, a 2-3 year bucket should be more than efficient.
The other part of that safety bucket I'd like to incorporate is that all dividends earned in my portfolio would continuously go into that safety-cash bucket. That would safely stretch out that 2-3 years need for replenishment even longer.
Good luck with your planning.

Hi @Old_Joe
This is Morningstar's convertibles funds list.
Numerous duplicates among fund families due to the "R" type for dedicated retirement accounts and some institutional that may not be available to us regular folks.
You can sort the return list with a click upon the "year".
Course, I don't know what you may have access to via Schwab. I've not used their web site for a long time; but wondering what they show for a search list or investment style list.
Being a Fidelity acct. I chose their similar fund to chart against The Franklin fund, which appears to have the edge over other similar funds for the past several years......
Chart here
If you find something available at Schwab, use this active chart and add a comma and the ticker and click GO. The time frame should remain the same if the new add has long enough time frame.

My cash area consist of two sleeves. A demand cash sleeve where I hold enough cash to meet my income distributions needs plus some for new investment purposes. Generally, this sleeve holds a sum equal to about one years worth of portfolio income generation. In my investment cash sleeve are found mine and my wife's bank savings accouts, our brokerage held money market mutual funds and a one to three year cd ladder. At one time, I considered holding the 1 to 3 year US Treasury etf SHY; but due to its current yield of 1.87% I scuttled this thought since my CD ladder is paying out north of 2.5% and my current money market funds are paying out north of 2.25%. We hold a sum equal to about three years worth of cash draw needs in the investment cash sleeve. Probally more than we should; but, there again, should we get into a protracted market decline I don't want to have to sell investments in other portfolio areas should the need arise to raise some cash especially in a down market.

@MikeM:
For a good number of years I have referenced Mr. Rowland's Leadership Strategy to see what he is favoring and also to see what might be out of favor within the strategy thus making it a good contrarian play.
Currently, money market has moved upward over the past few weeks while scv and micro caps are at the bottom rungs of the strategy. I've been thinking of buying a little in my small mid cap sleeve as a contrarian position since they are the out of favor styles in the strategy. An example of this follows. A samll cap fund (MMEAX) that I watch that also holds a good reprenentation of micro caps was up last week by +3.67%. For those that might be interested I have linked its Morningstar fund report below.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/MMEAX/quote.html
I have found that if I wait for a style to green light then a good bit of the gain has already been achieved. This might be why the strategy has not outperformed for the 2008-2017 period as much as it did in the first period of your study since computerized trading has now become more common place with big money. I'm thinking that big money might be out playing the strategy and the gains that use to be made with the strategy are simply thinner today. I'm also thinking that the high frquency crowd has made stock market gains thinner for the retail investor as these guys skim off some of the trading profits that would have otherwise been left.
I feel it would be of good interest to learn Mr. Rowland's thoughts; and, I have made contact with his office requesting one.
Old_Skeet

It's really hard to believe that after all these years we're still exchanging insults over Monte Carlo (or, evidently, "alleged" Monte Carlo) simulations. This poor horse has been dead for a long time now. How about a decent burial?

Certainly this is beyond a robo type service.

Charles Schwab's announcement Thursday that it was moving from an assets-under-management fee to a flat monthly charge for its robo adviser sent shock waves throughout the industry.

I think it is tied to the robo service @Sven. It's been available for a couple years now, just a different fee structure. You have to be in Intelligent Portfolio (robo) to use this service is the way I read this.

I applaud his approach (and the debt-free thing) but can't help noting he was doing bonds during a MAJOR bond bull market. Heck if I could get 10, 15, or 20% in quality gov bonds now like they were back in the 70s and 80s I'd sell everything and move into them, too.
It's like this past 10 years ... lots of folks probably think they're awesome stock pickers and/or savvy investors when the "rising tide" pretty much lifted all equity boats post-GFC.

Thanks @msf for the excellent response to @Ted’s questionable use of MFO board space. :) It’s always a good idea to read some top flight reviews, like you’ve linked, before shucking out money. The NYT is hard to top in that category.
In simpler terms, there are many reasons for attending a play other than to learn about finance or financial history. When one considers the cost of transport to NYC, the outrageous hotel rates, the dilapatated subways, a third world airport (LGA) - and play tickets reaching into the hundreds of dollars (even for a cramped seat), from a purely financial standpoint, attending a play in NYC is a non-starter. Better to stay home and count your dollars.
Largely, @Ted’s linked Bloomberg review sheds little light on investing and misses the mark as a literary critique. I suppose as a look at the profit margins involved in producing a play or a comment on how the consumer chooses to spend his discretionary income there may be some use. Those do bear on investing. But, as presented, the article barely touches upon those areas. I’ll say that the fact that the producer of this play also produced the Broadway revival of Cabaret a few years ago, I’d at least consider attending this one. That is one of the most profoundly meaningful and moving semi-historical dramas I’ve witnessed. Saw it three times in NYC - and regretted its closing.
Critical Reviews of dramatic art, which you mention, rarely concern themselves with historical (or financial) accuracy - though it’s appropriate to note where substantial artistic license has been taken by the writer / producer. As I said earlier, receiving a factual lesson in finance or history would rank low on the list of reasons why one might attend a play.
It should be noted the play isn’t appearing on Broadway (at least yet). It’s location, The Park Avenue Armory, is in the 59th Avenue area of NYC - a dozen or or more blocks away from the Broadway section where most top-flight plays are performed. As the Park Avenue institution appears to have a relationship with the highly respected Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. I’d expect the play to be top quality.
-
From Wikepedia: “Artistic license”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_license
[excerpt] “Artistic license often provokes controversy by offending those who resent the reinterpretation of cherished beliefs ... William Shakespeare's historical plays, for example, are gross distortions of historical fact but are nevertheless lauded as outstanding literary works.”
From Wikepedia: Park Avenue Armory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Avenue_Armory
From Marketwatch: For those (like Ted) whose primary concern seems to be finance / financial accuracy (not artistic merit) here’s a quick read - How To Make Money On Broadway.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-make-money-producing-on-broadway-2018-07-16

@MJG, you really present as a windy dimwit sometimes. You posted an article with the hed the 3 Best Free Retirement Calculators and subheds Final Three and Conclusion. It is six years old and out of date and likely superseded and updated and the methods and sophistication of the data usage. One specific criticism charged within it is probably fixed. Who knows? You did not dive into each program and check for the latest state of play. You did not survey the field to see what is new. And now you just go off about asking me whether I think the rules still apply. Wrong question! What is wrong with you that you would miss the obvious and simple point and then still argue about it?? It is the programs we are talking about and historical databases. The car analogy was hasty but is fully apt. Would you accept from anyone an article that says these are the best cars today and stopped at 2011 models?
Please just sometimes think before posting one of your automatic windy responses. Who said anything about taking exception to the advice? Find a latest-state-of-play article to post instead.
When someone points out foolishness on your part, you come back with wait, wait, what about the content? I mean, the old cars still roll and work and have wheels and follow the laws of gravity. Jeez, man.

I get my convertible security exposure through FISCX which is held in my hybrid income sleeve of my portfolio. Some other members on the board also own this fund. Through the years it has done me well as its 10Yr total return has averaged better than 13% per year.

@DavidV: Thank you for your question about my all weather asset allocation.
My all weather asset allocation of 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity affords me everything necessary to meet my needs now being in the distribution phase of investing. The benefit of this asset allocaton is that it provides sufficent income, maximizes diversification, minimizes volatility, and provides long-term returns.
The 20% held in cash area provides me ample cash should I need a cash draw over and above what my portfolio generates plus it can provide the capital necessary to fund a special investment position (spiff) should I choose to open one during a stock market pullback. In addition, cash helps stablizes a portfolio during stock market volitility.
The 40% held in the income area provides me ample income generation to meet my income needs in retirement. It is a well diverisfied area that incorporates a good number of diverisified income generating type funds including a commodity strategy fund that has a yield of about 11%.
The 40% held in the equity area provides me some dividend income along with some growth that equities generally provide that offsets the effects of inflation plus, over time, they tend to offer up a growth of principal benefit as well.
I found years back this asset allocation model gave me good comfort when I ran my parents money during their retirement years. It is also the model my parents broker recommended that I follow which worked well for them and now I have adopted it.
My father's all weather model had less risk than the one I have described above. His model was 25% cash, 25% fixed income, 25% stocks and 25% real estate. Also know he was raised during the depression and farm land was a cherished asset.

Yes, a great deal depends on one's circumstances, prospects and specific desires as to what to actually DO with retirement income. I could forget about Medicare and live like a king in The Philippines, even after needing to buy an insurance policy over there which covers my long list of prescriptions and doctor/hospital care. (Wife is from there.) But the food and the climate in The Philippines both really suck. I could, as an Irish citizen, move there, too. But the health insurance system is not as good as some others within the EU. I do know for certain specifically that diabetes needs are covered 100%, totally free, in Ireland. And I'd first have to establish residency in Ireland for long enough to be able to fill out a form which transfers my health coverage to a different country within the EU which I actually want to live in--- maybe the south of Portugal, where it's sunny and warm for more of the year.
But as long as my wife remains 19 years younger than I am, there is a very reasonable expectation for as long as I live that at least one full-time income can be depended upon, between the two of us. That's like an "ace in the hole." My income-producing mutual funds only continue to grow, too. So, we can afford to leave the principal behind me, so that she will get it after my passing. Which I hope will be many years away. Our Will provides the specific destinations for various percentages of what we will both leave behind, once that happens. It is satisfying to be able to do this, emotionally and spiritually. But I worry about my son's prospects re: retirement. Nothing like my own case. He's 25. ... Re: healthcare, just imagine how much easier and stress-free everything would be if we could provide decent healthcare to everyone, globally?! ...It would require some very stoopid countries to get smart, though. I'm talking about IQ as well as putting POLITICAL stoopid-ity behind them!

Hi davidrmoran,
I understand the point you make. It is true in many instances, but false in others. The auto example that you selected as an illustration is terrible. Today’s cars are much improved over those of a few years ago. Some things change rapidly, others do not. The laws of physics don’t change whatsoever; they are time invariant. There are no laws of investment, but rather accepted good policy and rules.
The rules for profitable investing tend to approach the the laws of physics, although I admit they are not cast in stone. Some have changed, but only sloooowly. Investing is sensitive to circumstances. Also, each investor has his own rule set. Those differing rule sets are what make a dynamic marketplace.
I am sure I am preaching to the choir now. I believe you are an experienced, knowledgeable investor. Do you take exception to the advice offered in the referenced document? I did not. It was OK, but not great. If you do not take exception to some of the comments made in the reference, this discussion is not worth pursuing.
Thank you for taking time to reply.
Best Wishes (I mean that)

The market has risen after yield inversion ( albeit in a small sample size ) on past occasions. Link shows highest forward return after onset of yield inversion

The yield spread is an important and useful ( and is definitely getting a lot of attention these days ), yet it is an isolated data series
In the book "A Guide to Modern Quantitative Tactical Asset Allocation" *, one of the few data series that has shown enough precision and statistical confidence for use towards signaling infrequent tactical shifts from equity based assets into safe duration assets in avoidance of significant decline events and sequence of returns risk, has been a "trend change" in the Conference Board Leading Economic index. The CB LEI is constructed with a composite of 10 data series components ( the yield spread being one ), creating a more robust view of economic activity. One will see many of these components being used in analysis, in isolated fashion, in attempts to devine the direction of the economy / equity markets.
A trend change in the CB LEI variable combined with and confirmed by signaling produced from a stock market trend identifier ( Moving average variable - core concepts # 3 & 4, chapters 1, 3 & 4 * ), has identified the bulk of significant market decline periods over the past 50 years.
At present, the two trends are positive ( since July of 2009 ) **
Additionally, from the past historical signals generated ( Chapter 5, Part 1, table 2 * ) in the past, we can see the gains accrued from the onset of the inversion to the next negative trend change of the LEI / moving average variables https://imgur.com/EGpcnQC
A key premise to successful investing involves the holding of equity based assets for longest optimal periods ( years in most cases ), and in rare circumstances, switch to duration assets ( months in most cases ).
. . .
* https://tinyurl.com/y6w4ca8b
** https://tinyurl.com/y9rrzral

Nice eye candy. A fun chart to look at. Seriously.
Of course it has to be true that all else being equal cheaper is better. But all else is virtually never equal, and there's a lot being glossed over in this one chart.
* It's comparing apples and oranges - asset weighted performance vs. unweighted share classes:
A fund could have five expensive share classes with few assets and one cheap share class; the performance could look good on an asset weighted basis because of the cheap share class but the fund family would look expensive because of all those "empty" expensive share classes.
Note also that while a load share class might be considered expensive on an absolute basis it could still be rated average or below average in cost. That's because M* groups share classes by type: load, institutional, no load, before ranking their costs as relatively high, average, or low.
For example, LCEVX, a LCV fund with an ER of 1.56% is said to be "below average" in expenses. Its sibling classes include LCEAX, ER 0.81%, called "low", and LCEIX, ER 0.76% called merely "below average" because NL shares are expected to have lower costs than their loaded brethren. (I'm not faulting M* here for how it evaluates costs; just pointing out what's going on beneath this chart.)
* Load families tend to make costs look less relevant. As noted above, A shares can be counted as "cheap" even as their costs drag down their performance.
* At least according to papers I've read, the correlation between costs and performance is stronger for bond funds than for equity funds. That could skew the per-family data, since some families specialize in bonds, while others have more assets in equities.
* How meaningful is data about share classes for families with very few (say, five) share classes total? As opposed to one with hundreds of share classes.
There's the usual caveat of relying on stale data. Here's the source of the chart, from four years ago.
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/691300/the-clear-link-between-fees-and-performance.html
Quoting from that page:

Dodge & Cox has a perfect 100% score in both metrics, which is a testament to its ...small fund lineup. Vanguard, the largest fund firm, has 100% of its funds with below-average fees. Considering its large lineup of funds, it has an impressive 75% that have a Morningstar Rating of 4 stars or better.

If you to play with more extensive data, there's the Morningstar Fund Family 150 (Jan 1, 2019): "a semiannual publication that gives investors access to the same analytical rigor our own analysts use to keep tabs on the 150 largest fund families in the United States."
Highlights: https://www.morningstar.com/blog/2019/02/22/top-fund-families.html
Full paper: https://morningstardirect.morningstar.com/clientcomm/DueDiligenceReports/FundFamily150.pdf
Spreadsheet data: https://morningstardirect.morningstar.com/clientcomm/DueDiligenceReports/FundFamily150_2018_Q4.xlsm