So where are you guys who are selling ARTKX/ARTGX moving your funds to? I've owned ARTKX for 12 years or so, it's been a fabulous fund, but all these changes are disturbing.

Hi Joe. I built a very similar spreadsheet, probably about 15-18 years ago, and have upgraded it over the years with a bunch of what-if statements, like what if I pulled from the nest egg and bought an annuity in such and such year, what if I take my pension as a lump sum or in monthly life-long payments to compare scenarios for when to retire, what if inflation is 2%, 4% or more in different decades, ect, ect... 3 different compare tables showing the value of your nest egg in 3 comparable charts. You guys are right on this. Doing it yourself and understand each calculation is a huge benefit, if not greater reassurance in it's ability to predict.
Not bragging, but most people cannot do the same with Excel. That is why I think the Monte Carlo simulation is a great tool for most people, not as an exact answer but a ball park. That's all I was trying to say.
Take away MJG's annoyingness, (which we agree on, hmm, spell check says annoyingness is not a word) in my opinion people could and should be using something, and if you aren't a spreadsheet builder yourself I'm not sure there is anything better than Monte Carlo to get a ball park for probability to sustain.
Thanks for the feedback msf and old_joe.

@MikeM - Hi there Mike- I think that msf has pretty well covered the general response to your questions. Because Monte Carlo simulation was not widely available during our working years, I designed (took me a while, I'll tell you) a "predictive" spreadsheet which I integrated into the general financial spreadsheet which I had used for some years (and still use) to keep track of our various investments.
The "predictive" section took account of all resources which would be available to my wife and I after retirement: pensions, SS, Medicare, and income or value increase in investments of equity vehicles, bond vehicles, and real estate. Likewise we had excellent data which had been accumulated over a number of years with respect to anticipated expenses, broadly classified as "basic" (unavoidable), discretionary, and emergency.
Each of those variables was referenced to large tables which were set up to independently run compounded values over 35 years. Independent inputs for variables included inflation rate, rate of return on equities, bonds and cash (CDs and savings) accounts, and a "financial disaster" input which introduced a general meltdown variable selectable for any given year in the 35 year stretch.
By varying each of those inputs in any desired combination it was possible to see the cascading effect of various disaster scenarios occurring at different selected times. For example, I generally ran cash and bond income at 2% below the inflation rate, which was also a selected variable, and equity income at 2% above. Very conservative. Being a pessimist by nature, I generally ran setups which would cover every bad thing happening that I could imagine.
As it happened, I wasn't too far off in the predictive timing for disaster. Destruction of financial resources will be most influential the earlier that they happen in retirement, as they can set back the entire cumulative compounding effects quite seriously. Indeed, Murphy struck, in 2007/2008, just after retirement.
Nevertheless, the tables worked out pretty well. By pulling down our discretionary expenses (another independent variable input) we survived the chaos in good shape, and were able to carry on with no huge impact to our retirement mode.
Edit/add: I should also mention that we were deliberately in good shape with respect to loans and finance charges: 30 year mortgage @8% had been paid off ten years early, never any credit card or other interest expenses. (Once the mail was late with a credit card payment and it cost something like $4.21. My wife still mentions that occasionally.)
MGJ dismissed this whole effort rather casually with a reference to the "limitations" of a spreadsheet for these purposes, and endless exaltations and paeans as to the superiority and invincibility of Monte Carlo. He's welcome to his opinion: just take it with a large grain of whatever. He seems to be one of those folks who believe that whatever they do is the right and only way, that anything else is highly suspect or at best barely acceptable, and thoroughly enjoy telling you so. I'm sure that you know the type.
Regards
OJ

Open end funds can in theory be shorted. I'm not going to do a search now, but in the past there were a few that were actually set up for shorting (I mean shorting shares of the fund, not that the fund shorted securities).
Whether there are currently any OEFs that can be shorted, I don't know. It's not something I've checked on in several years.

Looks like they're trying to find a way to make us buy both funds. I exchanged from ARTKX to ARTGX years ago and I'm glad I did. I'm really appreciating FMIs setup more and more. Maybe this will work but I hate tinkering with something that already is working.

Chart compares for 10yr yield, $US, IEF, EEM and EMB for the past 2 years.
I thought I had retained a write about the market flip at the end of January........can't find.
However, I continue to be inclined that the late January global equity markets actions have more to do with "other", and not so much a stronger dollar and higher gov't. bonds issues here. Other being continuing twitches about trade and tariffs; as well as a little here and a little there......Turkey, Argentina, etc.
A risk off for some areas continues for the markets since Jan. 26 or so. The downside took place then and remains in place for numerous sectors, having not attained and/or recovered to a previous higher price level.
Pillow time.................
Catch

"writing what it seems you want to be true"
Been telling MJG that for more years than I can count. Good luck getting him to listen.

You're missing a number of points and writing what it seems you want to be true: that the 4% figure "is based on multiple studies that included using Monte Carlo analyses". It wasn't.
If what you meant to say is that subsequent Monte Carlo simulations validated this figure, then there's a different problem with the narrative. Because that would also validate the use of historical data - something you say has an intrinsic shortcoming.
Of course the odds are virtually nil that the next thirty years will match a previous thirty year period. Just as the odds are virtually nil that the next thirty years will match a performance pulled out of a hat (aka a Monte Carlo iteration). This is a red herring.
In the typical Monte Carlo simulation, patterns are abstracted away. You seem to regard this as a virtue, writing disapprovingly that historical returns are used "sometimes in the precise order in which these returns were registered." (Orderings weren't preserved merely "sometimes" but always when Bengen came up with his 4% figure. See his original paper.)
Again I suggest reading the AAII piece. You'll find a concrete example of how ignoring some patterns can affect results. Bengen notes there that if one rebalances much less frequently than yearly, " you can actually add about a quarter of a percentage point to your withdrawal rate" He attributes this to persistence of performance. That's a kind of pattern that simplistic Monte Carlo simulations abstract away.
"Monte Carlo simulations continue to grow in popularity." When all else fails, cite popularity for validation. I'm sure VHS's popularity meant that it was the superior technology, that the more popular Windows is better than Mac, etc.
There really was some interesting stuff that you didn't discuss. Like how "there is an inverse relationship between the long-term valuation of the stock market and how much retirees can withdraw without running out of money."
How does that historical data fit into your Monte Carlo simulations? How do you map CAPE into means and standard deviations for large cap stocks, small cap stocks, and bonds? Those are the inputs for the simulators you're linking to.

I think Monte Carlo engines are fine tools. Just so long as they're not simplistic, matched to the right task, and employed by knowledgeable users. Used as you suggest, they have lots of issues.

There are no constraints to Monte Carlo simulation, only constraints users create in a model (or constraints that users are forced to deal with when using someone else’s model). Non-normal asset-class returns and autocorrelations can be incorporated into Monte Carlo simulations, albeit with proper care.

David Blanchett and Wade Pfau,The Power and Limitations of Monte Carlo Simulations, 2014.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2014/08/26/the-power-and-limitations-of-monte-carlo-simulations

Defined benefits are part of your compensation in addition to the base salary, insurance coverage, vacation, sick leave, and retirement funding.
Defined pension plan, although rapidly disappearing, is your retirement pension once you are "vested", typically 3-5 years of employment. Defined contribution plan, or 401(K) in private sector, or 403(b) in education sector. 401(k) plan is funded by the employees on pretax dollars and therefore reduces the taxable income (say your base salary). If you contribute to the maximum dollar amount in 2018, this amounts to $18,000. If you are over the age of 50, you can contribute additional $6,000. Your employers can contribute up to 5-6% of your base salary to your 401(k). If you are in 25% tax bracket, your tax saving is $4,500 (0.25 X $18,000),
As bee pointed out, the HSA and FSA are also available. Since the medical insurance enrollment is upon us now, it is important to talk with your HR as soon as possible.

https://m.nasdaq.com/article/the-best-bonds-for-rising-rates-cm1020114
FINSUM, September 10, 2018, 10:05:23 AM EDT
(New York)
This is a tough time to be buying bonds. Prices have become very rich over the last several years and on top of sky high valuations and low yields the risk of rising rates causing big losses is high as the Fed sticks to its hawkish path. With that in mind, floating rate bonds and ETFs are a good strategy to combat the situation,

"The 4% retirement rule ... is based on multiple studies that included using Monte Carlo analyses"
What the WSJ article says: "Based on pioneering research in the early 1990s by William Bengen, then a financial planner in California, the so-called 4% rule states that retirees can pull about 4% annually from their nest egg (a figure Mr. Bengen eventually set at 4.5%), with a high probability that their savings will last 30 years."
Bengen's research had nothing to do with Monte Carlo analyses, such as "This Vanguard Monte Carlo calculator."
Bengen said so himself: "Let me add that I am a great admirer of Vanguard and their effort to serve investors well with low-cost, well-managed funds. I use their funds in my personal portfolio. But our approach to computing "safe" withdrawal rates ... is quite different."
https://www.aaii.com/journal/article/insights-on-using-the-withdrawal-rule-from-its-creator
That excellent 2018 interview with Bengen was linked to by the WSJ article. To me what is interesting is not so much the 4% figure as why he picked a thirty year target. (FWIW, in 1994, the IRS joint life table for a couple of 65 year olds was 25 years. The current Table III shows 27.4 years for a 70 year old couple, so we can assume that a 65 year old couple would have at least a 30 year life expectancy per IRS today).
Also, in his followup that I quoted from above, he addressed @slick's 3.5%

In contrast, my methods use actual historical returns and inflation rates in the order in which they occurred. Vanguard's methods create sequences of returns and inflation which probably never happened in reality. As a result, they may generate "worst case" scenarios worse than anything that has ever happened, while my methods search for the worst case that has actually occurred.
Note also that Vanguard uses different asset classes than I do in my research.

When you change things like that, numbers can change radically.

@mjg the vanguard calculator is a nice tool. I'm at 3.5% drawdown and more than 90% probability it will last 30 years, which considering I am 67 is wishful thinking lol.

Back i January 2018 I jumped into an additional emerging market fund GQGPX (already had SIGIX) whose manager Rajiv Jain I had experience with when he was with Vontobel (had the fund for 4 years) but he left to from his own boutique firm. I had bought a fund he subadvised at Goldman Sachs in September 2017 GSIHX since his emerging stock fund was not available at Fidelity, but found it available at TD America so I jumped in January 2018 awaiting its availability on the Fidelity platform at some point. Made a nice return until emerging markets tanked, and sold GQGPX in July 2018. Since it was in a taxable account, decided to sell since I had some substantial profits in a stock I sold in January (ABBV).
Emerging markets have declined substantially since I sold GQGPX, and I am wondering if its near a bottom, it is now available at Fido, and can put into into my Roth. I have been adding to its sister fund GSIHX, but have enough in there now. It is mostly in developed market. Holding onto SIGIX despite its recent history, as I buy good managers, and tend give them at least 2 years to come back when they falter, especially if their part of the market is more the issue, but have reduced it a bit in favor of Jain's fund.
Anyone else think emerging markets are ready to buy? All opinions welcome :)

Early last year I dumped my pharma etf PFP, which I had held for about 4 years and traded it for IHI which has trounced big pharma over the last few years. Very glad I did, it is one of the etfs mentioned. I am somewhat overweight in health care, but have been for quite a while with no regrets.

FYI: The financial crisis brought the global economy to the brink, with many regarding the bankruptcy of investment bank Lehman Brothers in September 2008 as the seminal moment of the great recession. That same year, the U.S. housing market went under water, J.P. Morgan acquired Bear Stearns in record time as it too faced collapse, stock markets crashed and the Federal Reserve slashed interest rates to their lowest in history. Ten years on, the J.P. Morgan Research team explores what has changed and what the future could hold for the global economy and markets
Regards,
Ted
https://www.jpmorgan.com/global/research/10-years-after-crisis

Old_Skeet's Twelve Month Income Area Game Plan
When the US 10 Yr gets to a yield of 3.0% I may do a little buying in my income sleeve. Currently, my fixed income sleeve is at about 90% of its targeted allocation while my hybrid income sleeve is at 100% of its targeted allocation. This puts my income area, within my portfolio, at about 97% of its targeted allocation as the hybrid income sleeve is twice the size of the fixed income sleeve. My goal is to have my income area towards full allocation by yearend should interest rates be at 3% or greater. I am pretty much still with my cash build mode as my money market fund (year-to-date) is currently out performing a good number of my fixed income funds. As interest rates continue to rise so does its yield. In addition, I'm thinking that the FOMC will raise interest rates (in steps) a full percent over the next twelve months, or so, putting the US 10 Yr at a yield of about four percent. And, with the Fed raising rates most existing bonds will decline in value to compete with the higher yield of newly issued bonds. Thus, I am also striving at keeping my average bond duration back of three years.
The rolling 12 month total return on my fixed income sleeve is about 1.9% while on my hybrid income sleeve it is about 4.5%. And, for the income area (as a whole) its average total return is better than 3.6% which is also about it's average yield. With this, I have been maintaining my income area's valuation while also enjoying the yield benefit as there has been no loss to principal. In looking back over a five year period I've grown principal by a couple percent per year plus the enjoyment of the income.

FYI: For many investors, 2008 must seem like ancient history, but for those who recall that terrible year it was a nightmare. Stocks in the S&P 500 fell 37% and nothing but Treasury bonds was safe. Now, almost 10 years into the second-longest bull market in history, it may be time to prepare for the next downturn. That doesn’t mean you should sell your stocks, but that it’s worth shifting to more defensive equity funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/stock-funds-with-brakes-and-airbags-1536357068?mod=hp_RTA

There are so many being mentioned, will be hard to choose just one. I have ARTGX and IWIRX which have been mentioned each for over 5 years, happy with both, but I also added GSIHX this year. New shop, with a manager that has an excellent reputation from Virtus, which I held for a long time. He left and formed the GQG Partners. Worth a look. If this is your only exposure to foreign , I would likely go with one of Vanguard's funds and later spread out to others as money and risk permit you.

.....finance timelines below.
2007 Financial Markets Timeline

2008 Financial Markets Timeline
2009 Financial Markets Timeline
I may add a bit more; but have other appointments today, in my timeline.
Take care,
Catch

Good question, that. Shortly, I'm going to bite the bullet and switch gears from growth-mode to income mode. I will be deliberately moving to own less in equities and to a position of being overweight in bonds. Change is hard even when it's clearly appropriate. I just today checked my biggest holding. Over the past 5 years, I'm up in that fund by +50% in hard-dollar terms. PRWCX. "Take the profit and run, Crash." I still think I'll wait for the end-of-year shakeout and do this thing in January.