"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.

@catch22: I don't believe that anyone on the MFO Discussion Board has more invested in the Q's than myself. The (-1.34%) loss so far today means nothing when you consider the 16.05% annual return over the last ten years the Q's have provided me.
Regards,
Ted

'Course, a likely choice for profit taking are the winners, yes? Watching the tech. sector more so now; since the short melt in late January. Not too twitchy here yet, but watching. The long term profit stack is high from the past several years; but this does not imply I want to give any of this back to the marketplace.
Broad Category list, Real Time
***** Click %Chg, to sort percentage listing
Nuff said.
Catch

We should be thanking you for peeking our interest @Crash. (msf picked up on the short sales which I missed.) Yikes! I've got maybe 6-8 funds with those guys. I 've held all of them for 10 years or longer - with the exception of TMSRX which just opened. Sure makes me wonder why they need to offer so many different funds - and whether they're spreading themselves too thin.

"Laddering can be done with any fixed income product of a predetermined maturity, including bonds, CDs or fixed annuities"
Fixed annuities have a period of time when their interest rate is fixed, but they don't "mature" after that. They simply convert to paying a floating rate (still called "fixed annuities").
In this sense, they're like 5/1 adjustable rate mortgages - fixed rate for a period of time (here, five years), then a floating rate until the mortgage matures decades down the road.
You might want to lock in a new fixed rate with a new fixed annuity, but you're not forced to because the old annuity doesn't "mature".
Note that these days, many fixed annuities tack on market value adjustments (MVA) if you redeem before some "maturity" date, even if there is no "early withdrawal penalty" (to use CD terminology).
What that means is that the issuer is going to treat it like a bond - if interest rates go up while you hold the annuity, then its redemption value (or sale price of the equivalent bond) goes down, and you get less money. If interest rates go down (yeah, sure) while you hold the annuity, then you'll get more than face value for the annuity. Like a bond, you'll get face value at "maturity" or later if you continue to hold the annuity.
http://www.annuityadvisors.com/reference/detail/market-value-adjustment-mva?refid=12

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattcarey/2018/09/04/2018-guide-to-bond-cd-and-annuity-laddering/#5f36c7a62d00
Forbes
You can just as easily stagger the maturities at 3 month or 3 year intervals or have an investment horizon of 3 years or 10 years. Ladder with Bonds ...

https://money.usnews.com/investing/dividends/slideshows/9-solid-stocks-growing-their-dividendsSolid Stocks Growing Their Dividends
Sept. 5, 2018
When investors look for stocks paying dividends, sometimes they fall into the trap of simply picking a big dividend yield. However, chasing yield can have its flaws.
You have to hold a stock for 12 months to get the full annualized dividend yield – and a lot can happen in that period, including potential reductions to payouts or severe declines in stock price. A better strategy for many investors over the long term is to hold a stable stock that continues to grow its dividend consistently.
These dividend growers may not offer the biggest yield, but they do offer the potential of steady increases in payouts and a lot of consistency as a result.
1. CVS Health Corp. (ticker: CVS). Health giant CVS saw some downward pressure in the wake of a massive $69 billion bid for health insurer Aetna (AET) in March. However, shares have bounced back recently with the stock up about 25 percent from those spring lows on increased optimism about the long-term prospects of this giant that is increasingly a one-stop shop for all things in health care.
For income investors, the dividend is nice but the long-term history of increases is even better. CVS pays a current rate of $2 annually per share, an extraordinary increase over the 28 cents it paid in 2008.
2. Microsoft Corp. (MSFT). Software giant Microsoft has been on a tear in the last few years, with its stock tripling since 2013 thanks to the shrewd leadership of CEO Satya Nadella. A new focus on cloud computing and a rejuvenation of the brand has helped propel this tech giant to new all-time highs like clockwork. The dividend has kept pace with that sharp upward climb, too.
Though a relatively new kid on the dividend block, tech giant Microsoft has wasted no time showing how generous it can be with payouts; dividends were 52 cents in 2008 and are currently pacing an annual rate of $1.68. – Jeff Reeves

FYI: Passive index fund investing is popular for a singular reason. In most cases, passive index fund investment returns surpass those of active fund managers.
John Bogle and his Vanguard brokerage firm launched the first S&P 500 index fund in 1977 with the idea that if costs were slashed, a simple fund that mirrored the S&P 500 had a chance to return close to 9 percent annually, the historical stock market average.
Gradually, the index fund caught on and today there are hundreds of varieties of index funds covering popular indices such as the Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500, to niche funds encompassing small-cap, growth, value stocks and more. Investors can also choose from bond, commodity and alternative asset index funds.
The index fund mania doesn't show signs of abating. A recent research report from Standard & Poor's found that index fund investing was more successful than ever. The 2017 report states that over the last 15 years, 92 percent of actively managed large-cap funds returns lagged those of a S&P 500 index fund. And, small- and mid-cap active funds were worse performers with 93 and 95 percent of indexes, respectively, winning the return competition over similar actively managed funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://money.usnews.com/investing/funds/articles/2018-09-05/are-actively-managed-mutual-funds-fading-away

FYI: PIMCO, one of the world’s premier fixed income investment managers, has hired John Studzinski as Managing Director and Vice Chairman of PIMCO in its Executive Office. Mr. Studzinski, who has spent most of his career working in Asia and Europe, brings to PIMCO 30 years of experience as a trusted financial and strategic advisor who has forged deep bonds among the world’s leaders in business, finance, government and NGOs. He will be based in PIMCO’s New York office and will report to Emmanuel Roman, PIMCO’s Chief Executive Officer.
Regards,
Ted
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pimco-hires-john-studzinski-managing-113000116.html

We own a couple there also: CWGIX and ABALX, and have owned CAIBX, ANWPX, AWSHX and AMECX on and off over the years. Of those all were decent performers except AMECX. I can't imagine why that one is supposed to be so great.

Such hype and salesmanship, but nothing novel.
What's being suggested is a zero coupon bond that converts to a fixed maturity coupon bond after a specified number of years. I recently owned such a bond (and not for this purpose). So there's nothing novel in the product. What is novel is the pitch.
They acknowledge that "annuities do a good job taking out longevity risk." This product does not. They say it becomes like an "annuity paying a stable, secure income". But that's only for a fixed term, unlike an annuity that guarantees its higher stable secure income for life.
It's interesting that they pitch mortgages as being simple because payments are a "constant number that aggregates some interest and some principal." Yet annuities, perhaps because payments are also constant number that aggregates some interest and some principal "are [considered] opaque". (It's this combination of principal and interest that accounts for annuities' stream of higher payments than bonds.)
Or are annuities opaque because you don't know how the issuer raises the cash to make those payments? The issuer simply promises to make the payments. And that's different from bonds exactly how?
Annuities are not perfect products. They are designed to provide a higher rate of guaranteed income for life. These bonds, while more liquid, fall well short of doing that.