"Angie O’Leary is the head of wealth planning at RBC Wealth Management, U.S."
OMG.
O'Leary: "he rule uses a portfolio assumption of 60% stocks and 40% bonds."
Bengen (actual paper): "portfolios consisting of 50-percent intermediate-term Treasury notes and 50-percent common stocks (an arbitrary asset allocation chosen for purposes of illustration)"
---
O'Leary: "would create a paycheck that lasted for 30 years"
Bengen: "In no past case has it caused a portfolio to be exhausted before 33 years"
(from this Bengen concluded that if all you needed was 30 years, 4% would work)
---
O'Leary: " modern times require a more dynamic approach to the 4% rule"
Bengen (not so modern times, I guess): "Let us consider first the case where there is a change in the client's goals. ..."
---
O'Leary: "Now ..., experts recognize that this simple rule of thumb needs some modernization. "
Just now? The "rule" has been analyzed, critiqued, modified, qualified, etc. since the day it was published. For solid, substantial yet reasonably readable and moderately short "modernization", from six years ago, here's
Vanguard, Revisiting the ‘4% spending rule’    https://www.vanguard.com/pdf/s325.pdf
O'Leary expresses concern that "Historical [nominal] bond returns for this period were close to 5%, well below what can be expected today." Vanguard somewhat dismisses this concern:

Vanguard believes it’s important for investors to consider real-return expectations when constructing portfolios, since today’s low stock dividend yields and U.S. Treasury bond yields are, in part, associated with lower expected inflation today than 20 or 30 years ago. [Vanguard projects a 50/50 portfolio to be in the 3.0%-4.5% real-return range]. Although this level is moderately below the actual average real return of 5.0% for the same portfolio since 1926, it potentially offers support for the continued feasibility of a 4% inflation-adjusted withdrawal program as a starting point.

While I'm not as confident as Vanguard, their point is well taken - just because nominal returns are not expected to be as high as in the past doesn't mean that real returns won't be in the same ballpark.
O'Leary isn't providing information, just bullet points, points which experts are not "now" recognizing, but have been looking at for decades.
Here's Bengen's original paper, published in the Journal of Financial Planning, not written as piece for Marketwatch:
http://www.retailinvestor.org/pdf/Bengen1.pdf

FYI: ( Just a rule of thumb, I'm sure MJG will comment on this subject.)
n 1994, financial adviser William Bengen introduced the concept of the 4% rule, which found that retirees who withdrew 4% of their retirement portfolio balance, and then adjusted that dollar amount for inflation each year thereafter, would create a paycheck that lasted for 30 years.
Now 20 years out from the publication of Bengen’s study, experts recognize that this simple rule of thumb needs some modernization.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-4-rule-desperately-needs-to-be-modernized-2018-07-20/print

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/weve-got-3-years-bull-market-theres-catch-103019752.html
Enjoy this weekend read.
Derf

Hi, guys.
I'm often reminded of the quip, attributed to Dorothy Parker. When she was told that Calvin Coolidge had died, she asked "how could they tell?"
Chip and I are out of town for the next week, visiting her family and providing post-operative supportive for a family member. I'll be working on this August issue, but mostly trying to stay in the here and now.
As others have noted, there's been a regrettable upsurge in churlishness lately. Please stop. If you can't stop yourself, please use some venue other than public postings to be churlish.
As a reminder, I am deeply appreciative of Ted's myriad posts. They are invaluable. That said, neither Ted nor any other member of the community moderates the board or has the power to get anyone banned. In four-plus years, I've banned precisely one person (the weird guy who created five identities so that he could post supportive comments about himself) and put two people (including a senior member of the board) into the moderation queue. The queue is a sort of time-out for the petulant, which requires post by post approval of anything that goes on the board. One of the two moderated members left.
As a second reminder, I lack both the time and inclination to be an active moderator here. Sorry, but that's the reality of it. Mostly I try to set a good example, encourage civility and stay out of the way. If folks believe that an active moderator would materially strengthen the health of the board, the community should pick someone and we'll give that person the power to edit / close / delete. We've made the offer in the past and it's not be widely supported, but it's always open.
We live in interesting times. I have no doubt that we've always had, in our local and national communities, a wealth of people with angry, pinched and bitter opinions. Technology now gives them a voice that they've not had, and a visibility that they may well not warrant. Please resist the temptation to emulate people who you wouldn't want to be.
Be safe and take great care,
David

From the prospectus link above:
(1) ‘‘Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses’’ are the indirect costs of investing in other investment companies. The operating expenses in this fee table will not correlate to the expense ratio in the Fund’s financial highlights because the financial statements include only the direct operating expenses incurred by the Fund.
(2) The Fund’s Advisor, Shelton Capital Management, has contractually agreed to reimburse expenses incurred by the Fund to the extent that total annual fund operating expenses (excluding acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses such as litigation or merger and reorganization expenses, for example) exceed 1.25% and 1.50% until May 1, 2019. This agreement may only be terminated with the approval of the Board of Trustees of the Fund. Shelton may be reimbursed for any foregone advisory fees or unreimbursed expenses within three fiscal years following a particular reduction or expense, but only to the extent the reimbursement does not cause the Fund to exceed applicable expense limits, and the effect of the reimbursement is measured after all ordinary operating expenses are calculated. Any such reimbursement is subject to the review and approval of the Fund’s Board of Trustees.

Good points and post @Old_Skeet.
Trump has come along at a point in political history where, by the narrowest of margins, his was elected. I voted for him, so @rono, pass me a plate of SOS...couldn't bare 4 years of Hell-ary...especially after the Dems "deep-sixed' Sanders.
This country has had to endure all stripes of poor leaders. Often these periods are followed by the awakening of true leaders.
Still waiting....

Supplementing hank's comments, rono is one of the oldest and most respected contributors to both MFO and it's predecessor, FundAlarm. Anyone familiar with his posts over the years immediately notes his very uncharacteristic strong language as an extremely unusual departure from his usual good natured postings. rono has done his share of military service, in addition to other civic service contributions. Which is a lot more than our Dear Leader can say.
rono is plain pissed. And very rightly so.
The resident slime-thrower (who uses a Hollywood imitation of a real US general for an icon) is perfectly willing to accept a traitor as president as long as he can continue to make lots of money.

@Charles. Did you mean 70 instead of 72 for tapping SS ? Nothing gained by waiting 2 extra years.
Derf

@davidrmoran. Ha! Yes, after being heavy for years in BAC (big win) and FAAFX (massive disappointment), reached a level where I'm happy to make just to make a steady return. AKA ... risk averse. Even then, I know low vol does not always mean low risk ... so try to keep fairly tight reign. I think Junkster has had a pretty big influence on me the last few years ... Sam Lee too. I'm "only" 62, but my daughter reminds me: "Everyone knows over 60 is old, dad." Have decided recently to not tap SS until 72, that's plan anyway. c

The article actually said "a married couple would require a net worth of $4 million" rather than "the $4M portfolio". I read that as including their home equity, which could be a big number, especially if, as msf notes, "you've owned your home for many years, you've got no mortgage and likely a tax bill of just a few $K/year courtesy of Prop 13".
On balance, the information in the article, tempered by msf's observations, is really pretty accurate.

Hi Guys,
It depends. It depends on the timeframe of the forecast. Economic research that records the long term average returns and the variability of various asset class returns are indeed very useful inputs to my investment decision making. It establishes the likely outcomes and risk potential for the future. That's helpful when making asset allocation decisions.
Here is a Link that demonstrates the usefulness of such a study for a small number of stock investment groupings:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/8-lessons-from-80-years-of-market-history-2014-11-19
This data teaches useful investment lessons that I need not learn from costly and time eroding personal experience. Knowing history is important and research generates that knowledge.
Best Wishes

I did very well owning an individual "zero" many years ago. If I recall correctly, I bought in '93 and it matured in '03. Good rate, over 5%. My initial purchase price almost doubled. Not quite. My own ethical filters just won't allow me to buy from the same source again.

A “zero coupon” bond is a bond from which the future interest payments have been “stripped out” and somehow factored into their daily price and value at maturity. They are also known as “stripped” bonds. The net effect is that their NAV fluctuates much more - both up and down - than a traditional interest bearing bond. (That I’m afraid is the limit of my ability to understand the critters.)
But I do know they are better left in the hands of experienced traders. Suspect they serve as “hedges” in some professional portfolios because a relatively small investment in them can yield a big “bang” under certain conditions - perhaps during a stock market rout. They’d also make a handy “short” in the hands of a skilled trader.
I owned them years ago (actually decades ago) in funds at American Century. Seems to me they were called “Target Maturities”. They held stripped U. S. Treasuries and offered one wild ride. (The farther out the maturity date the wilder the ride.) Seems to me AC phased those funds out or is in the process of doing so.

So much depends on housing there. If you've owned your home for many years, you've got no mortgage and likely a tax bill of just a few $K/year courtesy of Prop 13, so you're likely well able to afford that $5 gallon of milk. (If you've got the $4M portfolio mentioned in the article, you could even afford milk baths.)
Under the old tax laws, you could have even downsized, say moving from Palo Alto to SF "for free". That is, back when you could transfer your basis rather than paying cap gains on appreciation over $250K/$500K, swapping homes in general wasn't a problem. And California still gives a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to retirees to transfer their low tax base to their new home when downsizing.
There's even a new ballot proposition that would extend this tax break to older homeowners who want to trade up rather than down.
NYMag: California Ballot Initiative to Expand Property Tax Breaks for Wealthy Seniors Could Be Another Boon to GOP
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/ca-property-tax-initiative-could-be-another-boon-to-gop.html

FYI: Economic predictions are wonderfully useful...after the fact. A fund manager sent back to 1973 and stripped of his investment memories, save for knowing that inflation and commodity prices would soar for many years before subsiding, would thrash his rivals over the ensuing decades. He would be long commodities and short bonds, before switching to stocks in the early 1980s. Toss him a second tidbit--the 2008 housing collapse--and his victory would be complete. His fund would have the best 35-year track record in the business.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/873681/are-economic-predictions-ever-useful.html

Yep - PRWCX and DODBX are very different creatures. The former has been running ahead of the other for many years now. Suspect (but can’t prove or demonstrate) that over very long periods they’ll come out about even. PRWCX seems to have more latitude in how it invests and to be quite dependent on a particular managers’ style and market read - coupled with Price’s very fine macro-analysis team (a deep bench). With Giroux at the helm, that’s been a potent combination. I’ve mentioned before that PRWCX does a lot of hedging - using put / call options (neither of which I’m qualified to explain). Both funds struggle with asset bloat - confining them largely to large cap holdings.
DODBX, as I understand it, is essentially a compilation of (60-70%) DODGX and (30-40%) DODIX. So reading the reports on those other two funds might provide additional insight into how it invests. The firm at last report was still more positive on stocks than bonds - so the fund’s stock component was closer to that 70% weighting. As others have said, Dodge and Cox are deep value investors, willing to wait years or even decades for a holding to rise to what they consider its true value. And, they very much use a team-managed style. One additional note: A lot of D&Cs more recent underperformance has been tied to their heavy weighting in financials. Part of that is their belief that financials (like banks) will do well in a rising interest rate environment, while many other sectors won’t. Watching DODBX somewhat closely, I’d say it’s daily performance is quite dependent on how financials perform.
To me watching the ball / moving parts of how managers position their funds is part of what makes investing fascinating. Never been one to simply compare daily, yearly or even 10-year returns in trying to decide whether a particular fund belongs in my holdings. That sometimes seems at odds with other investors’ sentiments.

I would say stock picking and portfolio construction are the major contributors. David Giroux's fund holds 25% bond and 5% cash whereas many balanced funds have about 40% bond. YTD bonds are a drag on balanced funds. Also he is investing in utilities as more of a defensive move since the market is expensive. His recent interview on WealthTrack provided valuable insights of his portfolio.
DODBX is more value oriented. Besides value stocks are lagging the growth counterparts in recent years.

As I recall they discussed their reasons for selling WFC in a recent commentary/report but I can't remember which one. ;/ I forgot what their explanation was for selling it after holding it for so long DURING the various scandals in recent years, though.....IMO they should've dumped it much sooner than they did. I think they finally got fed up with the company's various questionable practices.

I re-established my position in PRBLX as the core for my Roth today. Now that they sold WFC I like the fund again, and will be redeploying my TWEIX proceeds into it over the near future. It is paired with POGRX to give a growthy slant to my Roth, to offset the significant single position in LCV RWMGX in my 403(b).

Thanks for this info. I had stayed away from Parnassus because of WFC position. However, what is their position on selling? Because WFC doing bad stuff, or just because it is bad stock?

Who else considers political risk to be inhibiting new investment?

For one, Henry Ellenbogen, highly successful fund manager at T. Rowe Price, who listed political risk as his chief concern in the Barron’s Mid-Year Roundtable published July 16. In specific Ellenbogen (who easily outdistanced the 8 other participants with his January picks) cautioned that he thinks the Democrats will take control of the House after the mid-terms and that the already serious political strife (which occasionally surfaces on this board) will intensify sharply and the results will be felt in the markets. Not sure, but I think he sees a paralysis of sorts preventing any meaningful fiscal / economic reform. Yes, it is very much affecting his decision making - making him more cautious. I think it’s fair to say most of the other 8 participants more or less concurred - but in less conspicuous fashion. The Trump initiated trade wars was another problem area a number mentioned. Unfortunately @Ted who “linked” the article wasn’t - as far as I know - able to do so in a way that was accessible to anyone else. (I read it in print.)
Myself? I’ve been looking for a year for some pocket of deep value (a depressed area) where I might speculate a bit and grab off an easy gain. Nothing. Everything looks pricy. Recently I moved some $$ from DODLX (global bond) into PREMX (emerging market bond). The former is ahead about 1.5% over the past year while the latter is off 2-3% over that time. Go with the percentages and figure over the next year or so that relative performance will invert. But, nothing big there - looking at very small advantage over a couple years. And yes, I do think this political mess will get worse before it gets better and there will be a price to be paid by investors. But exactly when, how, and what? Dunno.
Added: Gold’s off substantially over the past couple months (from around $1300 to around $1200). I consider it too risky to speculate in so have avoided the temptation to buy (more than I already own). Could go a lot lower. But for someone looking for an entry point (small allocation) this might not be a bad time.

FYI: (This is a follow-up article.)
Shares of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. were having their best day in nearly seven years on Wednesday, as Wall Street cheered the change in the diversified investment holding company’s share repurchase policy, with one analyst calling it a “major positive catalyst.”
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/buffetts-berkshire-stock-having-best-day-in-7-years-after-buyback-policy-change-2018-07-18/print