Here's an older (2012) article by Wade Pfau summarizing a research paper he did on the subject:
Efficient Frontiers: Inflation Assumptions, Fixed SPIAs, & Inflation-Adjusted SPIAs
While it dates from a few years ago, I figure that interest rates haven't changed much since then, especially since they've backslided in the past half year.
Like Tomlinson (the original linked article), Pfau observes that "Today ... fixed SPIAs performed so much better than inflation-adjusted SPIAs." He's looking at completely fixed SPIAs as opposed to Tomlinson's SPIAs with fixed annual increases." Either way, the nominal amounts are set in stone, independent of inflation (despite Tomlinson calling them COLA SPIAs).
What I like about Pfau's article is that he shows how these results can be incorporated into a full investment plan:

In the case study used the article, a 65-year old heterosexual couple requiring a 4% withdrawal rate to meet their lifestyle goals (and whose minimum spending needs were set equal to the lifestyle goal) was best served by combinations of stocks and fixed single-premium immediate annuities (SPIAs). At current product pricing levels, there is little need for bonds, inflation-adjusted SPIAs, or immediate variable annuities with guaranteed living benefit riders (VA/GLWBs).

This relates back to another thread that explained why having an annuity allowed one to be more aggressive with the rest of one's portfolio. According to Pfau (assuming one has enough of an annuity income stream), one can not be merely more aggressive, but invest entirely in stocks.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/50475/here-s-why-advisors-may-urge-retirees-to-load-up-on-equities
While Tomlinson and Pfau both use Monte Carlo simulations, comparing and contrasting their articles helps to highlight the limitations and deficiencies of the simplistic models implemented on web sites.
They each acknowledge how sketchy their input is:
Tomlinson: "The current Treasury/TIPS spread is just under 2% and we also know that the Fed is targeting 2% inflation. However, my purely subjective view ..."
Pfau: "Your views about future inflation are quite important to this decision."
Tomlinson uses his subjective sense to construct a skewed distribution of inflation rates (something many tools can't handle), while Pfau falls back on a normal bell curve. These people are making subjective, albeit well educated, guesses on distributions, and admitting that whatever they guess has a major impact on their conclusions.
That's not an argument against trying. It's an argument for putting a lot more effort into the guessing than letting a website pick a default and pressing a button. It's an argument for using a model that has the flexibility to deal with sophisticated guesses. Otherwise, all you've got is GIGO.
Pfau summarizes the potential impact of higher inflation nicely:

Note that higher inflation would also hurt the performance of the VA/GLWB strategy since its guarantees cannot be expected to keep pace with inflation, and it would also hurt bond mutual funds since the interest rate increases accompanying higher inflation would result in capital losses.
Higher inflation will not completely overturn the idea that the efficient frontier consists of stocks and SPIAs, but it could influence the result about whether the appropriate SPIA choice is a fixed SPIA or a real SPIA

I do have to think that if every worker in the US who has porn on their computer were to be fired the national unemployment rate would surely be well over 50%...

@MJG - I have no quarrel with your point here. In fact, it’s the reason I believe in having a clearly defined plan (preferably written down) and keeping with the plan rather than letting emotions rule.
What I’ll note, however, is that author Adam Grossman (in Ted’s linked article)) appears to advocate for considerable latitude in allowing emotions to intervene. Grossman specifically lists 5 reasons why emotions might be allowed to interfere with allocation decision making (math be damned).
Here’s those 5 reasons in Grossman’s words (edited for brevity) :
1. “All math involves (possibly flawed) assumptions. If the math says your portfolio can afford maximum risk, ask yourself what assumptions underlie that calculation. ... If you look back at U.S. stock market history, downturns generally result in losses of 20% to 50% and last two to four years. But notice that I said “generally.” During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the market dropped more than 80% and didn’t fully recover for more than a decade.”
2. “Just because something hasn’t happened recently — or hasn’t happened here — doesn’t mean it can’t happen. ... Consider Japan. In 1989, it was on top of the world. Its economy and stock market were soaring. But over the subsequent two decades, the Japanese market declined more than 80%. Even today, nearly 30 years later, the Nikkei index stands almost 50% below its peak. ...”
3. “(Consider) ... if something happened — a health issue, for example — and your expenses increased? These kinds of things are impossible to predict, but I think it makes sense to allow for the unexpected when structuring your finances.”
4. “You might not know your true tolerance for risk. ... If you haven’t yet lived through a true bear market, when all the news is relentlessly bad, you might want a more moderate asset allocation than the math suggests.”
5. “It might be unnecessary. ... If you have the risk dial set to 10, ask yourself whether you’re swinging for the fences, even though you’ve already won the game.”
Ted’s link (restated for attribution of quotations): https://humbledollar.com/2019/06/math-vs-emotion/

Hi Guys,
Emotional investment decisions will ruin a portfolio. The numbers are uncertain but reflect history. While history will not exactly repeat itself, it will be as accurate a projection that exists. Go with the numbers. Here is a reference to an article that shares my opinion:
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2015/11/playing-the-probabilities/
The closing statement tells it all: “Annual returns are all over the place and rarely do investors experience average performance in any given year as you can see from this graph“
So given the randomness in that data, patience when investing is needed. Stay the course and be rewarded.
Best Wishes

FYI: There are few traditions in American politics as cherished as the semi-regular panic over Social Security. There are equally few that are such utter balderdash on the economic merits.
The latest example of this time-honored practice comes to us courtesy of The New York Times. "Social Security's so-called trust funds are expected to be depleted within about 15 years," the outlet warned this week. "Benefit checks for retirees would be cut by about 20 percent across the board." The cuts could potentially rise to 25 percent in later years. About half of all seniors rely on Social Security as their primary means of income, and the program reduces the poverty rate among the elderly from 39 percent to 9 percent. If the benefit cuts do happen, that would be devastating. The question is whether the cuts, at the basic structural level, are actually necessary at all.
Regards,
Ted
https://theweek.com/articles/847000/social-securitys-looming-crisis-political-not-economic

Thanks Crash, at age 85 I'm slow.

@Mark
>> When I dig up the can [20y later] to redeem the contents ... the $100 bar of gold will most likely buy me the same suit and loaf of bread it would have when I buried it.
Well, it looks like it depends on the period, as one would suspect. I graphed FSAGX over its lifespan (started end of 1985) and it went from 10k to 43.6k, while inflation that same period went from 10k to just under 23k. But if your start point is 1996 it has just about kept pace with inflation. If your start point is much after then, looks like things are worse most of the time.
Now, I do see that GLD (started end 04) has done better than FSAGX the last 8 years, so again maybe, but GLD has declined since 2012 and mostly flat since the year after that.
So maybe over 20y what you propose is true, and you did say 'most likely', but I am wondering about the basis for what you wrote.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gold-inflation/gold-as-an-inflation-hedge-well-sort-of-idUSKCN1GD516

Somewhere in the mid-90s, Fidelity started removing sales charges on its funds. For example, FGRIX dropped its sales charge on Oct. 20, 1995. Prior to that, it had experimented with waiving loads on some funds inside of IRAs. But it wasn't until 2003 that it permanently dropped "the sales charges on many of its largest mutual funds, including ... Magellan ..."

Fidelity Investments said Monday [June 23, 2003] it will drop the 3 percent front-end sales charge, or load, on several of its key stock funds, including the flagship Magellan fund.
Four other Fidelity funds -- including Contrafund FCNTX, ... Contrafund II FCONX, ... Low-Priced Stock FLPSX, ... and New Millennium FMILX, -- also will become available without a load ...

Source:https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fidelity-drops-sales-charges-on-some-funds
 

Fidelity Investments said it eliminated the sales charge on five funds, including its flagship Fidelity Magellan (FMAGX).
In addition to Magellan, the largest actively managed U.S. stock fund, Fidelity dropped the 3% front-end sales commission, or load, on Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX), Fidelity’s second-largest fund; Fidelity Contrafund II (FCONX); Fidelity Low Priced Stock (FLPSX); and Fidelity New Millennium (FMILX).

Source: https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2003/06/24/fidelity-drops-sales-charge-on-magellan-fund/
Of course many of Fidelity's largest funds in 2003 didn't even exist in 1979.

I'll never buy a PM or miners fund again. Way to volatile for me. I remember my early days here on the fundalarm site (2006-7 'ish). PM and commodity funds were the rage topic and I took the bait. Group-think funds as Junkster coined the phrase. I learned my lesson on that type of stuff.
I'll play a gold ETF, IAU, but no more PMs, or any commodity fund for that matter.
Thanks for the chart @catch22. Speaks volumes against buy and hold. Add one of the PIMCO commodity funds to the mix. PCRIX for example has negative returns for 15, 10, 5, 3 and 1 years.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
June 15:
1995: Less than a year-and-a-half after breaking the 800 barrier, the NASDAQ Composite Index closes above 900 for the first time, finishing the day at 902.68.
1979: Fidelity Investments drops the sales charges on many of its largest mutual funds, including Fidelity Fund, Magellan, and Puritan -- giving a huge boost to the direct purchase of no-load funds by retail investors.
Source: Jason Zweig's Blog

To avoid random noise, or more likely selective time frames, the government requires funds advertising performance to use standardized periods ending on calendar quarters. 17 CFR 230.482(d)(3)(ii).
So I took a look at the link Ted provided, and clicked on the "quarterly" tab. It seems that PARWX, as of the most recently completed quarter, has outperformed the S&P 500 over the past 3, 5, and 10 years.
The fact that these numbers have shifted in the past two months is reflective of little more than the fund's poor performance over the past handful of weeks. To put it another way, this change isn't so much about long term performance as it is about "what have you done for me lately?"
Over the past three months (through June 13), the fund has underperformed by 7%. In the first quarter of 2019 it outperformed by 4¾%. In the fourth quarter of 2018, it underperformed by 3532;%. Sure it's volatile. To paraphrase Mark Twain, if you don't like the performance, wait a few months.

FYI: Global stocks dipped on Friday as rising tensions in the Middle East added to concerns over global growth and trade, driving investors to haven assets.
In Europe, the Stoxx 600 fell 0.4% in opening trade. That followed a downbeat session in Asia, with indexes in China, Korea and Hong Kong all lower, though Japan’s Nikkei managed a 0.4% climb.
Late Thursday, the U.S. said Iran was behind an attack that day on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman that sent oil prices soaring. That added to an already tense situation in the crucial shipping channel after an attack on four other tankers last month.
Investors Friday were buying government bonds, gold and the Japanese yen, all assets generally considered havens when risks are growing.
The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasurys, which falls as the price rises, slipped to 2.059% on Friday from 2.096% on Thursday. Yields on Germany’s equivalent government bond fell deeper into negative territory and were last at -0.260%.
Gold prices hit a 14-month high amid the rising tensions. Spot gold was last up 1% at $1,356.70 a troy ounce. The yen also rose 0.1% against both the euro and U.S. dollar.
European stocks most exposed to oil prices and global trade were registering the biggest drops on Friday. The Stoxx Europe 600’s technology subindex was down 1.1% while its autos & parts subindex was 0.6% lower.
In Asia, the Shanghai Composite was down 1%, while the Shenzhen index was 1.8% lower. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng was down 0.7% amid protests in the city against an unpopular extradition bill. Data later in the day showed China’s industrial output slowed, adding to fears the country’s economic growth was faltering.
U.S. retail sales data due later Friday will be closely watched by investors as they look for clues on the nation’s largely consumer-driven economic growth, analysts said.
The release is also the last major U.S. economic report before a meeting of the Fed’s policy-making committee next week.
Regards,
Ted
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stocks-open-lower-friday-as-broadcoms-weak-outlook-reminds-wall-street-of-us-china-trade-battle-2019-06-14/print
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-slip-as-middle-east-tensions-boost-haven-assets-11560499874
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-13/asia-stocks-head-for-mixed-start-yields-retreat-markets-wrap
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets/bond-yields-slip-stocks-suffer-on-cooling-china-data-idUSKCN1TF03P
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-broadcom-warning-apple-stock-market-rally-amd-stock/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/stock-market-middle-east-tensions-weigh-china-data-in-focus.html
U.K.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/heavyweight-financials-exporter-stocks-drag-ftse-100-lower-idUKKCN1TF0OK
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/chipmakers-drive-european-shares-lower-after-broadcom-shock-idUSKCN1TF0OD
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-mixed-as-global-tensions-rise-on-apparent-oil-tanker-attacks-2019-06-13/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/us-treasury-yields-continue-to-slide-as-middle-east-tensions-escalate.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/forex-market-federal-reserve-meeting-us-china-trade-war-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/oil-market-middle-east-tanker-attacks-us-iran-tensions-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/gold-market-fed-rate-cut-expectations-middle-east-tensions-in-focus.html
Cuirrent Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

hmgodwin: For your information I've linked the performance of PARWX, check it out.
Regards,
Ted
YTD-5yrs. No
10yrs. Yes
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=PARWX&region=usa&culture=en_US

I would sell but not based on the 10 year performance, which it did in fact beat the S&P 500. Not sure what Ted was looking at. Personally I like BIAWX for my LG exposure.

@Carefree: Has had difficulty beating it's benchmark the S&P 500 Index over the last ten years, I'd sell.
Regards,
Ted

In what ways has it had difficulty beating the S&P 500? It seems to have beaten it cleanly over the past 3, 5, and 10 year time frames.

A not so brief followup. I sent Merrill a set of questions given all the processing in my accounts. It took a week, but I did get a response which was more a reiteration of what happened than an explanation. Whatever. Here are some excerpts:
(Merrill online counts TTTXX MMF as cash available to trade online even though they don't automatically redeem the fund; what happens if you actually place a trade w/o selling the fund):

For fund held in TTTXX, this amount may still show as available to invest ... online due to this fund being considered a cash equivalent. However, if you place a trade using the funds held in TTTXX, it would be necessary to deposit funds into the account or liquidate shares of TTTXX to make funds available before the trade settlement date.

But what happens if I don't place an order to sell TTTXX? Not answered. No explanation as to why this MMF shows up as cash while others don't.
(BPTXX MMF divs reinvested in fund even after I closed the position:)

if there were pending dividends set to be paid, the dividend received would be paid based on your previous reinvestment options selected for that fund

It goes on to say that I could change my reinvestment options to prevent this from happening. At other brokerages, when I close out a position, the trailing divs go to cash (if position liquidated) or follow shares (if transferred in kind).
(Reinvesting dividends in MMFs and bank sweep accounts:)

money market mutual funds will typically reinvest fractional amounts while bank deposits or money funds like TTTXX or the ML Direct Deposit Program are only able to reinvest in whole dollar amounts.

OMG. "Money market mutual funds" get all their divs reinvested, but "money funds" like the money market fund TTTXX only reinvest whole dollar amounts?
ML Direct Depost Program (MLDPP) is the BofA sweep account for taxable Merrill accounts. Apparently bank accounts like the MLDPP credit only whole dollars of interest. What real bank refuses to credit pennies of interest back to your account? Is BofA a real bank?
The response goes on to say that for IRAs, the equivalent sweep program is called "Bank of America NA RASP". The problem is that in my IRA, my one penny of interest was credited to the bank account. So what is different between the two BofA sweep accounts? Is this RASP program not like MLDPP?
(Wrong cost basis as described in previous post:)

when transferring securities from another firm, this information is updated based on the information provided by the other firm.

Blame the other guy. Who do you think got the cost basis wrong, Merrill or Schwab (the other firm)?
(Roth conversion form was submitted 5/29; still not processed):

due to high volume of requests it has not yet been reviewed.

I submitted a substantially identical form on 12/18/2018 and it was processed in two days. Who knew that the run up to Flag Day was a busier season than end of year for Roth conversions?
Almost needless to say, once I get the cost basis corrected (if I can) and receive my bonus for transferring in the taxable account, I'll be transferring it out. I expect to convert my full T-IRA account at Merrill to a Roth where I will let it sit. I plan on no activity, no other accounts remaining.

https://m.nasdaq.com/article/exposed-the-6-dividend-the-irs-doesnt-want-you-to-buy-cm1163455
This levitating market just might have you thinking there are no more cheap 6%+ dividends out there.
Mfl
Mub

Thanks @msf for your (typically) well reasoned and precisely detailed analysis. I’d preface my comments by saying things always look rosier late in a decade-long bull market cycle in equities. I’m confident that if this bull lasts another 3 or 4 years the than prevailing “expert” advice will be to pile 100% into aggressive equity funds because fixed income is tantamount to rubbish.
- Easy to overlook is investor risk tolerance. No matter what one’s rationale may be for “loading up” on equities, there’s nothing like a 40-50% drubbing over a couple miserable years to bring us to our knees and shock us back to our Puritan sensibilities. In too many cases those equities piled into during sunnier days get unloaded by investors at discounted prices late in the bear cycle.
- Also overlooked by the article’s underlying assumption is that although investors might well possess a pension, SS, or annuity assets that would allow some level of subsistence, their portfolio of equities, bonds, etc. is not without some immediate purpose. In many cases (speaking from personal experience) those assets are withdrawn regularly for major expenses like travel, new vehicles and upgrades / maintenance on their principal dwelling. It’s also an emergency fund for unexpected medical costs and provides needed “insurance” against having the carpet pulled out from underneath by a reduction in SS or pension benefits (though the assumption is these benefits will remain intact).
- Further, the invested portfolio provides needed growth to compensate for inflation - arguably better than those (somewhat fixed) pension, annuity, SS benefits can. Point being: Treat those invested assets with the same care & due diligence you would if you had none of those added “insurance” products.
The article seems related to an argument advanced by John Bogle around 2013 when he said investors should treat SS as a “bond” in their allocation decisions. It was part of a wider ranging interview, so I’m posting only one commentary from a secondary source. (But the actual full interview is linked within the commentary). I’m also posting a lengthy mfo discussion from around the same time in which a number of members from various tiers shared their (somewhat divergent) thoughts on the question.
Bogle’s position: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-save-for-retirement-vanguard-john-bogle-2017-1
MFO discussion (September 2013) : https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/7814/count-social-security-as-part-of-portfolio

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4269847-angl-provides-best-exposure-junk-bonds-etf-universe
ANGL Provides Best Exposure To Junk Bonds In The ETF Universe
Jun. 12, 2019 10:01 AM ETVanEck Vectors Fallen Angel High Yield Bond ETF (ANGL)5 Comments3 Likes
Summary
ANGL invest in bonds that were investment grade when issued but no longer are based on the BofA Merrill Lynch U.S. Fallen Angel High Yield Index.
There are at least four other ETFs mirroring this strategy for "fallen angel," but others are new and very small in size.
ANGL has out performed the other major junk bond ETFs and until the past year, the top investment-grade corporate bond fund; I consider it a buy.
Anyone has ANGL?!

@Carefree: Has had difficulty beating it's benchmark the S&P 500 Index over the last ten years, I'd sell.
Regards,
Ted