@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.

FYI: Investors looking for bonds that often feel like stocks can consider convertible bonds, which are easily accessible via the SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Convertible Securities ETF CWB,
Convertible bonds are hybrid securities that give investors the option to convert those bonds into shares of common stock of the issuing company.
Historically, convertible bonds have been among the best areas of the bond market to be involved with when interest rates rise, but CWB betrayed that reputation last year. Amid fears about the state of high-yield corporate debt and the fourth-quarter equity market plunge, CWB showed its correlation to equity market gyrations.
After slumping in the last three months of 2018, CWB finished the year lower by 2 percent compared to 0.1-percent gain for the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index.
The correlations between convertible debt and stocks can't be understated.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-bond-etf-with-an-equity-feel-2019-03-29-1246451/print
M* Snapshot CWB:
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/ARCX/CWB/quote.html

FYI: After a string of flops, can the nearly four-hour Lehman Trilogy play turn around Wall Street drama?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1drctlg6ywd57/The-Lehman-Curse

FYI: McLean talks with MarketWatch about the only two stocks he owns, the meaning of ‘American Pie,’ and why he’s never had an assistant.
In 1971, Don McLean released the album “American Pie,” and the title song became one of the most famous — and successful — ever made. It came out at a time of major political and social upheaval in America, and captured a feeling of loss. The song runs for over eight minutes, and is No. 5 on the list of best songs of the 20th century. Now 73, McLean talked with MarketWatch about his most famous song, and a wide range of other topics, including money, stardom, and the music business today.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-pie-singer-don-mclean-has-made-150-million-in-his-career-heres-what-hes-done-with-it-2019-03-25/print

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!

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

Hi Davidrmoran,
I too recognized the article's publication date. It was a long time ago and indeed the information could be stale and no longer relevant. I did consider that possibility and rejected it. Old does not immediately mean bad and outdated. A great example is The Intelligent Investor book by Benjamin Graham. It was published in 1949. It's insights remain as valid today as when it was originally offered to the public.
As you are likely aware, I strongly recommend that investors consider using Monte Carlo analyses when making uncertain investment decisions. I do and I believe it helps. The referenced article supports my position. I simply took advantage of that added endorsement.
Thanks for reading my post.
ADDED just a few minutes later:
I am certainly not unique in recognizing the value (it has shortcomings too) of Monte Carlo when making uncertain investment decisions. Here is a Link to yet another advocate:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/112514/monte-carlo-simulation-basics.asp
Best Wishes

"This is a massive shot across the bow to full-service providers who have become very comfortable charging 1% to 1.5%.”

Year 1: $300+(12x$30) = $660; regardless asset base.
Year 2 and on: 12X$30 = $360
Advisors operating based on AUM will have a sizable hurdle to overcome fee at this level. Who is next to lower their fee, Vanguard?

FYI: There was a seismic shift in investor psychology when the yield curve inverted this past week on Friday. A trifecta of events drove investors to safety in long-term Treasuries, causing yields to fall lower than that of shorter-dated Treasuries—what is called a yield-curve inversion. This recession signal was flashing red, but there was—and still is—green to be made.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-best-bond-etfs-for-playing-the-yield-curve-51553791247

FYI: 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.
For Gavin Spitzner, president of industry consultant Wealth Consulting Partners, this is the modern-day equivalent of May Day 1975, when the deregulation of commissions allowed for the creation of discount brokerages like Schwab in the first place.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?ei=qB2fXPOhBY-OsQXTgZn4Cg&q=schwab+moving+fees&oq=schwab+moving+fees&gs_l=psy-ab.3...12868.16606..16966...0.0..0.90.779.12......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j35i39j0i131j0j0i131i20i263j0i20i263j0i22i30j33i299j33i160.WL0MsDmLlvg

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

Hi Guys,
The negative correlation between mutual fund end performance and costs is well documented. This single graph tells the whole story nicely:
https://im.mstar.com/im/newhomepage/chartofweek_mutualfundcompanies_040215.png
Costs just don’t matter. They matter greatly. Control the mutual fund costs and enhance your payday. The size of each data point is a measure of the money being managed. Dodge and Cox is a winner by the graph measurement scales.
Best Wishes

Came across this (point) in Schwab link.
The average span between inversions and subsequent recessions has been 11 months, with a range of five months (1973) to 16 months (2006-2007).
Good to go for at least next 5 months !
Derf
Thanks O_S & O_J 4 links

It's about time:
https://washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/28/wells-fargo-ceo-tim-sloan-step-down-immediately/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b3b4845a290b
Crazy he gets paid this after what happened:

Making matters worse was the bank’s disclosure earlier this month in a regulatory filing that Sloan received $18.4 million in compensation in 2018, about a 5 percent bump from the previous year..
“About damn time. Tim Sloan should have been fired a long time ago,” Warren tweeted Thursday. “By the way, getting fired shouldn’t be the end of the story for Tim Sloan. He shouldn’t get a golden parachute. He should be investigated . . . And if he’s guilty of any crimes, he should be put in jail like anyone else.”
Sloan has earned more than $150 million in compensation since 2011, according to Equilar, a data firm that measures executive compensation. His retirement package will include outstanding stock worth more than $24 million, the firm said.

Thanks for the clarification.
The paper cited in the article is talking about all Personal Retirement Assets (PRAs), which it says "include[s] 401(k)s, IRAs, Keoghs, and similar plans." So while RMDs begin at age 70½, withdrawals are not required for Roth IRAs and 401(k)s and 403(b)s at your current employer.
From that paper:

Figure 5-1 pools data on households of various ages in all cohorts to summarize the average patterns of withdrawals at different ages. It shows that the average percentage of households who own a PRA who make a withdrawal increases from 11.4 percent at age 60 to 24.8 percent by age 69. This percentage jumps to over 60 percent by age 71, when the age of the household head exceeds the age at which RMDs must begin.

Not sure where you're finding that statement, I don't see it. There's only one "Of course" that I can find, and it reads:
"Of course, the reality is that this 65-year-old couple could have simply purchased a single premium immediate annuity with inflation-adjusting payments to cover their lifetime guaranteed income goal as well, simply starting at age 65 when they retired."
Based strictly on what I'm reading here, all I can do is guess at the context - perhaps that by age 71, when RMDs are mandatory, 60% of people are actually spending that cash. (RMDs are a tax event, not a spend/disinvest requirement.)
Regarding insurance company risk - there's a big difference between LTC insurance and annuities. The latter are just the flip side of life insurance. For both forms of insurance, what matters is the life insurer's basic soundness and its knowledge of mortality tables and risks. These companies have been in the business for over a century. They've had a lot of practice and learning about how to set rates to remain viable.
Oldest modern life insurance company in the US, dating from 1842, inspired this:

Often wondered why those coastal states haven't gone geothermal: use ocean water at (I'm guessing 56 degrees or so.) Horizontal install. We are inland, use vertical wells, finish off with electric. Works summer and winter.
Guess I'm just dumb but we are so past break point.
Best, hawk

The Wall Street Journal is currently reporting that " Wells Fargo Chief Executive Tim Sloan stepped down on Thursday, ending a 31-year career at the bank and an arduous two-and-a-half-year effort to get it back on solid footing after a fake-account scandal erupted in 2016."
"C. Allen Parker, Wells Fargo’s general counsel, will be interim CEO. He joined Wells Fargo in 2017 from law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP to help clean up the bank following the sales scandal."
"Officials at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the bank’s primary regulators, had grown so frustrated with Wells Fargo’s mounting problems that they were debating the rare step of forcing changes to Wells Fargo’s senior management or board, The Wall Street Journal previously reported."
(Short selected excerpts from a longer and substantial Wall Street Journal report.)

@MFO Members: If I'm not mistaken they did the same thing back in March 2015.
Regards,
Ted

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/105563/000093247119006695/ps210320191.htm
497 1 ps210320191.htm VANGUARD WELLINGTON FUND
Vanguard Wellington™ Fund
Supplement to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus
Important Note Regarding Vanguard Wellington Fund
Vanguard Wellington Fund will be closed to all prospective financial advisory,
institutional, and intermediary clients (other than clients who invest through a
Vanguard brokerage account).
The Fund will remain closed until further notice and there is no specific time
frame for when the Fund will reopen. During the Fund’s closed period, all current
shareholders may continue to purchase, exchange, or redeem shares of the
Fund online, by telephone, or by mail.
The Fund may modify these transaction policies at any time and without prior
notice to shareholders. You may call Vanguard for more detailed information
about the Fund’s transaction policies. Participants in employer-sponsored plans
may call Vanguard Participant Services at 800-523-1188. Investors in
nonretirement accounts and IRAs may call Vanguard’s Investor Information
Department at 800-662-7447.
© 2019 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor. PS 21 032019