GLFOX is on the chopping block - The Trump effect had little positive impact on this Global Infrastructure fund since the election.

Top 1/3 (34/99) over the past year (though dismal YTD). Here I am, again sounding like a broken record: this fund is currency hedged, so it will underperform as the dollar sinks. A likely event with Mnuchin talking down the dollar.
I unwind taxable positions slowly. It takes me a long time to decide to give up on a fund, and even then, I'm just as likely wrong as right. Some funds never regain their "magic", others do as conditions change. So far, GLFOX wouldn't even be on my sell list - a few (really) bad months under adverse conditions don't tell me its best days are past. Though my thinking is more oriented toward broad based funds and not sector funds. One might want to rotate out of a sector regardless of how good or bad an individual fund is.
As a long term investor, for me it's not so much a matter of taking losses as minimizing gains. So I sell just the highest cost shares at first, gradually selling more if a fund continues to prove to be past its prime.
I just liquidated one fund (at the beginning of 2018) that had continued to underperform. Yet another fund I own (and had sold some of the higher cost shares), has come back to 4 stars, meaning that it's outperformed recently (to recover its stars) and even long term has provided solid returns.
If the market takes a nosedive and I do have underwater shares in a fund on my "unwind" list, I sell them quickly, but in order to swap into a preferable fund, not to hold cash. I don't try to time these things.

GLD and THIIX up a teeny bit. OSTIX and FFRHX pretty much no change. QMNIX down less than 1%. All in all, about what I would have expected. I am still comfortable with my overall allocation, which stands at 20% bonds, 28% alternatives, and 52% domestic & international stocks. YTD am pretty much flat, and that's ok.

FYI: A recent filing from Direxion outlines plans for half a dozen ETFs that will offer 2x and 3x leverage in three key areas. The funds and their expense ratios are as follows:
Direxion Daily Lithium Bull 2X Shares, 1.09%
Direxion Daily Robotics & Artificial Intelligence Bull 2X Shares, 1.07%
Direxion Daily Preferred Stock Bull 2X Shares, 0.90%
Direxion Daily Lithium Bull 3X Shares, 1.24%
Direxion Daily Robotics & Artificial Intelligence Bull 3X Shares, 1.22%
Direxion Daily Preferred Stock Bull 3X Shares, 1.05%
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/daily-etf-watch/direxion-plans-6-leveraged-etfs

S&P 500 futures over 3% below cash closing price. This likely has a lot to do with the drop. I'm glad I am not a trader. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/05/xiv-exchange-traded-security-linked-to-volatility-plummets-80-percent.html

FCBFX = +.35%

I own CHSCN and CHSCL pfds., I managed to buy them on the IPOs. They had a good day but have been dropping lately as rates have been rising. CHSCP pfd could have been called at $25 par but since it was mainly owned by the farmers in their co-op, CHS did not call it, kept it going, and it trades at $29.20 today.

I note 1 which I own, and 1 which I constantly watch: PRSNX up .01 cent. And DODIX up by .04 cents. PRDSX small caps did the worst, down -3.55%.

FYI: The Dow Jones Industrial Average wiped out all of its year-to-date gains for 2018 as the stock market unraveled on fears of rising bond yields. The Dow DJIA, -4.35% shed 1,500 points at its low and was recently off 1,055 points, or more than 4%. That intraday move erased all of its gains, pushing it negative, down 1% for 2018 after boasting a return of nearly 6% at the end of January. The Dow was down 838 points, or 3.3%, at 24,695, while the S&P 500 index SPX, -3.88% was off 2.7% at 2,688. The broad-market benchmark was still up 0.6% for the year, but had erased much of its more than 5% gain in January. The Nasdaq Composite Index COMP, -3.53% was off 2.1% at 7,088, retaining a 2.7% return.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-04/asia-stocks-brace-for-selloff-bond-rout-deepens-markets-wrap
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-lower-as-losses-in-energy-bank-stocks-weigh-idUSKBN1FP1OR
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-poised-for-fresh-selloff-as-dow-futures-slide-120-points-2018-02-05/print
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-derail-big-oil-leads-losses/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/04/us-stocks-interest-rates-futures.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2018-02-05/your-evening-briefing
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Negative
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Interesting article on a fund that is rarely mentioned on the MFO Discussion board, but has been around since 1935, LEXCX:
dividendgrowthinvestor.com/2015/11/time-in-market-is-your-greatest-ally-in.html

To the original poster: steer clear of risk, I suppose, at age 85. No heirs? Will you tactically spend-down what you have? Or plan to give it to a charity or non-profit? The market is going through a major tantrum just now, but it could end anytime. Just steer clear. A conservative bond fund is the first thing to hit me, to offer an answer to your question. That means "core." Think DODIX and the like.But that fund pays quarterly, not monthly.

@Bee, good one. Always enjoy your posts. Have a sister who moved from NJ to Florida a few years back. Still have a brother in law in Summit, both retired. One of the worst towns for taxes.

I'm sure it feels that way, because NJ property tax rates are high almost everywhere, and Summit has some of the highest property values in the county. (It's at the eastern edge of the county closest to NY, is a "neighbor" of Millburn, is located at the convergence of two train lines to NY, and has a real downtown, unlike many other nearby communities. And some very nice homes.)
Nevertheless, Summit has the lowest effective tax rate in the county. (Effective rate meaning rate on actual property values, as opposed to assessed values that may not represent the actual values). A "mere" 1.85%
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/lpt/gtrunion16.pdf

But I think the chief reason for that was the Eagles' O.
Yes, lots of yardage, lots of points.
I hope you saw the responses to Gisele's 6yo point about her spouse's catching ....
https://www.boston.com/sports/new-england-patriots/2018/02/04/tom-brady-drop-gisele-husband-cant-catch

Philly was the 4th ranked defense in the NFL in 2017, which makes Brady's numbers all the more ridiculous - 505 yards passing, 3 TDs and 115 passer rating. LOL ! Foles is a better receiver, I'll give him that. If not for Brady and a few other players on offense, this would have been a blow out.
Philly's offense was ranked 7th in the NFL in 2017 - pretty good but not great. Giving up 41 points to that offense is unacceptable. Hence, the loss.

I was wondering when you'd link to the njpp piece.
Look at the graphic showing the primary exodus states for NJ. Missing is where NJ stands relative to these states. According to the Tax Foundation (source cited by graphic) NJ had the third highest tax burden in the country; so except for NY, all of the exoduses shown were to lower tax states.
It's actually funny to see the piece lead off by arguing that Mass. has a comparable tax burden to NJ. Funny because the Tax Foundation source talks about a 1% difference in tax burdens not being significant, while the difference between NJ and Mass reported is double that (12.2% vs. 10.3%). To put it differently, NJ's tax burden is 19% higher than Massachusetts'. (I'm just repeating data from or cited by pages you gave.)
The piece says that a "substantial majority" of the emmigration is offset by immigration as though that were to diminish the exodus. What it really means is that a significant minority (about 20%, per CBPP article cited by the piece) of the emmigration is not offset. In fact, between 2010 and 2015, New Jersey had the "third largest net domestic out-migration, behind New York and Illinois and just ahead of California." (Those are four of the six top states in tax burdens, according to the Tax Foundation page. Mass. is #12)
Some parts of the piece sound like a sales pitch: "These valuable assets and others are what make New Jersey an attractive place to live, work and raise a family for almost 9 million people." Though taken at face value, all this does is give a reason why net emmigration is not even higher. It doesn't lend support to the argument that high taxes have no effect on how "sticky" New Jersey is to residents.
The second piece starts out acknowledging that "A new study finds that the wealthiest Americans are less mobile than lower income workers, but those who do relocate are looking for a tax cut." So despite all those valuable assets, the motivating factor for moving, if people can maintain their income levels elsewhere, is high taxes.
Getting back to the njpp piece, it notes that "More importantly, the amount of new revenue gained from the [income] tax change dwarfed the tax payments that would have been made by those few who left."
The aforementioned CBPP piece says something similar: "policymakers in most relatively high-tax states still have considerable room to increase income taxes on the affluent before they should worry about the potential effects on migration." Emphasis added.
Two takeaways:
1) Normally, when a state raises or preserves high income taxes it may net greater revenue albeit on a declining tax base. However, when people pay more in taxes (due to eliminating SaLT deductions), the state only loses revenue as its tax base erodes. That was the point of the Barrons article, and nothing here has refuted it.
2) New Jersey is different from other states - CBPP acknowledges that there are a few high tax states where increased taxes would have a worrisome effect on migration. My guess is those few states don't reach past the top ten for tax burdens. That would certainly explain your local observations.
Talk to your friends in New Jersey. Let us know their impressions.
For kicks, here's what may be the most detailed, quantified analysis of tax migration effects, national and NJ-specific, that I've found. It was prepared by staff of the NJ Treasury Dept. in 2011.
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/gsef/Tax Migration Study_with tables.pdf
Like the CBPP paper, it states that "Clearly, our results do not suggest that tax-induced migration would come anywhere close to eclipsing the immediate revenue gain from an income tax increase". But also that "average marginal tax rates had a small but significant effect on migration decisions in the U.S. and in New Jersey. We estimate that higher New Jersey income taxes [2004-2008] was associated with a reduction of more than 20,000 taxpayers and a loss of annual income of at least $2 1/2 billion."

Here's an article worth reading on the topic of mutual fund draw down strategy for income that you might find helpful. Bonds may be a challenging space for income over the next few years, but a well managed fund should navigate these issues better than you or I. Also, keep it simple for you as well as you spouse to understand.
Good luck:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4050402-long-term-growing-income-open-end-mutual-fund-possible
Also, A similar question on income was asked in this thread that may be of some interest:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/96671/#Comment_96671

thank you Bee and Ted, My wife and I are the 85year old investors,
I have a post office pension and We have 2 small Social security
pension income. We would like 2 -6 mutual fund names to create
income for us at minimum risk. We have FAGIX and SPHIX from
Fidelity as a starting point. Sorry for the lack of information on my
part on Our 1st post.The amount is 125k to invest. Again sorry for the
sparse information on My part.
Highest Regards
circa33

Bee's points seem excellent as usual, to my mind, but I would think that $105k or whatever it is, even $205k, in cash at age 85 is not a bad thing.

@circa33: I recommend U.S. 2 Year Treasury Note, yield 2.15%
Regards,
Ted

My first thought when I read your question was a QLAC. This would have taken as much as $125K and bought a Qualified Longevity Annuity Contract the year prior to when the person turned 70.5.
Here's an Article against QLACs:
https://kitces.com/blog/why-a-qlac-in-an-ira-is-a-terrible-way-to-defer-the-required-minimum-distribution-rmd-obligation/
Here's an Article for QLACs:
https://marketwatch.com/story/13-reasons-why-a-qlac-belongs-in-your-ira-2014-11-18

I spent the last 5 years as a caregiver for my elderly parent. Things happen in steps as we age so prepare for these "steps" by trying to be one step ahead of the next "step". Most of these steps move in the opposite direction of what we are use to.
Income is a misnomer at this age (85 & older) because, as we age, less and less of our income is spent on maintaining a lifestyle and more is spent on maintaining a life.
A decision should be made on where this 85 year old will reside for their next 5-10-15 years. If the hope and desire is to stay at home (somewhat independently) realize that this can change instantly..a car crash, a fall, a major illness and this person will be unsafe living alone. Determine who (loved ones or community services or elderly care agencies) will dovetail with this independent living arrangement...often it is all three.
Outside of these personal resources (low six figure assets), what other resources will this 85 year old also have access to? This could be a VA Aid & Attendance benefit, community heating allowances, renters rebates, SS waivers (on premiums), subsidies for the costs of home care, family leave benefits for family members, Home modification loans or grants, and many many more that would be unique to where you live and how you qualify. Usually qualifying means being below an income and an asset threshold. Come up with a spend down plan for these assets to maximize the time that this elderly person can live independently.
Care changes as the elderly person's medical need increase. Spend down or transfer of assets need to occurred 5 years prior to medicaid becoming available for helping pay for LT care. I just completed this process with my elderly mom and it was an honor, a privileged and the hardest damn thing you'd ever want to do (mostly) alone.
Remember that care facility costs for LT care can be substantial...$4-7K / month is not uncommon.

They just seemed to be having their way from the getgo, mostly; of course I know it was close. But not as much as it looked. Pats could not stop the run, either JA or Blount, and JA was amazing. Eagles' D kept Pats run stifled, for its part. Most of the Pats afterward said as much, about not being to get going and get their typical game going, if you watched the post interviews (maybe available chiefly in Boston area). Discouraging to sit through, but good on Philly.

Neither team had a good defense, with Brady torching the Eagles for more than 500 yards passing with 3 TDs. The game really hinged on just a couple plays at the end. The Eagles eating up the clock in the 4th with that extended drive (terrible defense by NE) and Brady getting strip sacked near the end. Up to that point, the outcome was in question. Philly made a few more plays than NE. The Pats defense was about as bad as I've seen from that team in many years.