@AMatFO.
Your welcome! I am not sure what the initial minimum investment amount is at Fidelity (probably $2,500 like most other funds offered?), but it cannot be less than Scottrade's $100 plus T/F of $17 to purchase it.
Incidentally, I purchased CNRYX in my Scottrade account prior to establishing a CNRYX account with the transfer agent. I made an initial investment of $100 with the agent with no problems.

The other problem is this. VWINX is an excellent fund because of low fees and good management. These facts will likely continue into the future. But to project its past performance into the future is a mistake. Consider the author of the aforementioned seekingalpha article's premise regarding backtesting. He looks back to January 1, 1992.
These were the conditions for the market in January 1992:
Dividend yield of the S&P 500: 3%
multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-yield/
10-Year Treasury yield 7%
macrotrends.net/2016/10-year-treasury-bond-rate-yield-chart
10-year Shiller P/E ratio 19
https://dqydj.com/shiller-pe-cape-ratio-calculator/
Here is where we are today
S&P 500 Dividend yield: 1.77%
10-Year Treasury yield: 2.4%
10-year Shiller p/e: 34
To back-test and assume the past from January 1992 is prelude for the future today based on these numbers I think is a mistake. We have lived through a historic period of falling interesting rates and rising stock valuations from 1982 onward. That period as far as interest rates goes is over and I'm not sure how much longer the rising valuations will continue. Creative thinking is necessary.

What would you recommend to maximize his investment income?

The investment should be safe as there is no other money to live on.

I think this is the crux of the problem when trying to give advice on this. These 2 "wants" are contradictions. Old_Joe made this point a couple times. Basically expecting to withdraw $24k and increasing each year for inflation and wanting it to last 45+ years has little probability of succeeding with any 60:40 or even 80:20 portfolio for that matter. The 4% rule I believe is based on a 25 or 30 year life span. Bee spelled it out in her post. Hate to be a wet blanket, but anything less than 100% equities probably can't last.
Maybe it is more realistic to plan 20 years and reevaluate circumstances periodically.
P.S., here is where Monte Carlo would be helpful at least for a realistic view of expectations.

I've posted this article in the past, but seemed worth re-posting:
From Article:

Criteria:
The Retirement Income withdrawal will be 4% of the beginning investment value with each successive year's withdrawal increasing by 3% to allow for inflation. Any dividends collected in excess of this will be accumulated in a money market account (MMA) until the year the mutual fund produces less in dividend income than is required and the difference between the next year's household income need and the dividend collected is taken from the MMF. I'm assuming the interest rate on the MMA is zero. If the collective cash reserve is not sufficient…or non-existent…and the dividend collected that year is not sufficient to meet household income need, then sufficient shares will be sold at the end of the year to provide the required cash. This is repeated each December at the end of the month (last trading day).
VWINX is the clear winner. Providing 25 years of inflation adjusted 4% annual distributions with a residual value over 89% greater than its beginning value.

Article:
long-term-growing-income-open-end-mutual-fund-possible

If you want stability, income and some consistency, I would examine how funds performed in 2008 and other volatile years. For a pure fund portfolio I would recommend a combination of the following funds:
GTEYX
ZEOIX
VWAHX
SGHIX or RPGAX
Maybe 20% or 25% in each. You probably could get a fairly stable 4% annualized out of that. Maybe more, although I haven't run the combined numbers. For a little extra oomph you could add a small weighting to some less volatile emerging market fund.

Thanks, @TheShadow. I did buy CNRYX few months ago at Scottrade with a transaction fee. Scottrade mutual transaction fees are lower than Fidelity, Schwab and TDA.

FWIW, a round trip will cost you $34 at Scottrade, $50 at Fidelity, and a whopping $100 at TDA.
Five purchases at Scottrade will cost you $85, but only $70 at Fidelity if you're willing to use their automated investment system and live with a lag of a day or so in getting your order filled. ($5/order once you have a position at Fidelity).
https://www.fidelity.com/cash-management/automatic-investments

FYI: Vanguard’s new chief executive has a challenge his three predecessors didn’t: How to how to grow a firm that is already the world’s second largest investment manager.
When Mortimer J. “Tim” Buckley started at Vanguard in 1991, the firm managed $77 billion and attracted $15 billion in new cash that year. It had 2,600 employees in one Malvern, Pa. office and was trying to grow with an unusual ownership structure—it is owned by its customers—and ultralow fees.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cetusnews.com/business/The-Challenge-for-Vanguard’s-New-CEO--Keep-a-Behemoth-Growing-.HkBnTz9oQG.html
Vanguard Live Webcast January 4, 2018 at 7 p.m. EST:
https://pressroom.vanguard.com/news/Media-Alert-Vanguard-CEO-Tim-Buckley-And-CIO-Greg-Davis-To-Discuss-Markets-Economy-During-Live-Webcast-010318.html

FYI: The president of Fidelity Investments’ equity division is moving to a new role within the fund giant’s personal investing business later this quarter, leaving a post he has held since 2009.
Brian Hogan most recently led equity and high-income investing within the asset-management unit at Boston-based Fidelity. In his new role, he will be head of investment solutions and innovation within the company’s personal-investing unit, a Fidelity spokesman confirmed. The personal investing unit houses Fidelity’s brokerage platform, individual retirement accounts and other services for retail investors.
Mr. Hogan joined Fidelity in 1994 as a bond analyst. In 1998, he joined the stock picking unit and has held a number of roles including senior vice president of equity research. The equity division has faced scrutiny in recent months after The Wall Street Journal reported on a high-level firing there and allegations of sexual harassment.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cetusnews.com/business/Fidelity-Moves-Brian-Hogan-Out-of-Equity-Division.rJANAA5Xf.html

Hi @ducrow,
I have not followed your previous post and, with this, I don't know much about what you hold outside of these three funds. Just looking at each of these I'm thinking, as funds, they are all keepers. This raises the question ... What else do you have and how do these funds fit.
IVWIX ... M* 4 Star ... Cash 10% ... Berkshire Hathaway ... Gold Bullion
FPACX ... M* 4 Star ... Cash 15% ... This fund can and does actively short over priced holdings.
DSENX ... M* 5 Star ... Actively positions using deratives and swaps.
Again ... I'm not finding much amiss with any of these funds and I'm thinking they are all keepers. In addition, each of these funds, if I owned, would be held in different sleees within my portfolio. So, this leads me back to the question ... What else do you own? And, how many funds are to many? I'm currently holding close to a total of fifty within five accounts with some funds repeating within accounts (some not). Over all the portfolio as a whole holds close to fifty.
Old_Skeet

FPURX is my vote.
It would be great to go even more conservative but he has to get 24k or so from this investment of 500k. Do you know anything about lifespan projection; is it affected by the disability? Are we talking a normal 45y ahead, or something less?
Has anyone looked into inflation-adjusted annuities?

3k/mth required, offset by 1k SSDI, leaves 24k/yr to be generated. Raw, before any taxes or fund expenses, that is going to require a permanent, consistent income return of 4.8% on the 500k. That means that there is going to have to be what I would consider to be an excessive risk involved, as I can't see how to generate that kind of guaranteed consistent return with complete safety in today's market. Additionally, as you go forward, the amount required will only increase due to inflation.
We have some very smart people here on MFO... I hope that they can come up with something for you more promising than my appraisal. We don't particularly like annuities, but perhaps something along those lines might be a possibility?

Hi David V,
First, where's the money at? Savings account? IRA? 401? What are the expenses per month? How safe does this have to be? Does the family help him at all? At 62 or 65, does he get SS or something else? Many questions.....before I would say anything. Also, should this be on auto pilot?
God bless
the Pudd

Excellent choices for either the Wellington or Wellesley funds. But I would suggest maybe looking at a 1 fund diversified portfolio from TRP, any of their "retirement" funds (not the target date). Chose the one that fits the equity allocation (50:50, 60:40, 70:30, ect...) that makes sense for a 40 year old's expected returns and withdrawal needs. TRRGX, TRRBX, TRRHX.

I was asked to help building investment portfolio for a single disable person of 40 years old, having $500K in savings. The person does not own property, most likely, will not be able to work in the future, and his only income will be social security disability insurance benefits (about $1000/month) and income from investment. What would you recommend to maximize his investment income?

ML and Fido also permit that (not sure about 3:59p, may be tricky), and I bet many or most others do too

Also worth a read: https://huffingtonpost.com/david-morris/airline-deregulation-ideology-over-evidence_b_4399150.html

Thanks @Mark. I do see after a closer look that the funds are different. I am also intrigued by "management and ownership" which is why I'm considering a swap.
Also, I assume you meant "none constitute more less than 5%". I'm always impressed with portfolio simplicity!

@MikeM re: ROSOX/RNWOX split - the two seem to operate in different arena's near as I can discern. ROSOX the Overseas fund is a better fit straight on to the holdings in TIBIX being more centered on large cap foreign holdings in established markets including Japan. I also like the current low asset base. RNWOX the New World fund excludes Japan and seems more focused on less established markets although I don't really consider China and Russia as emerging economies anymore. Lastly I can't decide which of these two areas have better prospects going forward.
FWIW, I now hold only 7 mutual funds and none constitute more than 5% of my entire portfolio. I also hold less than 5% outside the US.

Even if the dividend were payable in January, so long as it was payable to shareholders of record in Oct, Nov, or Dec, it would be taxable in 2017. See Pub 550.
https://taxmap.irs.gov/taxmap/pubs/p550-006.htm#en_us_publink100010073

Let me suggest one other way of thinking about this ...
Suppose the market always returns -10%, 0%, 10%, 20%, or 30%, each 1/5 of the time. So on average, the market returns 10%.
If the market is truly random like the toss of a die, then each year the market is just as likely to return -10% as 10% or 30%, regardless of this year's performance. If this year returned 30%, then there's a 3/5 chance (0%, 10%, 20%) that next year's returns will be closer to the mean (10%).. That's regression toward the mean from an extremely good (or bad) year.
Still, no reason to sell just because you had a good year.
It's like saying that a hot hand will cool off. Of course it will, because it's got no place to go but down. But you don't know when that will happen, and when it does, it's just as likely to be a very good (but not great) year as it is likely to be a bad one.
That's the simple math of random selection. In reality, the market has causes and effects, even if in the aggregate the numbers come out looking random. One may be thinking of those other factors when investing. Business cycles tend to have cycles (though of seemingly random duration and magnitude). Other investors may be acting irrationally (e.g bubbles, gambler's fallacy, etc.).
Investors may also be acting rationally in choosing suboptimal strategies. Taking money off the table if you are satisfied with your winnings is not optimal (from a purely monetary perspective), because over time market returns are positive. But you may be happier with what you have and with avoiding ulcers than with making more money in the long term.
This brings us full circle to the hot hand. It's more likely for one to be content with one's winnings after a big win. So the inclination to reduce exposure after a good year is understandable and reasonable. Just not on the basis of law of averages, mean regression, etc.