right; we have been exceedingly lucky
if I do some sims with other ratios, will report
yeah, okay, did a few wack ones:
It is scary to imagine how one would respond and cope with, say, DODGX 2000-2012 and 1% annual contrib, especially when you click inflation-adjusted. CAGR under 5%. No withdrawals. With 10% annual withdrawal instead, it still is not zero at the end. Hmm. Must run some more-plausible ones.

>> same simulation starting March 2000, .... CAGR was still positive, ...
Wow, I would not have thought that, even with loss in real value. Must try this with mixes other than 50-50.

KCMIX is indeed available now. The $250K minimum is too big for my wallet but I hope you find a lot of interested investors.

"For an investor in retirement down 57% and continuing to withdraw for income he won't care whether its called a correction or bear market."
For an investor in retirement down 19.4% and continuing to withdraw for income he won't care whether it is called a correction (-19%) or a bear market (-20%).
Yet you ignored a drop of this magnitude even though names don't matter. Was it too small a drop? How large does a market decline have to be for you to care?
We've got at least one fan here of Monte Carlo simulation. I've given many reasons why I find existing tools (not the concept) inadequate. But they apply to probabilistic future projections. Backtesting shows what would have actually happened - no probabilities involved since real market data are used over real periods.
So just for fun I ran portfolioVisualizer from Oct 2007 to Oct 2017 with a representative 50/50 retirement portfolio (SPY/AGG), rebalanced annually. I started monthly withdrawals at 0.33% of the start amount (i.e. 4% annual rate) and increased the withdrawal amount just for inflation.
http://traderhq.com/illustrated-history-every-s-p-500-bear-market/
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio
Compound aggregate growth rate (CAGR) was positive - around 1.8%/year. It was even positive after adjusting for inflation (about 0.1%/year real return).
Ran the same simulation starting March 2000, except I had to pick another bond representative (AGG started Sept 2003). So I used VBMFX. Sure enough, with two crashes within a decade, that one didn't come out as well.
CAGR was still positive, at 0.23%/year, but after adjusting for inflation, the portfolio lost 1.9%/year in real value. About 18 years after starting, the retiree's portfolio in nominal dollars was up only 4.2% from where it started.
Still, not the dire straits it seems you were expecting.

Fairport-based Manning & Napier acquired 75% of Rainier more than a year ago after a period of heavy outflows from Seattle-based Rainier. While the three Rainier Funds still don't formally carry the Manning & Napier name (eg., Rainier Large Cap Equity Instl), we've updated the MFO ScoreCard (and our master names list) to reflect it (click image to enlarge).

The MFO 5-Year Great Owl Manning & Napier Rainier International Discovery Series I RAIIX is contractually sub-advised by Rainier. Its portfolio manager is Henrik Strabo.
On the whole, however, the Manning & Napier fund family has not rated well on the absolute-return driven MFO Scorecard (OSC means Oldest Share Class, ASC means All Share Classes), click on image to enlarge:

Similarly, it has no funds on the MFO Honor Roll and 7 on the MFO Three Alarm list (click image to enlarge):

All that said, Manning & Napier's overall numbers suggests a firm that focuses more on risk adjusted returns and capital preservation than absolute returns, which drive the ScoreCard, Honor Roll and Three Alarm designations.
The irony is that their philosophy states: "A Focus on Absolute Returns - A focus on price can help investors avoid permanent loss of capital and is aimed at maximizing absolute returns over the long-term."
David profiled positively Manning & Napier Pro-Blend Conservative Term Series S EXDAX in 2015 and Manning & Napier Disciplined Value Series I MNDFX in 2011.
Since inception, they both hold an MFO Rating of 5, or top quintile in their categories, as do 8 other funds in Manning & Napier's line-up (click image to enlarge):

>> how much you don't lose is more important than how much you make.
This is one of those assertions you see all the time, but if I had followed it over the last half-century, I would have to be still working.
In other words, the ability to wait it out, keep investing, and the comparative shortness until breakeven, have paid off.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/26/investing/stock-market-crash-bubble-investing/index.html
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/150226110022-crash-recovery-bar-780x439.jpg
Some (much) of it clearly is luck in the timing. Trying to retire in 2000 was brutal, if not impossible for many, and the same for 08 even if that turned out not so bad, since the memory of 2000 was so vivid.

For an investor in retirement down 57% and continuing to withdraw for income he won't care whether its called a correction or bear market. The pain is the same. Good luck NOT timing the market. Re: 1% cash...IMHO how much you don't lose is more important than how much you make.

For all the criticisms of LSBDX as being highly volatile, it's beaten or matched the standard benchmark (Barclays US Aggregate) and nearly done so with its benchmark index (Barclays Government/Credit), falling 0.14% short/year over three years (but better over 1, 5, 10, 15). That's despite an abysmal 2008.
After 59 years in the business, 26 years managing this fund, Fuss' record is more likely the real article than random chance success. So when he takes this free wheeling fund to its most conservative position ever, it's worth taking note. (Unlike some other bond fund managers who shall remain nameless, Fuss doesn't go out of his way seeking the spotlight.)

The Loomis Sayles Bond Fund has reduced its risk exposure to the lowest since its inception in 1991

Here's a much more extensive article on his macro views (Oct 19, 2017):
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2017/10/19/dan-fuss-warns-of-geopolitical-risks-and-higher-rates-1

One interesting holding of PARNX is Mattel (MTTL).
Hurt by troubles in toyland (Toys R Us) as well it its own restructuring MTTL is off almost 50% this year.
Vanguard Primecap (VPMCX) holds an almost 6% stake in MTTL. In September, PARNX added 25% to its already large fund position of MTTL. In June, VPMCX bought 16% more of MTTL.
I tend not to be an individual stock investor, but one strategy that I use to form a potential list of individual stocks is by evaluating the holdings of concentrated mutual funds like PARNX. Especially when these funds pride themselves on finding value.
MTTL seems to be one of those holdings that is under performing at the moment and talented fund managers (both VPMCX and PARNX) see the stock as a worthy hold and buy.

The last correction (spanning 2015-2016) was 13.3%. Before that were corrections of 12.4% (2014), 19.4% (2011), and 16.0% (2010).
That was using a definition of a 10%+ decline of the S&P 500. If one wants to include "minor" corrections of 5%+, these occurred in 2014 (twice), 2013, 2012 (twice), and 2011.
https://www.yardeni.com/pub/sp500corrbear.pdf
Good luck timing the corrections. Perhaps you meant bear markets (20%+ decline). The last two of those were indeed 57% (2008-2009) and 49% (2000-2002). Then you might have chosen to wait out this whole decade waiting for the next bear market. Making 1% in cash?
Given the near quadrupling of the market since the last bear, you may not come out ahead even if the market crashes 50% next year.
On that possibility, see Grantham's expectations: https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/36466/jeremy-grantham-predicted-two-previous-bubbles-and-now

Thanks @Ted,
If you ever have an opportunity to read or listen to a Dan Fuss Interview, do so. Like Bogle, Fuss is a grandfather like figure that is both engagingly dry and full of financial wisdom.
From @Ted's article on owning bonds in today's market:

“I do know from my 59 years of experience, when the ice was very thin, it’s always good to be very cautious,” he said. “You can skate around the edges but you can’t go out to the middle.”

and,

“I‘m not trying to be an ‘end of the world person’ here, but it is a possibility,” he said. “It used to be one percent, now it’s a 15 or 20 percent possibility. Would you get on an airplane if there was a 15 percent risk? And that’s a good way to ask a person about risk,” he said.

Maybe investor confirmation bias, but I sold my "middle of the pond" position in AGDYX about a month ago. His concerns about a lack of buyer of bonds and a higher risk of inflation paired with do nothing politicians is what you pay a bond manager to worry about. Bond index funds provide none of this risk management.
Wish the article dug a little deeper into Dan Fuss and his bond choices over the next part of the market cycle.

FYI: Value investing isn’t dead, but investors aren’t looking in the right places for value stocks, says Parnassus Investments’ Robert Klaber.
Klaber, who co-manages the firm’s flagship Parnassus Fund (PARNX), argues that value investing is still a viable strategy as long as investors consider the quality and sustainability of the companies they hold.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/how-parnassus-still-finds-value-when-value-investing-lags-35609.html?print
M* Snapshot PARNX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/parnx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/parnx
PARNX Ranks #87 In The (LCG) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/parnassus-fund/parnx

ArrowPoint is now ArrowMark (I believe over trademark infringement) and has always been Meridian Funds. The MFO Scorecard has been updated accordingly.
Here's summary (OSC means Oldest Share Class, ASC means All Share Classes), click on image to enlarge:

Here are the some performance metrics from the MultiSearch screener for the four Meridian funds since inception (click image to enlarge):

David profiled its newest fund, Meridian Small Cap Growth (MISGX), back in 2014 shortly after it launched. It's delivered handsomely. Here's screenshot of MFO Dashboard (click image to enlarge):

How much an investor spends (budget) is under his direct control. This, in turn, affects how much he saves. Market returns are not under his direct control. The cost basis of when he invests in the market is of paramount importance. The last two corrections have been 49% and 57%.

As hard rules, they're inconsistent. Most people aren't going to max out their work retirement plans and IRAs with "just" 20% savings.
To max out $18K (401k) + $5500 (IRA) while saving 20% would require an income of at least $117,500. Even more if you're over 50, or have a 457(b) plan that lets you save another $18K on top of your 403(b).
On the other hand, if you are earning that much, there are tax advantages to investing (in limited amounts) in your company stock (an individual security). I've done that through ESPP and ESOP plans.
As davidrmoran wrote, flexibility is the key. I also agree with Crash, that the last item (the one that expands the 3x5 card to a 4x6 card) makes it worth splurging on the larger index card.

The fall has been precipitous, in bond-terms--- though as yet short-lived. PREMX is particularly vulnerable, but it's not as if I did not know that, beforehand. I have benefited greatly from PREMX monthly income, since I originally bought it in 2010. The fund owns a big slug in Venezuela, which is defaulting. And I note a tranche in Lebanon, where the Prime Minister ran away to Saudi Arabia, then announced his resignation. He fears for his life. His father was assassinated while serving as PM in Lebanon in 2005, too! Add a stronger dollar lately (high-point yesterday, over the past 4 months. But PREMX is mostly, though not exclusively, in dollar-bonds.)
I own quite a bit in PRSNX, too. (Multi-asset global bonds.) It is steady. So steady, it's almost making me impatient. Shall I sell some PRSNX and buy PREMX on this dip? I don't bet that the PREMX downtrend is over, yet, though.

Pretty good story. Turns out he counted the assets in his funds as his own personal assets and is being sued by former employees for keeping their portion of fund profits:
https://forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/11/07/the-case-of-wilbur-ross-phantom-2-billion/#1ec984d67515

Um, I am not a wsj subscriber so cant read article. But the issue is one that rankles as I made myself, the grandparent, the owner of 3 529s. Maybe that was a bad move. Who should be the owner if the grandkids want to apply FAFSA? Am i just dumb or are the regs really this obfuscating?

Good column (and not pay-walled). The bright spots, such as they are, in his projections are that although he doesn't expect the market to beat inflation in the next several years, he's also not expecting a crash near term. Also, over the longer term (two decades) he expects stocks to beat inflation by 2.8%.
I agree with Lewis (and Grantham) that workers are being treated worse than in "days of yore". However, I think Grantham's view of pension funds in the past is a bit on the rosy side. Pensions were used to lock in employees (30 year requirement to benefit), used as an excuse for paying lower wages, used to lavish benefits on management, perennially underfunded, and often bankrupt (think Studebaker). ERISA protections didn't come along until 1974, and by 1980 you had 401(k)s appearing.
NYTimes Magazine article 2005: The End of Pensions.

In September 2015 most real estate funds were badly damaged. I threw a little at OREAX (Oppenheimer) and caught a good bounce over the next 6 -12 months. But since the bounce ended, the fund hasn’t moved much either way (since about mid 2016). Still have it. Seems very much to move with interest rates - rising when rates are expected to fall and falling when they appear likely to rise. Rumor or anticipation of rate changes will often cause a reaction. So the Fed Chair nomination recently might have influenced markets. Remember, too, that rates had risen considerably in recent weeks before falling back abruptly in the past week or so.
I also agree with others here that changes in deductibility of mortgage interest would affect values.
These funds vary quite a bit in their approaches. Helps explain why different funds’ returns vary widely over short periods. A given fund may hold office buildings, malls, self-storage facilities, apartment complexes, hotel chains and mobile home park operations - to name a few. I wouldn’t be surprised if some even held mortgage companies and the like for diversity. Don’t have any strong sense about where values will go next. I don’t mind holding a little for diversity. But these funds are very cyclical and subject to pretty substantial trends both on the way up and on the way down.
FWIW - T. Rowe considers real estate a “hard asset” and incorporates a substantial amount in their Real Assets fund (PRAFX).
Are real estate funds a bargain? Don’t know about that. Not seeing anything that looks terribly beaten up out there.