Disaster was probably too strong a term; "surprisingly poor" sounds about right.
When the panic passes, he might ease back on the amount of ballast and benefit from a substantial rebound in oversold securities.

Agree, surprising poor sounds better than disaster. Disaster is reserved for the Third Avenue's of the world. If market action is any indication the panic has already passed and the other managers, especially in the high yield sector, beat him to the punch by benefiting from the substantial rebound in oversold securities. His 1.49% over the past month pales to the 5.21% of his high yield counterparts. I have said a couple times here there is no reason to hold this fund.

Getting back to the question as to "where" should retirement withdrawals come from this study researched a number of options and I liked this quote enough to pass it along:
In virtually all the scenarios, "it pays to eat your bonds first, equities later."
Withdrawal scenarios studied:
1. Withdraw money from either stocks or bonds and then rebalance the portfolio annually to the initial stock/bond proportion. This harvesting rule will be referred to as “Rebalance.”
2. Withdraw money from the asset that had the highest return during the year and do not rebalance. This will be referred to as “High First.”
3. Withdraw money from the asset that had the lowest return during the year and do not rebalance. This will be referred to as “Low First.” To the extent that historical rates of return on bonds tend to be lower than historical rates of return on stocks, the following two additional methods of harvesting withdrawals will be referred to as “Bonds First” and “Stocks First.”
4. Take withdrawals from bonds first and do not rebalance.
5. Take withdrawals from stocks first and do not rebalance.

Study:
time-diversification-vs-rebalancing-in-retirement-portfolios/

"disaster"
Hmmm ... it had an 8% drawdown from mid-2015 to mid-February, 2016. That's better than the average high yield fund (-11%), worse than the average multi-sector bond fund (-6.5%). Neither's a particularly great benchmark. Not good and modestly surprising. I'd probably reserve "disaster" for folks who've demonstrated bad faith or really sustained incompetence. Neither's the case here, though I don't disagree that the performance has been surprisingly poor.
To the manager as well, for what interest that holds.
I've spoken to Mr. Sherman a fair number of times. I like him and respect him, but can't always quite keep up with him. As soon as we hit "but when the shape of the derivative curve tightens, the yield-to-worst / yield-to-call ratios become irrational. Right?" my brain blinks. My best understanding is that two factors have been driving results. (1) He screwed up on two or three securities. At base, a couple CEOs used freakishly bad judgment which damaged - terminally in one case, temporarily in another - the value of the fund's investment in them. (2) Fixed-income investors have been acting like the apocalypse is imminent, which has led some portions of the market to be pounded down. There are some short-term bonds yielding over 10% now, a year ago those same bonds paid 6.5%. He's got some very conservative exposure - overlap with RPHYX - to offset some riskier stuff (the aforementioned pounded sectors) that he believes to be "money good," but the dark fantasies involving the collapse of the energy market or of the Chinese economy or of the European Union have kept prices from normalizing. When the panic passes, he might ease back on the amount of ballast and benefit from a substantial rebound in oversold securities.
He might be wrong, either in the thesis or in timing, but, at least in my best judgment, he's neither delusional nor incompetent.
For what that's worth,
David

In a stripped down form, I believe this is what one gets out of Buffett's advice for his future widow - 10% short term government bonds (effectively a cash substitute) and 90% in an equity index fund.
https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2014/03/04/warren-buffetts-90-10-rule-of-thumb-for-retirement-investing/
That's 2.5-3 years of buffer. As you noted, the length of the overvaluation period (do you mean undervaluation when a retiree is disinvesting?) is unknown, but that is likely enough to insulate one from the worst of it. If that period extends further, one does not need to replenish the buffer, merely sell off enough equity to meet cash flow needs. Once stocks return to a reasonable valuation level, the buffer can be refilled.
Personally, I'm more comfortable with a 4-5 year buffer and a more diversified equity portfolio, but generally find this a good approach.

Newer academic thinking about investment glide path allocations and withdrawal rates in retirement years ( Weigand and Iron / Sptizer and Singh *) has shown that an investor / retiree spend from bonds first and stocks last ( and build a "safe money" fund or bucket of approx. 2 years of expenses which can be used if needed or spent before bonds ). Under this thinking, a misconception about conventional 60 / 40 "glide path" schemes is, that a "bond" allocation be recommended "early" in the investment lifecycle. Yet, the young investor demographic ( age 20's to 50 ) has "time" compounding / "time" to ride out volatility advantages on their side and they aren't so invested in knowing the quarter to quarter fluctuations of their 401K portfolios. So it is logical to assume that a "maximizing" of asset growth by having a much higher portion of assets in equities is warranted and, consequently, should extend into an investors "final years".
Being a late 50's retiree with a somewhat limited but reasonable Roth IRA accumulation and with an extensive expertise in quantitative tactical allocation, I operate under the framework of "preservation of capital" model with an appreciation of what the Weigand and Iron study conveys. As the forward 15 year equity market returns, as measured by CAPE ** and price to book measures are extrapolated to be sub par, preserving capital and asset growth within alternating strategic periods of equity ( small cap value, mid cap growth ), money market, and occasional bond investment through the use of quantitative tactical methods, is my preferred choice. Many "equities heavy" buy and hold investors / retirees may have to ride out the overvaluation period, perhaps spending down their safe money portion and/or retirement asset stake, as is implied by "sequence of return risk". The unknown is how deep and how long the overvaluation period is; this accompanied by varying inflation / disinflation .
Historically, a simple, mechanical, low transaction price / moving average cross strategy has produced decent risk mitigation / capital preservation during these periods of CAPE overvaluation ***.
Some favorite quotes from retirement planner literature are: "Hope for the best, plan for the worst", "You can't predict, but you can prepare ".
* "Market Signals for When to Employ a Bonds-First Withdrawal Sequence to Extend the Longevity of Retirees’ Portfolios" R. Weigand
"Is Rebalancing a Portfolio During Retirement Necessary?" John Spitzer Sandeep Singh
** https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I4sH5UV6fS6UfCNiPl1AsB2SOMF1an1PRt8YH0dgOeQ/edit?usp=sharing
*** https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mdon_cto48rvs2_lKWyMWrfqSIh8K0phfe7tThle8qQ/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Sn6BKRCKRU5tensBDFTkJXI3v2wRQ4M1bt8VoIM2Zmc/edit?usp=sharing

sequx is under review in M*, but VRX is still 5* !!

Old Skeet said: "I am a big sinner by holding such a sizeable cash position within my portfolio."
I don't think you're a sinner. There are many benefits to cash. In some instances higher cash levels allow you to take on greater risk in selected areas you consider good value. And in down markets it allows you to stay the course while others are bailing at a loss.
Discussing cash is the problem. Everybody has a slightly different way of quantifying their actual level. Heck, there's one (unnamed) junk bond fund that some here are using as "cash." Others include funds like RPSIX - which is anything but cash. I'm not passing judgment here, but rather showing how perceptions vary.
I could say I'm currently at 7.5% cash, having raised that from under 4% in January. But that doesn't tell the entire story. A half dozen or more of my balanced and allocation funds hold cash. That amount's not included in the figure I sometimes fling around. Especially noteworthy are large holdings in RPSIX and TRRIX, two very conservative funds with modest holdings of cash or short-term bonds. Realistically, my cash position is likely in the 15-20% range when the cash held by these funds are included.
Having said all that, my nominal 7.5% (plain unadulterated cash) reflects a slightly positive outlook for the types of funds I hold, which tend to be a bit overweighted in the raw materials and precious metals sectors. A 10% weighting would represent more of a neutral outlook. I'll get there eventually. And, of course, as always, I could be wrong.
Skeet, your posts are awesome IMHO. You have a clearly thought out plan and consistently adhere to it. Thanks for sharing.

Allow me to question a few assumptions (or not quite precise statements) to refine some thoughts.
@MJG: "Market returns will never repeat that precise order. All evidence points to a purely random series of returns."
Never? If results are purely random then there is a nonzero probability of repeating any given pattern (at least over a finite space of possible outcomes).
I think you're suggesting that there is no persistence, there are no market cycles. In the fixed income market, we have had a 35 year bull market (give or take). All expectations are for an ensuing bear market. Not to mention basic arithmetic - yields rising from virtually zero entail falling security prices.
How does one square this (both past market and future expectation) with pure randomness? While Y2Y returns may be random, there appears to be a longer term trend that would belie "pure" randomness.
@BobC - you write about people with public pensions. While private pensions are much rarer these days, they do exist. Is there some difference between public and private sector (all else being equal) or is it that you just don't run across clients with significant private pensions?
Regarding lump sum vs. annuity (pension) option: I question cause and effect. Do people who take lump sums fare worse because they take lump sums, or is it that people who do not manage money well are more inclined to take lump sums and spend?
@bee IMHO RMDs, if properly managed, should not be a factor. People tend to look at pretax portfolios and think that they have $X. But what they really have is $X * (1 - tax). Taking RMDs doesn't change this.
I say "properly managed" because letting pretax accounts pile up can ultimately push one into higher tax brackets. This reduces the after tax value more than necessary. By spreading the withdrawals over time one can reduce the tax impact and maximize the aftertax value of the account.
If one doesn't need the full amount of the withdrawals, one can put the excess into Roth IRAs and prolong the tax sheltering.

Has anyone explored the tax considerations with respect to Safe Withdrawal Rate?
I'm gonna assume that a Roth withdrawal could potentially be 15-40% smaller due to the fact that these withdrawal don't get a "income tax haircut" prior to fulfilling their primary need (spending).
Also, if I am required at 70.5 to take a Required Minimum Distribution, than a $1,000 RMD will only meet a $600 - $850 of my income need (after taxes).
@MJG: Do you know if RMD is part of a Monte Carlo Simulator? If a retiree is required to take a distribution, pay taxes on that distribution and then either spend or save that distribution would throw a small wrench into MCS.

My experience with hundreds of clients over the years (no matter how many projections we run prior to retirement, MonteCarlo or not) is that those with public pensions (after working 30+ years) seldom have spending problems. The public pension system is very generous, and it allows folks to retire with most of their pre-retirement income continuing. If they also have no mortgage and other heavy debt, they are even in better shape. If the spouse has good social security benefits, even better. With these folks, the withdrawal rate on their other savings is not much of an issue.
For other clients, our experience has been that folks tend to spend less following down years for the markets, then discover that some of the "necessary" spending they did previously is not so necessary any more. The first 4-5 years of real retirement are when folks do the most traveling and other unusual expenses. But even then, with the exception of those who have always lived beyond their means, in the last 2-3 years folks have been more aware of their spending. As I have noted previously, those with no mortgage and other debts always seem to worry less than those with debts. And for good reason...their expenses without those things are almost always 30-60% lower.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1500604/000119312516506663/d160093d485apos.htm
The Health and Fitness ETF
The Long Term Care ETF
The Obesity ETF
The Organics ETF

The "largest ten holders" of VRX is probably not that interesting -- as msf pointed out, many of these funds are huge and VRX is only a tiny fraction of the portfolio, in relative terms.
A more interesting statistic is the list of the most "concentrated shareholders," which can be found on Morningstar: http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-concentrated.html?t=VRX&region=can&culture=en-US&ownerCountry=USA
Portfolio dates differ for different funds, but at least of the most recent data available, Sequoia had 19.31% of its portfolio invested in VRX. The decrease in portfolio percentage is almost certainly because of the fall in VRX's stock price, since Sequoia actually added more shares during this period.
After Sequoia, the next most concentrated holders of VRX are a couple of Diamond Hill funds, First Eagle, and the Nicholas fund, all with 4-5% of their portfolio in VRX.

And then there is the matter of debt paydown (probably NOT), which really unsettled creditors after what must have seemed like a freakshow of a conference call for them:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-15/valeant-shatters-calm-among-lenders-as-debt-casts-bigger-shadow

Creditors are starting to lose faith that Chief Executive Officer Michael Pearson will be able to execute on his promise of rapidly cutting Valeant’s debt load. A delay in filing its annual report with regulators is also complicating the company’s standing in debt markets. Failing to file its so-called 10-K before Wednesday will trigger a technical default under its credit agreement, restricting it from using its credit line, the company said.

All you stockholders, remember, if it all blows up, we bondholders will be in the line ahead of you. :)
Artisan High Income Fund (ARTFX)
Top 10 Holdings (% of total portfolio as of 29 February 2016)
USI Inc 5.4
VEREIT Inc 5.1
Valeant Pharmaceuticals Intl 4.2
First Data Corp 3.8
Opal Acquisition Inc 3.3
Renaissance Learning Inc 3.2
York Risk Services Holding Corp 3.0
Gardner Denver Inc 2.9
Altice SA 2.8
Infinity Acquisition LLC 2.8
Total 36.5%
Not sure/can't imagine what Bryan Krug was thinking, when he was amassing this large position in Valeant debt.
update: apparently, Valeant didn't meet the Wed. deadline re. 10-K filing:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/valeant-declines-on-report-that-drugmaker-faces-lender-pressure

Harmonizing Ted's post with David's:
PRGFX: $41.6B
TRBCX: $28.9B
PRHSX: $11.7B
TRLGX: $12.4B
TRVLX: 21.6B
Total TRP: $116.2B
Sequoia: $5.7B, or about 1/20th the size, i.e. 20x as committed as these T. Rowe Price funds.
David wrote that after Sequoia, the next most committed funds had 4%. These T. Rowe Price funds collectively have about 1.5% (1/20th of 30%). For funds that hold around 100 positions that's more a run-of-the-mill position than an infatuation.
Big families buy big positions in lots of stocks.

Interesting Ted, but I wonder if TRP sold out of VRX already. PRGFX was down only -0.7% yesterday, not much different then the S&P500. SEQUX was down -7.7% with the VRX drop.
And actually, SEQUX's drop of -7.7% with VRX's drop of 52% says that the Sequoia percentage in VRX is "only" about 15% (all other investments being flat).

@MFO Members: From the what its worth department, of the largest ten holders of VRX T. Rowe Price has five funds who's total holdings are almost as great as Sequioa's.
Regards,
Ted
Sequoia 12,803,392
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock 4,878,500
T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth 2,722,700
T. Rowe Price Health Sciences 2,319,205
T. Rowe Price Instl Large Cap Growth 1,567,179
T. Rowe Price Value 1,165,000

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1215880/000141304216000370/neimansupplargecap497.htm
497 1 neimansupplargecap497.htm
Neiman Large Cap Value Fund
Class C Shares (NECMX)
For Investors Seeking Long-Term Capital Appreciation
Supplement dated March 16, 2016 to the
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated August 1, 2015
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Board of Trustees of Neiman Funds (the "Trust") has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Neiman Large Cap Value Fund (the "Fund") and its shareholders that the Fund cease offering Class C shares. Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments in Class C shares.
Class C shareholders of record as of March 29, 2016, will have their Class C shares exchanged for load-waived Class A shares (NEAMX) effective March 30, 2016. That is, Class A shares will be issued without any sales charge. Exchanges are made at net asset value such that the value of your investment does not change as a result of the exchange. Additionally, Class A shares have lower operating expenses than Class C shares. An exchange of shares is not a taxable event for federal tax purposes.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE FUND AT 1-877-385-2720.
________________________
This Supplement and the existing Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information ("SAI") each dated August 1, 2015, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. The Prospectus and the SAI have been filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference, and can be obtained without charge by calling toll-free 1-877-385-2720.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1215880/000141304216000371/neimansupptacticalincome497.htm
497 1 neimansupptacticalincome497.htm
Neiman Tactical Income Fund
Class C Shares (NTCFX)
For Investors Seeking Total Return With Capital Preservation as a Secondary Objective
Supplement dated March 16, 2016 to the
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated August 1, 2015
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Board of Trustees of Neiman Funds (the "Trust") has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Neiman Tactical Income Fund (the "Fund") and its shareholders that the Fund cease offering Class C shares. Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments in Class C shares.
Class C shareholders of record as of March 29, 2016, will have their Class C shares exchanged for load-waived Class A shares (NTAFX) effective March 30, 2016. That is, Class A shares will be issued without any sales charge. Exchanges are made at net asset value such that the value of your investment does not change as a result of the exchange. Additionally, Class A shares have lower operating expenses than Class C shares. An exchange of shares is not a taxable event for federal tax purposes.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE FUND AT 1-877-385-2720.
________________________
This Supplement and the existing Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information ("SAI") each dated August 1, 2015, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. The Prospectus and the SAI have been filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference, and can be obtained without charge by calling toll-free 1-877-385-2720.

@MFO Members: Here is today's M* article placing Sequoia "under review" !
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=745818

Sequoia (SEQUX) has always been a Gold fund in the judgment of Morningstar's analysts. Today it was placed "under review." Morningstar offers two reasons for that: (1) investors are bailing out and have pulled $800 million over the past six months. That goofs with both execution and tax efficiency. (2) "[T]he team does not seem to have taken any steps to mitigate the risks of such a large position.... Because of these concerns, we have placed this fund under review."
Oddly, they also placed it "under review" on October 30, 2015. At that point, Valeant was over 30% of the fund, investors had presumably been pulling money and the management team conducted their slightly-freakish public defense of their Valeant stake. Following the review, the analysts reaffirmed their traditional judgment: Gold! The described it as "compelling" in the week before the review and "a top choice" in the week afterward.
There's no evidence in the reaffirmation statement that the analysts actually talked to Sequoia management. If they didn't, they were irresponsible. If they did and asked about risk management, they were either deceived by management ("don't worry, we're clear-eyed value investors and we're acting to control risk") or management was honest ("we're riding out the storm") and the analysts thought "good enough for us!" I don't find any of that reassuring.
Similarly, up until quite recently Morningstar's stock analyst assigned to Valeant recognized "near-term pain" while praising the firms "flawless execution" of its acquisition strategy and the "opportunities [that] exist for Valeant long term."
David

I have personally known 4 people who chose a lump sum option from their employer in retirement vs annuity option. All 4 are in serious trouble now.

Ya I know someone who did the same thing when he retired 5 years ago at 62 and is in trouble now.
Spent every dime. Really sad to see someone work 30+ years at a tough job and end up with so little in retirement.
Maybe our schools need to teach the kids a jingle (to the tune of a Dinsey song I remember as a kid):
"D-I-S-C-I-P-L ... I-N-E spells Discipline." (dumb - I know)
Gets back to BobC's comment too about avoiding credit card debt.