Hi Dex,
You ask a very open-ended question that is poorly timed if it specifically applies to your situation. From your earlier postings, I recall that you jumped into the retirement stream a few years ago. If so, you are probably an unhappy camper these days that prompted the question. Fortunately, reassessments, recoveries, and reversals are often possible.
Good luck on your reassessment project.
Best Wishes.

Too many assumptions to go into there. Monte Carlo and others are like many rule of thumb (e.g. 4% rule) estimators - good for generalities but not good for the specific situations.
Generally, a bottoms up approach is better i.e. budget, net worth, pension, SS etc.
This is my 2015 budget own home, no debt, single person
Basic Living
House
2,117 RE Tax
2,556 HOA
489 Electric
928 Insurance
300 Misc Purchases
133 Mail Box
6,522 Subtotal House
Car
138 AAA
744 Routine Mtc.
1,164 Insurance
82 Registration
1,800 Gas
3,929 Subtotal Car
Personal Expenses
327 Income Taxes
1,200 Cash
360 Medical
340 Cell Phone
3,300 Food
600 Wine
59 Misc
396 Internet Access
300 Dining Out/Entertainment
4,029 Health Ins.
300 Clothes
- Driving Lic
11,211 Subtotal Personal Expenses
21,661 Total Basic Living
Incremental Living - 1
91 Travel Trailer Reg
492 Storage
Good Sam
583
Incremental Living - 2
6,256 Travel/Education/Etc
Misc Hobbies
6,256
6,839 Total Discretionary
28,500 Total Basic + Incremental
Let's assume I don't have any pension or SS, and no inflation for now. What do I need?
$114,000 in near cash for 4 years of expenses - this is ride out market (bond & stock downturns.
$407,143 earning 7% to get to 28,500/year expenses
$100,000 to 150,000 contingency money, if wanted, earning ???
$621,143 to 671,143 total excluding house
Does a person need all that money? Maybe not if the person will collect SS. The closer they are to collecting SS would affect that - e.g. if they are within 2 years they could have less money in near cash.
This is not meant to be a perfect example.
Now let's use Junkster's info on SS $1294 monthly - 15,528/yr
$28,500 Total Basic + Incremental
-$15,528 SS
$12,972 to be funded
$51,888 in near cash for 4 years of expenses - this is ride out market (bond & stock downturns.
$185,143 earning 7% to get to 12,972/year expenses to be funded
$100,000 to 150,000 contingency money, if wanted, earning ???
$337,031 to 357,031 total excluding house
Both of these examples are better than monte carlo and top down rule of thumb.
There are two reasons I can think of that the top down method is the most discussed:
1. Advisors use them to scare people into buying their services
2. Budgeting is boring and most don't people don't have one nor do most know where they spend their money.

>> Ignore uniformed judgments by individuals who never used the tool, or even read the literature on the subject.<<
Because I am a bit slow and IQ challenged, please explain to me why a single individual over age 65, debt free, and in need of $20,000 to 25,000 annually (or even $30,000) in out of pocket expenses (after SS and pensions) and with a $2,000,000+ nest egg needs to learn anything about Monte Carlo simulations?? I have known a few lucky investors and traders in this situation who over the years have been in the right place at the right time. They seemed to have done quite well being blissfully ignorant of your beloved mumbo jumbo Monte Carlo and other assorted worthless statistics.
Edit: From reading many of your recent posts and vitriolic exchanges with other members,
it appears you enjoy being a troll.

This is a new fund with tiny assets although it is managed by experienced emerging market managers Emery Brewer of Driehaus fame, Stephen Lew, and Dr. Ivo Kovachev.
The fund is up 21.57% YTD. It's on my watch list. Does anyone have any insight into Emery Brewer's tenure at Driehaus and his results?
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/JOMIX/quote.html
Thanks,
Mike_E

I have chosen to become less active on the board through the summer as I feel the market will be making a pullback sometime soon … perhaps, ten percent, or more. Note: I have recently felt this way before ... and, well, it just did not happen as I thought except for this past September and October.
Since, my current asset allocation of about 20% cash, 20% income, 50% equity and 10% other leaves me heavy in cash and light in income from my normal allocation ranges I am neutral in equity at 50% with a low range of 40% and a high range of 60%. With this, I am not doing much except watching the markets.
I think it is interesting that Bank of America has come forward and expects a decline in the markets and recommends investors increase their cash allocation and even perhaps buy some gold. You can read more about this in the link below.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bank-of-america-is-forecasting-a-scary-summer-for-the-stock-market-2015-05-18?siteid=yhoof2
I own two income funds, within my income sleeve, that are currently holding a good percentage in stocks for fixed income funds. They are NEFZX and LBNDX. The other three funds in this sleeve currently have low durations (LALDX, THIFX & TSIAX which also holds some stocks). Also, I hold a good number of conserative allocation funds, within my hybrid income sleeve, which kick off a good yield and also holds a fair amount of stock holdings. They are AZNAX, CAPAX, FKINX, ISFAX, PASAX and PGBAX.
So, I guess … I’ll let these fund mangers deal with this anticipated coming market storm and perhaps add to my gold fund SGGDX.
I’ll be back on the board, more often, when I feel it is time to ramp up my allocation to stocks and open a new equity spiff.
Enjoy your summer ...
Old_Skeet

Interesting that Peabody at Eaton Vance (EVBAX) and Eagan at Loomis (NEZYX) work blocks apart and are on the same page as it relates to using equities in their multi-sector bond funds.
The possibility of "unwinding large stock positions (18-22% of portfolios) to take advantage of any turbulence in the bond market" is a tactic that I had not previously contemplated.
Peabody's remark that stocks could drop to 5% is particularly revealing.
As was mentioned previously, I view them more as having strategic income or income & growth fund profiles.

FYI: The S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average are up 2.1% and 2.6%, respectively, on track for their best monthly performance since February.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/05/19/morning-moneybeat-forget-sell-in-may-and-go-away/tab/print/
Current Futures:
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

FYI: Given today's environmental conditions, the natural resource offers investors varied opportunities.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/05/18/different-ways-to-make-water-plays?t=mutual-funds&page_all=1
M* Snapshot CFWAX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/CFWAX/quote.html
Lipper snapshot CFWAX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/CFWAX?countrycode=US
M* Snapshot CGW: http://www.morningstar.com/etfs/ARCX/CGW/quote.html
CFWAX Is Ranked #6 In The (NR) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/natural-resources/calvert-global-water-fund/cfwax
CGW Is Ranked #13 In The (NR) ETF Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/etfs/natural-resources-funds/guggenheim-s&p-global-water-index-etf/cgw

The table shows $42,557 for a single person. If you are debt free that housing figure would be drastically lower. But also, you have to buy a new vehicle (or newer used one if you are really frugal) every 8 years or so and not sure that is computed anywhere in the table. The healthcare figure also seems a bit higher than medicare plus a 100% supplemental policy. Most of the debt free singles in my area that are retired and over age 65 get by on an average of $36,000 annually (some a tad higher/lower) If they only receive SS and get the average there ($1294 monthly) that means they have out of pocket expenses of around $20,500 annually. So if they have an investment nest egg of $2,000,000 they can live off their principal only if needed without the need of that Monte Carlo mumbo jumbo. If anything they better begin ramping up their retirement spending ala travel, a summer vacation rental, and the like unless they want to leave a lot to their heirs.

>> The only thing that's obvious is that Krugman is either an idiot or he's blatantly lying.
Wow. What a thing to write. Talk about heat instead of light.
Here:
[Fatas] Let me start with the obvious point: your debt is someone else's assets.
http://fatasmihov.blogspot.com/2015/02/those-mountains-of-debt-and-assets.html
>> counts the asset (all the Treasury bonds we hold are counted as assets in our net worth) but it doesn't count the debt.
Why do you think that is?
>> not about Americans and foreigners, it's about which Americans got the benefits and which Americans pay the costs.
right
>> The benefits have already been given. The costs have yet to be paid.
it is always this way !
>> We've been running annual deficits since the mid 1950s with only a couple years of surpluses at the end of Clinton's presidency.
So? It does not matter, all that matters is percentage of GDP.
>> I'll agree with Fatas, growing debt doesn't have to mean we're living beyond our means, but it sure looks that way.
You are not getting it, and I would say do not want to, but your writing is so clear and your interest in reading is manifestly so high, that cannot be the case. Keep reading is all I can suggest.
... Except if you really think Paul Krugman is 'not even close', well, then, no, there is no point in more reading. Quite aside from his being idiotic or blatant liar.
The below is rather deep in the weeds, but may be of interest. Maurice above for example thinks there is a real problem with Paul Samuelson as he read him and the sophisticated views on debt needs and levels today:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/03/bill-black-is-justifiably-irate-monday-hoisted-from-comments-weblogging.html
This might help those who read Samuelson (Paul) in college:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/the-incomparable-economist/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/samuelson-friedman-and-monetary-policy/comment-page-1/
>> Fatas didn't say that debt isn't an indication that we're living beyond our means. He said it doesn't have to be.
Help me understand how this is something other than hairsplitting.
Finally, share what you think the answers are yourself, to whatever you say the problems are? Somehow cut more spending? What? Gold standard? Raise wealthy taxes back to 90%?

Krugman said "Antonio Fatas, commenting on recent work on deleveraging or the lack thereof, emphasizes one of my favorite points: no, debt does not mean that we’re stealing from future generations." Fatas said absolutely nothing about stealing from future generations. He only said that rising debt levels don't necessarily mean we're living beyond our means and he provided as an example the government of Singapore. He also admitted subsequently that Singapore is an outlier among governments.
Fatas even says "This argument does not deny that the actual composition and ownership of assets and liabilities matters" and goes on to say that one has to be careful drawing conclusions from analyses that refer only to the debt side of the balance sheet.
So Krugman goes on to say "Globally, and for the most part even within countries, a rise in debt isn’t an indication that we’re living beyond our means, because as Fatas puts it, one person’s debt is another person’s asset; or as I equivalently put it, debt is money we owe to ourselves — an obviously true statement that, I have discovered, has the power to induce blinding rage in many people."
The only thing that's obvious is that Krugman is either an idiot or he's blatantly lying. I'm not sure which is worse. Fatas didn't say that debt isn't an indication that we're living beyond our means. He said it doesn't have to be. And then Krugman claims that one person's debt is another person's asset is equivalent to debt being money we owe to ourselves. I guess if I loan money to myself that's true but as of last August, more than one third of our debt was owned by foreigners.
forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2014/10/28/who-owns-the-most-u-s-debt/
That's something more than $6 trillion of "our" debt that is someone else's asset!
The rest let's say is our own asset. But when you look at what started this discussion, the median net worth of Americans, that counts the asset (all the Treasury bonds we hold are counted as assets in our net worth) but it doesn't count the debt. Similar to what Fatas is saying, it’s dangerous to draw conclusions paying attention to only one side of the balance sheet. Yet when I made a comment about the national debt you suggested we should exclude that because it misguides the discussion. If you really believe we owe the money to ourselves and that we're not stealing from future generations why would you be comfortable with a discussion of net worth that counts the asset but excludes the liability?
The question of whether we're stealing from future generations isn't solved even if all of our debt was owned by Americans because it's not about Americans and foreigners, it's about which Americans got the benefits and which Americans pay the costs. The benefits have already been given. The costs have yet to be paid. We've been running annual deficits since the mid 1950s with only a couple years of surpluses at the end of Clinton's presidency. I'll agree with Fatas, growing debt doesn't have to mean we're living beyond our means, but it sure looks that way. We're not at all like his Singapore example where they take the money they raise from issuing debt and save it because they regularly run budget surpluses. I would love to hear a logical explanation why future generations aren't going to be worse off than if we handed them a country with far less debt than we'll pass on, but Krugman isn't even close.

Searching for Clarity Among the Dots
Fixed Income Outlook
April 2015
From Osterweis Strategic Investment OSTVX
In Seurat’s painting, his dots produce a clear image. We can’t say the same for the FOMC’s
dots. The ever-changing plots, torturous language and a nebulous dependency on data have led to increased investor uncertainty. Also, it seems each time a Fed official gives a speech, his or her views conflict with those of other Fed officials who are also on the speaking circuit. At a minimum, this may indicate that there is a healthy debate within the Fed about when to raise rates. From where we sit, real world inflation is brewing, asset bubbles are growing and global QE has pushed investors into uncomfortably risky positions. Global central banks are in uncharted waters and the unwinding
of QE followed by the normalization of interest rates could cause significant market volatility. In contrast, the British QE program was much smaller, so it cannot be used as a test case for the effects of unwinding. While we do know that central bankers are keenly aware of the risks caused by the bursting of asset bubbles, if history is a guide, they will likely remain blind to them until after the dams burst. While we do not know when or how the Fed is going to normalize interest rate policy, we do expect that it may involve significant dislocations, at least initially. At current levels in many asset
classes, investors don’t seem to be getting compensated for moving out on the risk curve. Until that changes, we remain steadfast in our view that seeking to control risk while working to obtain moderate yields in shorter duration high yield and convertible securities is the most attractive alternative at this point. We continue to keep cash as dry powder for when we do get bouts of volatility and can layer in longer dated assets at attractive yields
http://www.osterweis.com/files/Fixed Income Outlook_1Q15_Final_unlocked.pdf

Good grief. The WoP is for the most part this huge success, with truly lousy PR.
Not opinion, evidence-based, something von Mises was in short supply of. (I don't trust my opinions myself; need to read intensively and skeptically.)
Suggest googling before posting assertions. I have posted this before; shield your eyes if Krugman glare is too much:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/poverty-policy-truths/
more recent:
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/04/paul_krugman_gop_enabled_poverty_is_a_death_sentence_for_both_blacks_and_whites/
This is best, but long:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/50th_anniversary_cea_report_-_final_post_embargo.pdf
older overviews:
http://time.com/3659383/war-on-poverty-1964/
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/how-the-war-on-poverty-succeeded-in-four-charts
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-povertys-surprising-success
MJG, point taken, thanks; I will try to respond with something thoughtful about stimulus spending and the fallacies in that callow youtube thing. And not the cartoon homeowner with burning house talking to newly arrived firefighter: 'No, thanks, I'm a libertarian.'

@PRESSmUP
See the earlier link in the MFO board post below, especially the Birmingham Biz Journal news link I attached:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/61259/#Comment_61259
Here is the Birmingham Biz Journal link from the above post for your convenience:
http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2015/04/23/vulcan-value-partners-names-new-president-closes.html
Also, here is the news from the WSJ (you may have to Google the article):
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/04/24/funds-when-closing-time-doesnt-come-soon-enough/
Disclosure: I also have VVPSX in a non-taxable account.

Also,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-18/a-200-million-hedge-fund-trade-in-your-bond-etf-is-normal-now

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580215000027/financialinvestorstrustvulca.htm
497 1 financialinvestorstrustvulca.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Vulcan Value Partners Fund (the “Fund”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 18, 2015 TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED AUGUST 31, 2014
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus for the Fund dated August 31, 2014. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.vulcanvaluepartners.com or calling us at 1.877.421.5078.
Effective as of the close of business on June 1, 2015, the Fund will close to new investors, except as described below. This change will affect new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund either directly or through third party intermediaries. Existing shareholders of the Fund may continue to purchase additional shares of the Fund.
*A financial advisor whose clients have established accounts in the Fund as of June 1, 2015, may continue to open new accounts in the Fund for any of its existing or new clients.
*Existing or new participants in a qualified retirement plan, such as a 401(k) plan, profit sharing plan, 403(b) plan or 457 plan, which has an existing position in the Fund as of June 1, 2015, may continue to open new accounts in the Fund. In addition, if such qualified retirement plans have a related retirement plan formed in the future, this plan may also open new accounts in the Fund.
The Fund retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund or limit inflows into the Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

FYI: Investors are having a harder time trading individual bonds, a conundrum that’s driving big money managers into fixed-income exchange-traded funds, according to a report from Greenwich Associates.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/05/18/liquidity-fears-pushing-big-investors-into-bond-etfs-study-finds/tab/print/

FYI: (The Linkster is moving his rate increase from July 2016, to August 2016)
Regards,
Ted
https://twitter.com/pdacosta/status/599382504596877312

FYI: Investors have a new reason to take a close look at the funds in their 401(k) plan, in the wake of a decision Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court kept alive a closely watched case involving 401(k)-plan fees, overturning a lower-court ruling that the suit was filed too late.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2015/05/18/does-your-401k-use-high-cost-funds/tab/print/?mg=blogs-wsj&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Ftotalreturn%2F2015%2F05%2F18%2Fdoes-your-401k-use-high-cost-funds%2Ftab%2Fprint

Just a few quick thoughts and then I will return to edit later.
Housing - might be fairly accurate if utilities are included.
Transportation - a quick and dirty calculation at $2.50/gallon of regular buys one about 2700 gallons. In seven years of commuting to work with a Silverado pickup I've used 5100 gallons. The articles estimate seems high but may include airfare etc. that I am not accounting for.
Food - $102/week for groceries is more than twice what I spend on average. I'm not sure if dining out is included here or in the Entertainment category.
Apparel - I don't spend that much in 10 years. Sandals and shorts aren't that expensive.

Just getting ready to walk out the door and go hiking and you start another one. I've always thought you need to be debt free (no mortgage, no rent, etc.) For a single retiree over age 65, $2,000,000 should do the trick and $3,000,000 for a couple. That's assuming your only income is Social Security and you don't live in some ultra expensive region of the country.

Oh! No! I'll have to go back to work!