Came across this (point) in Schwab link.
The average span between inversions and subsequent recessions has been 11 months, with a range of five months (1973) to 16 months (2006-2007).
Good to go for at least next 5 months !
Derf
Thanks O_S & O_J 4 links

Gosh, I was going to invest in Wellington, but now that they've raised their price by 6% (6% of 0.16%) I'm not sure I can afford it. :-)

It's about time:
https://washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/28/wells-fargo-ceo-tim-sloan-step-down-immediately/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b3b4845a290b
Crazy he gets paid this after what happened:

Making matters worse was the bank’s disclosure earlier this month in a regulatory filing that Sloan received $18.4 million in compensation in 2018, about a 5 percent bump from the previous year..
“About damn time. Tim Sloan should have been fired a long time ago,” Warren tweeted Thursday. “By the way, getting fired shouldn’t be the end of the story for Tim Sloan. He shouldn’t get a golden parachute. He should be investigated . . . And if he’s guilty of any crimes, he should be put in jail like anyone else.”
Sloan has earned more than $150 million in compensation since 2011, according to Equilar, a data firm that measures executive compensation. His retirement package will include outstanding stock worth more than $24 million, the firm said.

Thanks for the clarification.
The paper cited in the article is talking about all Personal Retirement Assets (PRAs), which it says "include[s] 401(k)s, IRAs, Keoghs, and similar plans." So while RMDs begin at age 70½, withdrawals are not required for Roth IRAs and 401(k)s and 403(b)s at your current employer.
From that paper:

Figure 5-1 pools data on households of various ages in all cohorts to summarize the average patterns of withdrawals at different ages. It shows that the average percentage of households who own a PRA who make a withdrawal increases from 11.4 percent at age 60 to 24.8 percent by age 69. This percentage jumps to over 60 percent by age 71, when the age of the household head exceeds the age at which RMDs must begin.

Hi @msf
What they are quoting above is from Ted's original link, about the fourth paragraph down; and not from your link.
This is the statement: "Of course, that changes once RMDs become mandatory. By age 71, 60% of retirees were taking withdrawals, and this percentage increased with age. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that the distributions were taken to comply with the law rather than out of necessity. How do we know? "
I agree that the bold is confusing and likely not proofread by the author. He's mixing RMD's and suggesting then, only 60% of retirees were taking RMD's. Reads like the thoughts were there, but became mixed among sentence structure.
Ok, I'm away to b-ball.
Have a pleasant remainder.
Catch

Not sure where you're finding that statement, I don't see it. There's only one "Of course" that I can find, and it reads:
"Of course, the reality is that this 65-year-old couple could have simply purchased a single premium immediate annuity with inflation-adjusting payments to cover their lifetime guaranteed income goal as well, simply starting at age 65 when they retired."
Based strictly on what I'm reading here, all I can do is guess at the context - perhaps that by age 71, when RMDs are mandatory, 60% of people are actually spending that cash. (RMDs are a tax event, not a spend/disinvest requirement.)
Regarding insurance company risk - there's a big difference between LTC insurance and annuities. The latter are just the flip side of life insurance. For both forms of insurance, what matters is the life insurer's basic soundness and its knowledge of mortality tables and risks. These companies have been in the business for over a century. They've had a lot of practice and learning about how to set rates to remain viable.
Oldest modern life insurance company in the US, dating from 1842, inspired this:

Wellington just raised their fee from 0.16% to 0.17% in Admiral shares.

What's with this statement:
Of course, that changes once RMDs become mandatory. By age 71, 60% of retirees were taking withdrawals, and this percentage increased with age.
Would it not be closer to 100%
Derf

The Wall Street Journal is currently reporting that " Wells Fargo Chief Executive Tim Sloan stepped down on Thursday, ending a 31-year career at the bank and an arduous two-and-a-half-year effort to get it back on solid footing after a fake-account scandal erupted in 2016."
"C. Allen Parker, Wells Fargo’s general counsel, will be interim CEO. He joined Wells Fargo in 2017 from law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP to help clean up the bank following the sales scandal."
"Officials at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, one of the bank’s primary regulators, had grown so frustrated with Wells Fargo’s mounting problems that they were debating the rare step of forcing changes to Wells Fargo’s senior management or board, The Wall Street Journal previously reported."
(Short selected excerpts from a longer and substantial Wall Street Journal report.)

Just looked at YAFFX. How can a large blend fund, with turnover of 16%, manage to ding shareholders with massive distributions every year since 2014? Check the M* Quote page for distributions.

“To deep for me.”

Watch out for those spell-checkers @MikeM. They can be nasty. :)
Thanks for replying. I’m not asking “How can money just “disappear” when markets drop. I’d agree with you that sometimes an investor’s losses are attributable to a depreciation in the paper value of the underlying assets. (The ‘29 crash is often cited to support this idea.)
But the Dalbar findings suggest something quite different at work. It seems to imply that even when changes in stock values are taken into effect, U.S. investors managed to lose twice as much as the S&P lost in 2018. Simply saying there are a lot of “bad investors” can’t explain that. Per my earlier illustration, for every investor who bought high and sold a stock (or mutual fund) low, there is (in aggregate) another “investor” who sold the security high and bought it back low. Net-net, investors as a group broke-even by trading.
What might be happening:
- The S&P is an index absent any operating fees. Investors, by contrast, pay an assortment of fees to invest. Those fees come out of their potential gains - or add to their losses during bad markets.
- The S&P is specific to U.S. large-cap companies. Investors, by contrast, often diversify into non-U.S. companies, emerging markets, commodities and bonds (to name a few). Emerging markets, in particular, had a very poor year in 2018.
- The S&P holds no cash Most investors and funds maintain some cash for liquidity purposes.
- Most imortantly, I’d say, the S&P index has far outdistanced value stocks which many actively managed mutual funds seek out. It looks like the trend is beginning to turn. Possibly active management will outpace the S&P one of these years.

@MFO Members: If I'm not mistaken they did the same thing back in March 2015.
Regards,
Ted

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/105563/000093247119006695/ps210320191.htm
497 1 ps210320191.htm VANGUARD WELLINGTON FUND
Vanguard Wellington™ Fund
Supplement to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus
Important Note Regarding Vanguard Wellington Fund
Vanguard Wellington Fund will be closed to all prospective financial advisory,
institutional, and intermediary clients (other than clients who invest through a
Vanguard brokerage account).
The Fund will remain closed until further notice and there is no specific time
frame for when the Fund will reopen. During the Fund’s closed period, all current
shareholders may continue to purchase, exchange, or redeem shares of the
Fund online, by telephone, or by mail.
The Fund may modify these transaction policies at any time and without prior
notice to shareholders. You may call Vanguard for more detailed information
about the Fund’s transaction policies. Participants in employer-sponsored plans
may call Vanguard Participant Services at 800-523-1188. Investors in
nonretirement accounts and IRAs may call Vanguard’s Investor Information
Department at 800-662-7447.
© 2019 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor. PS 21 032019

The way I took it @Hank, it is not about a balance or net-sum between average investors, but more about average-Joe investor getting out and in at the wrong times due to emotional investing. Average-Joe will lose to the stock market index in that scenario. If average-Joe loses $1000, someone must gain $1000 seems to be your point. But I think the article is saying average-Joe's lose isn't gained by average-Hank or average-msf. It's gained by the machine called the stock market. The stock market is of course a net-sum balance. Average investors make up a very small portion of that.
Just the way I interpreted his point.
edit: Actually maybe the stock market isn't a net sum balance. Sometimes a collection of stocks, an index, may be worth a trillion dollars. Other times it may be worth 900 billion. Where did that missing money go? I guess until average- Joe cashes in a loss or gain, it's just a calculated value on paper. To deep for me.

I've had a few items regarding inverted yield curve stashed in the laptop for a few years. I've retrieved those and looked around for other, newer related information.
I suspect there may others with theories from much earlier dates; but this look starts with Campbell Harvey from 1986. A Arturo Estrella link is also included.
I can not offer a formal financial education suggestion as to what is ahead for the markets. I can only personally rely upon what I see with market moves; being bonds and equity. Some equity market actions in 2018 (Feb. 2018 and Dec. 2018) had flashes of late 2007 market swings.
I'm one of those bad boys who watches the markets and the portfolio, daily; if time allows. Does this make me an emotional trader? The answer would be a big NO. But, I sure as heck know more about changes and trends in the investing road upon which I am driving.
Charts, charts; those darn charts. Yes, I look at these. They're not some magic back testing event view. They are the investment roads that have been and are being driven with real money. Charts just happen to be a comfort area for me to view trends to mix with other news and intuition; meaning whatever is still in my brain cells from experience.
We remain 34% U.S. focused bond fund (mostly corp. and Treasury) , 33% equity; being tech. and health related and 33% money market cash at about 1.7% yield.
These links are quite broad and could require more time than one is willing to expend on the topic; so you may pick and choose a link of your choice.
Campbell Harvey
Campbell Harvey, related videos
Campbell Harvey, direct search at YouTube
Arturo Estrella
A yield curve chart below, from my post on Wednesday. The below chart..... Treasury(s) is for 30, 10 and 5 year; as well as the 3 month. It looks a little busy if viewed on anything smaller than an Ipad size screen. The critical color is the mauve, which is the 3 month yield. So, keep in mind; this is not a price chart. If one is using a laptop/desktop with a pointer/mouse the cursor can be hovered on the lines and will display the yield %, date and percentage change from the begin date of the chart. Looking at the cross-over points will provide information as to when the inversions were taking place.
Yields, Feb. 2006 - May, 2009
Another 1,000 words could be expressed; but gotta do some other work.
Take care,
Catch

At age 71, my rule is to take no more (in dollars) than one half of what my five year average total return has been. I governed both of my late parents money this way and found that their principal grew over time. Of course, one needs an ample pool of principal for my system to work.

This would be under the assumption that you want to leave a substantial amount to heirs. Certainly not the case for everybody. Many don't have that luxury.

FYI: (Slide mouse to 36:40 for Steven Yacktman interview.)
Episode Info
Chris Larkin, senior vice president at E*Trade said in The Big Interview that while the market appears to be slowing and many experts are talking about the potential for a recession, the market looks like it can continue to push forward for a while. Just the same, he suggested that investors want to adjust their strategies to accept heightened volatility and slower growth. Also on the show, Tom Lydon of ETFTrends.com makes a short-term bond fund his ETF of the Week, Chuck answers a listener question about the right number of credit cards to have, and Stephen Yacktman of the Yacktman Funds talks stocks in the Market Call.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/moneylife-with-chuck-jaffe/e/59691058?autoplay=true
Yacktman Funds Website:
http://www.yacktman.com/index.html

At age 71, my rule is to take no more (in dollars) than one half of what my five year average total return has been. I governed both of my late parents money this way and found that their principal grew over time. Of course, one needs an ample pool of principal for my system to work.

FYI: The 4% retirement withdrawal rule has enjoyed a ubiquitous presence in the world of financial planning ever since William Bengen proposed it in 1994. Mr. Bengen's rule states that individuals should withdraw no more than 4% of their retirement savings annually to ensure they will not outlive their assets.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=ccmcXPu3F4ezjwSUmLCIDg&q=Outside-IN:+Why+the+4%+rule+may+be+irrelevant+&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Outside-IN:+Why+the+4%+rule+may+be+irrelevant+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299l3.3412.3412..20335...0.0..0.169.337.0j2......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0.Zy569NjMjVs

FYI: Unless you spend your day glued to a Bloomberg terminal or mainlining CNBC, you might have missed the news late last week that the yield curve for U.S. Treasury bonds “inverted” for the first time since 2007. This dry-sounding development has led to a great deal of speculation on Wall Street and in the financial press about whether an economic downturn might finally be on the way. As the Wall Street Journal’s James Mackintosh put it, “The market’s most reliable recession indicator is finally flashing red.”
Why does this have people so worried? The yield curve has inverted in the lead-up to all nine U.S. recessions since 1955. As the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco notes, there has only been one instance in the last six decades when an inversion wasn’t followed by an official recession within two years or less. That was back in the mid-1960s, when growth slowed, but the economy didn’t technically shrink. Since then, there hasn’t been a single false alarm.
Regards,
Ted
https://slate.com/business/2019/03/recession-indicator-yield-curve-economy-worry.html