Given current 10-year Treasury yields I'd say it's right on target. The only way to double that yield (i.e., your 5% notion) is by taking on a lot more risk. You might be comfortable with that.

Okay, I may be about to retire.
My main nest egg is Vanguard, with about $1,000,000 (I also have about $600K in 401K/Roth IRAs—which I don't plan on touching for several years—and $175K in cash/treasuries/savings bonds).
The Vanguard portfolio breaks down as so:

            Total US Stock- $350K
Total Int'l Stock-  200
Energy Fund-   75
Total Bond-  125
REIT Index-  150
(State) Tax Exempt Muni-  100
=========
$1,000,000
For that $1M, the 2017 Income & Dividends works out to:
                    Taxable- $22.5K
Non‐Taxable-   3.0
=======
$25,500

or just over 2.5%!
Even with the low interest rates, I would think that I should be able to get at least 3.5-5%, even while playing it reasonably safe.
Should this portfolio be radically revamped or just tweaked (maybe take 100K out of Total Stock and open a more income/dividend rich index/sector?)?
Or is 2.5% reasonable/acceptable, given current conditions?

Top Holdings SFHYX
Holding, Weight %
Payb Lord Abbett Fl. - 34.10
Recv Lord Abbett Fl. 34.08
Recv Semper Mbs Total 31.13
Payb Semper Mbs Total - 31.04
Looks to be long and short the identical holdings? How can this be productive?
Thanks,
Penny

Not David, but here's a go at an answer, which you'll want to confirm or not against manager commentary or annual/semi reports. Both Lord Abbett and Semper account for income in bond funds through daily accrual (rather than flowing it through the NAV), so it may be that being long and short funds from those families enables them to pocket the income distributions without the price/NAV risk.

davidrmoran , I'm not doing any correlations. Just using the Backtest Portfolio option to compare. With that it gives growth of $10k, stdev and a few other things.

PIMIX is my largest bond holding and yes, it's struggled over the past few weeks for sure. I've been looking at LSYFX but it does seem a bit volatile in that category. Any thoughts on LFRAX ? It seems to be a tamer fund.

LFRAX (assuming it is load waived) is a fine bank loan fund. While not as robust as EIFAX and LSFYX it was positive in 2015 unlike many in that category. But you wouldn’t have wanted to be in bank loans anyway that year. In bull markets in this sector ala post February 2016 it is pretty much straight up with little to no volatility along the way. While PIMIX/PONDX is not my cup of tea and don’t expect returns like the past two years, it is still an excellent fund. It is hard to hop on and off where the momentum is unless you can discern such momentum sooner than later. Most always seem to be weeks to months late to the party.

Really interesting proposal.
Touches on a lot of issues that many people will say don't apply to them. Such as Americans having to save more (e.g. than in other countries) because they're taking on more risk and getting lower returns than they'd get with defined benefit (pension) plans or equivalent (annuities). Such as investing not being most people's forté (thus they underperform DB plans and the market). No one here, of course. :-)
Also acknowledges that annuities transfer wealth to the affluent (since the affluent tend to live longer). On the flip side, notes that the affluent don't need tax breaks to motivate them to save for retirement.
The article also makes brief allusion to the annuitization puzzle (why most people don't annutize when that is the rational choice).
I like the idea the the first $600 of contributions would be covered by a refundable tax credit, so everyone would be treated the same way - just as everyone pays the same 10% income tax on the first N dollars.
A compact column on a proposal that won't go anywhere, but offers a lot to think about.

FYI: Yes, there's a way to provide an adequate retirement for everyone, not just the affluent.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-25/the-argument-for-ditching-the-401-k-and-starting-over

I wouldn’t have a fund named THIEFX :)
No changes. Mostly short duration holdings like DODIX. Might slump for a year but won’t strip you of your shirt. However, picked up some GNMAs recently and will add when the 10 year hits 3%. Like gold, these unorthodox (and often unloved) investments could buffer your losses during a steep equity sell off.

Currently, in my income sleeve my average yield is 3.41%, my average duration is 3.0 years and my average maturity is 5.3 years. With this, I am not doing much. However, I am thinking of removing one of my shorter duration and lower yielding funds (LALDX or THIFX) and replacing it with a multi-sector income fund (FSTAX). Over the past two years FSTAX has had much better performance (about double) over LALDX and THIFX. My holdings within this sleeve are BAICX, CTFAX, FMTNX, GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX & TSIAX. Most likely, the one that will be removed is THIFX. I might even go with a 18 mo to 24 mo CD with yields ranging from 2.0% to 2.3%. Yield on THIFX is 1.87%. Until recently the CD, from a yield perspective, was not a viable option.

@PBKCM, love using portfolio visualizer!
I inputted your 3 some and compared it to AOA, which by the way is not a very good comparison at 80% equities since your 3-some ends up being about 65% equity after the L/S thing gets figured out. You were right about that comparison. I also compared your 3-some to AOR which is 60:40, a much closer comparison and again your 3 ETF portfolio plays well.
But then I tested a portfolio using QQQ + RSP + VTBIX (Vanguard total bond market) . My 3-some using the total bond market did better than your 3-some which used the market neutral etf BTAL. Your 3-some grew $10,000 to $18,700 over a 6 year stretch, pretty good. My 3-some, substituting the total bond market for your market neutral fund went to $20,600.
Which just confirms to me, these market neutral, long short, whatever you want to label them funds are a marketing gimmick. A straight out balanced fund or portfolio will do better for 99.9% of average investors over most any investment range.

Thanks, @MikeM.
When I ran it, QQQ+RSP+BTAL had lower std dev (5.79% to 7.26%), lower drawdown (-3.44% to -5.61%), higher Sharpe (1.79 to 1.66) and higher Sortino (3.83 to 3.37) than QQQ+RSP+VTBIX. Risk adjusted, the BTAL combo was better.
But you are right, QQQ+RSP+VTBIX did outgain the BTAL combo.
If we are in a bear market for bonds, VTBIX may not perform as well in the future as it has in the past . . .

@guilhermes

openice,
In your account, has TDA honored the Scottrade 90 day period for short term NTF trading (instead of requiring you to hold funds for 180 days)?

No. We'll have to see.

@PBKCM, love using portfolio visualizer!
I inputted your 3 some and compared it to AOA, which by the way is not a very good comparison at 80% equities since your 3-some ends up being about 65% equity after the L/S thing gets figured out. You were right about that comparison. I also compared your 3-some to AOR which is 60:40, a much closer comparison and again your 3 ETF portfolio plays well.
But then I tested a portfolio using QQQ + RSP + VTBIX (Vanguard total bond market) . My 3-some using the total bond market did better than your 3-some which used the market neutral etf BTAL. Your 3-some grew $10,000 to $18,700 over a 6 year stretch, pretty good. My 3-some, substituting the total bond market for your market neutral fund went to $20,600.
Which just confirms to me, these market neutral, long short, whatever you want to label them funds are a marketing gimmick. A straight out balanced fund or portfolio will do better for 99.9% of average investors over most any investment range.

So it's not honoring all the Scottrade pricing after all. The short term trading fee at Scottrade is $49.00, not $49.99.
See Brokerage Commissions & Fees (this pdf was modified last June, so I assume it's current, unless someone has a newer fee schedule). Specifically, footnote 5:

In addition to the commissions above, all no-load shares purchased from Scottrade and held 90 days or less will be charged a $49 short-term redemption fee. Exceptions to this short-term redemption fee are the Rydex, Guggenheim, ProFunds and Direxion families of funds, which are intended for short-term traders.

The $49 fee is consistent with what Junkster wrote above: At Scottrade " If I sell within three months I am charged $66". That's the $17 commission (for the TF fund sale) plus the $49.00 short term trading fee.

I've had BTAL in a tracking portfolio at Google Finance for a number of years and have yet to be impressed with the returns during time frames. The lone exception was during late 2015 through mid-2016. Our IG bonds offset any equity struggles at the time. BTAL may be viable during a prolonged down period in the equity sectors. I surely can't say.
The below link for total return graphic includes BTAL , QQQ , RSP and AOA. The graphic start point date is limited by the youngest inception of these funds.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?BTAL,QQQ,RSP,AOA&p=6&O=011000

Thank you to those who replied to my quest.
To PBKCM, I would ask :how do I find a fund that uses $1000 par stock?

This morning I got an email from TDA explaining the transfer from Scottrade to TDA including a fee schedule which does NOT include commissions. It only mentions a fee of $49.99 for Mutual Fund Short-Term Redemption without explaining what they mean by short-term. There is also a Trading Fee for Commission-Free ETF Short-term of $13.90. It also states that commissions for transaction fee mutual funds will remain the same.
By February 16 I must notify them if I want to transfer my account free of cost to another company otherwise there is a $75 charge. So I have another three weeks to decide and I will as good as I can research all the suggestions you people kindly provided.

openice,
In your account, has TDA honored the Scottrade 90 day period for short term NTF trading (instead of requiring you to hold funds for 180 days)?

I wouldnt be so concerned with OAKIX's volatility if its a long term holding. What you should be more concerned about is the fact that the fund is concentrated among greater Europe. 78.8% of the fund is in Europe and only 10.4% in Asia. I don't have an opinion on Europe vs. the rest of the developed markets, but that is a significant bet compared to peers in the space.

NORM!
How about a beer, Mr. Peterson?
It's a little early, isn't it, Woody?
What, for a BEER?
No, for stupid questions.

.....Warning, if this had been an actual alert; we would have instructed you to seek shelter in the nearest safe investment.
Well, who knows what may be next in our topsy-turvy investment world, yes?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-24/wall-street-warns-of-seismic-pension-shift-into-bonds-this-month
Lastly, a disclaimer is always appropriate for the disclosures we find in a prospectus or other publications, yes?
Such as, "Information on past performance, where given, is not necessarily a guide to future performance."
Keep at your investments properly and you'll be rewarded.
Catch

FYI: Yields haven't kept pace with Treasuries. That's a problem given the way some companies burn through cash.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-24/hot-leveraged-loan-market-is-a-problem?srnd=etfcenter
M* Bank Loan Fund Returns:
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/bank-loan/$FOCA$BL.aspx