You're looking for Table II. That is in Pub 590B here:
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p590b#en_US_2022_publink100090290
Table I (which you can find by scrolling up from Table ii) is used for inherited IRAs. Table III (scroll down from Table II) is the "usual" RMD table.
Table III simplifies calculations for most IRAs by assuming that the beneficiary has the same age (life expectancy) as the owner. The IRS figures that if the two ages are within 10 years of each other, that's, well, close enough for government work.
But if the age difference is more than 10 years, it makes a significant difference in the joint life expectancy. Since your spouse is more than 10 years younger than you, your joint life expectancy is longer than it would be if your two ages were the same. So the number you divide your IRA balance by to get your RMD is higher. That's better (lower RMD).
If you were 73 now and your spouse were 62, then the IRS would figure your joint life expectancy as 27,2 (Table II). The "usual" table (Table III) would give a life expectancy of 26.5.

Back to the original topic…
Amy Zhang was supposed to be a star SCG and MCG manager at Brown Capital. She got hired away by Alger. However, her record there leaves a great deal to be desired. Not that her former fund BCSIX has shot the lights out since she left; its total return for the past 5 years is only 7.5%. OTOH, AGOZX has racked up a 5-year loss of 3.07% under Zhang’s tutelage. Her Alger MCs haven’t done any better.

As usual, it depends. ETFs could have higher volatility during the day based on real time event and back to "normal" when it's over while OEFs didn't experience it because the event happened between 10 to 11 AM.
Generally in time of stress, well known indexes such as SPY behave better than tiny ETFs.
Real observation: I have seen HYD(HY muni) close down 0.5% or more while the OEF was flat.

..........
What's going to be next? I don't have an idea. I know what worked for me, but I'm not going to discuss it, looks like no one is interested to know it.

I don't know what is next either. When faced with the dilemma of stocks not doing well I would decide what to do next at that time. I know that I can survive on my portfolio income. I do not do that now but I could. I also know if I had to consume principal, if things got really bad, I would (skinflint mode).
The S&P 500 yield was aaout 1.6% during 2000-2010. The 10 year treasury was yielding an average of 4% during the same time frame. I think I could have lived on the income of a 50-50 portfolio during that period.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1728860/000119312523193431/d539714d497.htm
497 1 d539714d497.htm 497
Supplement dated July 25, 2023 to the Natixis U.S. Equity Opportunities ETF Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information, each dated May 1, 2023, as may be revised and
supplemented from time to time.
NATIXIS U.S. EQUITY OPPORTUNITIES ETF
On July 25, 2023, the Natixis U.S. Equity Opportunities ETF (the “Fund”) was liquidated.
The Fund no longer exists, and as a result, shares of the Fund are no longer available for purchase.

5.22 total return in 2022 for FSUTX.
Past performance, and future returns, and all that . . . But, widows and orphans rejoice.
I didn't get that FSUTX 2022 return. I had PRUZX, and one of the etf's, and I wanted to consolidate the ornaments on the retirement tree.
BTW. RSPU came through 2022 with a 4.35 return. And it only yields 2.50. I didn't have that either.

Utilities, and consumer defensive, are kind of pricey at the moment.
I have rearranged my deck chairs into FSUTX. Just a hunch that it might be a good sector for active management going forward. YMMV.

Wow. Just looked at FSUTX. For what it's worth: 5-stars and a Bronze decoration at Morningstar. But the yield is less than 2%. If i were to own some utilities beyond what my other funds already hold, I'd personally require a 3% minimum yield, because it would serve as an equity, but bond-like choice for me, with decent dividends.
Yes, Utes are indeed pricey these days.

Morgan Stanley can not risk continuing to employ someone who becomes (or is) a permanent bear. It will be good to find out the instances when Mike Wilson may have made the right market calls. It is acceptable to me if he has been right >50% of the time. He has been in his current position since 2012.
Per Google search, here is a timeline of Mike Wilson's career at Morgan Stanley:
1989-1995: Investment banker
1995-2000: Head of Institutional Equity Sales
2000-2005: Head of Content Distribution for North American Equities
2005-2012: CIO of Wealth Management
2012-Present: Chief U.S. Equity Strategist and Chief Investment Officer
P.S.: I do not hold Mike or anybody else responsible for my outcomes because at the end of the day, my actions are always dictated by my own mental inclinations.

"Take note that calculating your RMD works a bit differently if your spouse is the only primary beneficiary to your account and is more than 10 years younger than you. In this case, you must use the IRS Joint Life and Last Survivor Expectancy Table. You can also find this on IRS Publication 590. However, your life expectancy factor would be based on the ages of you and your spouse. But the formula doesn’t change. You’d still follow the same IRA withdraw rules listed above."
Just discovered this. My spouse is indeed the only primary beneficiary, and is more than 10 years younger than me. Does that work to my advantage?
"...The IRS has other tables for account holders and beneficiaries of retirement funds whose spouses are much younger."
I still have 4 years until reaching age 73.
....And just try to locate those withdrawal tables (and alternative withdrawal tables) re: "combined life expectancy." I dare you. Your tax dollars at work. Geniuses, everywhere:
https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-publication-590-b

Hussy has that great chart in this commentary showing a spectacular returns using his 1998 proprietary indicator of "favorable indicators" to go all in on SP500 and cash if unfavorable.
https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/comment/mc230724fb.png

Works like a dream. But why doesn't he use it running his mutual funds?
I have never understood how a guy with such data at his disposal, such well throughout discussions and analysis can do so poorly managing mutual funds.

@FD1000 In other threads haven't you also advocated for owning IOFIX at times, a bond fund with an extraordinarily high for bonds 1.50% expense ratio? You've also suggested PRWCX, which, while an excellent fund, isn't cheap but average expense ratio wise and more expensive than American Funds' competitors. So it might help if you explain why these previous statements don't quite add up when combined with this one.

Yes, years ago I used to own a lot of IOFIX. I have a system that works for me and is not recommended to anybody. I don't care too much about ER, I'm a trader.
On the other hand, there are funds that can be great for other investors with a decent ER, such as PRWCX, PIMIX at its best and others.

@FD1000 In other threads haven't you also advocated for owning IOFIX at times, a bond fund with an extraordinarily high for bonds 1.50% expense ratio? You've also suggested PRWCX, which, while an excellent fund, isn't cheap but average expense ratio wise and more expensive than American Funds' competitors. So it might help if you explain why these previous statements don't quite add up when combined with this one.

I listened to the Clark Howard show (https://clark.com/)in ATL in the early 90s. Clark has been a great advocate for consumers and promoted index funds. This is when I read my first investing book Random Walk..I didn't know much about investing but I knew expenses should be very cheap. I started investing in 1995 and opened my first account at Vanguard. Several years later with more experience and knowledge I looked at other options.

As for loads, front-load, class A aren't the worst. A good thing is that the firms can simply waive them for 3rd party noload/NTF platforms. This is simpler than firms like American Funds that create new classes for every niche segment.
Backend load class B has disappeared. Brokers found those easy to pitch to customers but there were complaints, including about improper disclosures, when it came time to sell (the selling broker may be gone from the firm by them but the firms are stuck with liability). Brokerage firms hate liabilities and arbitrations. So, class B has almost disappeared.
The WORST class by far is class C, the steady or spread load. Firms recover the front load within 5-7 years but high class C loads continue forever. There was some talk to auto-converting class C into class A after 5-7 years, but that rule/law got stuck somewhere. Some firms allow frequent trading in these, so some fund traders say that this isn't a bad class for them. But it's a bad class for most.
The best may be the newest no-load, no-ER class W, but the catch is that it's available only through advisors. Some ER may be shown but all of it is waived for retail buyer. However, the firms get a cut from the advisory fees - some firms make W class available only through its affiliated advisors.

I agree that it is open with Schwab, but it should not be.
From January 31, 2023:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1494928/000139834423001516/fp0081525-7_497k.htm
Excerpt:
Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares
Sales of Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund are closed to new investors except as noted below. Existing shareholders of the Fund (including clients of any financial adviser or planner who has client assets invested in the Fund) and certain eligible investors may purchase additional shares of the Fund through existing or new accounts and may reinvest dividends and capital gains distributions. New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase shares directly from the Fund (i.e., not through a financial intermediary). Further, any trustee of RiverPark Funds Trust, or employee of RiverPark Advisors, LLC or Cohanzick Management, LLC, or an investor who is an immediate family member of any of these individuals may also open new accounts and purchase shares of the Fund. The Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to determine the criteria for qualification as an eligible investor and to reject or accept any purchase order. Sales of shares of the Fund may be further restricted or reopened in the future.

In my opinion, no one should ever pay 5%, and most should not pay even 1% annually when Vanguard's annual fee is 0.35% for its all-index investment options and 0.40% for an active/index mix. A good adviser can and should have a clear plan that lasts for years, and only make changes in major events, and why most who need advice should do it every several years or in major events.

On this, we are in complete accord. IMO front-end loads are a relic of the "old days" and have no business being charged on people today. If I knew then what I know now, I never would've agreed to buy them -- but they've more than recouped the loads over the past 20+ years so I'm not complaining.
Generally speaking, with very few exceptions, my desired target is .60 or better on active management fees for mutual funds and with no 12(b)-1 fees thrown in. How some funds (including AF classes, like 529-series and some R-shares ) can still charge 1.X or more per year blows the mind, though I realize that by paying more, those people are allowing me to invest in a 'cheaper' or 'much cheaper' share class.
.

@yogibearbull said, ”Things were different in 1970s.” - Right with ya Yogi.
Our workplace plan (1970s) had but 1 option if you wanted to invest in equities, It was through Templeton funds. The A shares’ normal front load was 7%. But, as a group, we got a discount down to 4.7% - and we were happy just to be able to invest with a very good fund house for the day. Total ER including the 12B-1 fee was a bit over 1% on an international fund.
I suppose I could go “all-index” today and construct a portfolio with under a .50% average ER if I wanted to do all the work - including the ever ongoing research. But. I don’t. So, I’m “dumb and happy” paying somewhere around 1% in return for some fine managed approaches. Not everybody wants to shoulder all the investment decision making.
FD said, ”In my opinion, no one should ever pay 5% …” -
A bit unclear to me to what that’s referencing. It’s perhaps a reference to the front loads some of us paid decades ago when it was common. Interesting question whether anyone today would pay such a high load. Never say never. So, possibly I would if the investment were attractive enough. But, yes, by today’s standards 5% is very high.

@FD1000: You can sit there and blather whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that coming from middle-class families with little inherited wealth we can now sit here without any financial worry, and that our American Fund financial advisor played a significant role in that.
American Funds never charged any load when selling and reinvesting in a different fund. You would have us believe that you know everything about everything, but your world view is so self-centered that all that you accomplish is pomposity and arrogance. Hubris... how pathetic.
But I'm pretty sure that many others have already commented on that.

I don't why you got offended. I asked several questions I didn't know the answer to. I also didn't say anything about your investment ability, nor did I post anything about my past record. I'm glad you are doing well and hope you will do great in the future.
In my opinion, no one should ever pay 5%, and most should not pay even 1% annually when Vanguard's annual fee is 0.35% for its all-index investment options and 0.40% for an active/index mix. A good adviser can and should have a clear plan that lasts for years, and only make changes in major events, and why most who need advice should do it every several years or in major events.

Why not keep the newsletter and just fade the recommendations? IE, do the opposite of what they're advising? :)

That’s too funny. I’d rather have back the 50% of the original 2-year subscription fee they’ve promised to send. You can buy a deck of fortune telling Tarot Cards a lot cheaper.
Not a bad idea, however.

Last year’s plunge in the S&P 500 (SPX) made uber bear Mike Wilson the most celebrated stock forecaster on Wall Street. It’s a role he has failed to reprise in 2023. 
The chief US equity strategist for Morgan Stanley on Monday conceded that he stuck with the pessimism for too long amid a rebound that has left equity benchmarks within spitting distance of erasing last year’s decline. His forecast for the S&P 500 remains 3,900, a level that has been left behind in the index’s 19% jump to around 4,560.
“We were wrong,” Wilson wrote in a note to clients Monday. “2023 has been a story of higher valuations than we expected amid falling inflation and cost cutting.” His team has recently shifted the focus to June 2024, for which the price target is set at 4,200, about 8% below its current level.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/were-wrong-morgan-stanley-wilson-191650465.html
Suppose I’d be upset had I paid Mr. Wilson one dime for his prediction. But I didn’t. He gave it out free of charge, Sometimes you gets what you pays for.