huh?
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/svarx/portfolio
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/sfhyx/portfolio
5* with huge fees
all righty then
(have not checked mfop)

CTFAX looks good. Important to note new management since 5/2018. Performance since 5/2018 has been stellar. I am seeing an increase in 30/50 fund of funds in the last 5 years. 49% equity allocation.

New management has done well but earlier this year they changed the fund’s asset allocation rules. Stock allocations can now never go below 50% whereas during its period of outperformance, it was allowed to hold a lower percentage of assets in stocks. Too early to tell what impact this will have on its long term performance going forward.

CTFAX looks good. Important to note new management since 5/2018. Performance since 5/2018 has been stellar. I am seeing an increase in 30/50 fund of funds in the last 5 years. 49% equity allocation.

Someone dropped $25 million into this fund last Friday (the difference between Thursday and Friday AUM, not accounted for by market move). Perhaps someone who read the MFO profile? At any rate, fine Sharpe ratio and historical upside/downside capture. The fact that I've never heard of a single stock in the portfolio intrigues me.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/26/ant-group-to-raise-tktk-billion-in-biggest-ipo-of-all-time.html
"Ant Group would raise $34.5 billion in its dual initial public offering after setting the price for its shares on Monday, making it the biggest listing of all time.....The Chinese financial technology giant previously said it would split its stock issuance equally across Shanghai and Hong Kong, issuing 1.67 billion new shares in each location.....the largest IPO of all time, putting it ahead of previous record holder Saudi Aramco, which raised just over $29 billion.....Ant’s valuation based on the pricing would be $313.37 billion, larger than some of the biggest banks in the U.S., including Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo....."

VIX closed over 30 means I got to sell some, so I sold 50% of my portfolio which was in IOFIX. If VIX goes back under 30 I will buy it again.
It's probably just a temporary spike but I have got very little to lose. I'm already at 15% for 2020 + only one down week at -0.3% (I write down weekly results every weekend).

I believe the age for distributions has been moved up. I got screwed again !

Not as much as you think.
Someone born between Jan and June in 1951 would have been required to start their RMDs in 2021 (age 70.5). Now they can start in 2023 (age 72). Two years grace. Same two year grace for anyone born between Jan and June in years after 1951.
Someone born between July and Dec in 1950 would have been required to start their RMDs in 2021 (age 71). Now they can start in 2022 (age 72). That's only one year's grace. Same one year grace for anyone born between July and Dec in years after 1950.
Someone born between Jan and June 1950 would have been required to start their RMDs in 2020. Now they can start in 2022 (age 72). That's still two extra years, though one of those is coming from the fact that no one has to take RMDs this year.
Someone born between July and Dec 1949 would have been required to start their RMDs in 2020 (age 71). Now they can start in 2021 (age 72). So they're also getting one year of grace, though that is coming from the 2020 waiver, even without the age extension.
Someone born before July 1949 gets a year of grace (2020) not because of the change in RMD age but because everyone is excused this year. So they're also getting one year of grace.
In short, these "oldsters" get a one year break. That's the same amount as those born between July and December of any year from 1949 on, and just one year less than the two years anyone born between Jan and June from 1950 on get.
People born late 1949 are the ones who should be complaining. They're covered by the extension to age 72, but that doesn't get them even a single year extension.

>> One withdraws 4% of the original portfolio (here 4% of $1M, or $40K), and then adjusts that fixed amount for inflation.
ah
>> Bengen has not found any historical 30 year period, including ones with low inflation and richly priced markets, where a starting withdrawal rate of 4.5% did not survive 30 years.
amazing to contemplate with big drops in a given year

The inflation rate is critical in the calculation when future value or purchase power declines every year. For now the assumption is 2% annual inflation. Can you imagine it gets larger in the future? An amount of $1M is not likely to last 30 years.

Or worse, 4% of the balance plus an additional 2% of the balance purportedly to "adjust" for inflation.

Thus the return rate must be higher than 0.1% (4.1%- 4.0%) and that may not be easily accomplished every year.

My commentary (middle block of quotes above) was a distraction about the inflation adjustment. The key point I was making was one does not withdraw 4.0% each year.
One withdraws 4% of the original portfolio (here 4% of $1M, or $40K), and then adjusts that fixed amount for inflation. What percentage of the portfolio balance that withdrawal represents each year is not fixed, but depends on the real return of the portfolio.
For example, if the portfolio doubles in the first year, i.e. grows by 104% (100% after adjusting for 2% inflation), then the $40,800 would constitute only 2% ($40,800/$2,040,000) of the year end balance.
As to what return rate is needed assuming a constant rate of return and a constant inflation rate, Rekenthaler wrote:

The break-even point for portfolios with real withdrawals is the sum of 1) the withdrawal rate [4%] and 2) the inflation rate [2%]. In this portfolio’s case, that means 6%. That conclusion seems trite. But it did not strike me as obvious when I first approached the topic.

So a nominal rate of return of 6% or better means that the portfolio will last forever.
A nominal return rate of less than 6%, e.g. 4.1%, would lead to the portfolio ultimately being exhausted. But for this portfolio, that would still take 36 years. Here's a PV calculation illustrating this, where all figures are in terms of real dollars. One starts with $1M and $40K withdrawal (both real), the portfolio grows at a 2.1% real rate of return (4.1% - 2% inflation), and the withdrawal amount is a constant $40K (real).
The assumptions are simplistic. Rates aren't constant. So matters are more complex. Still, Bengen has not found any historical 30 year period, including ones with low inflation and richly priced markets, where a starting withdrawal rate of 4.5% did not survive 30 years.
People can always say "this time is different". Perhaps that is the only thing that isn't different. People are always saying that "this time is different."

Remember; If one needs "x" number of dollars to meet a living expense or one time cost, one will need to withdraw those dollar amount, regardless of strategies. Lowering living expenses can be the best way to lower rates of withdrawal.
Most of us will be withdrawing from tax deferred accounts so keep taxes in mind. Paying taxes will also be part of the withdrawal calculation...withdrawal need + taxes.
After age 70.5 RMD required mandatory distributions kick in. These distributions don't necessarily need to be spent, but will form a required part of the distribution strategy.

By happy coincidence, John Rekenthaler had a column a couple of weeks ago in which he provides similar year-by-year calculations for the same reason as I did above, viz. that seeing all the details year by year helps to understand what is going on.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1004651/the-retirement-income-puzzle
Here's his table of a million dollar portfolio over five years where the nominal growth rate is 4.1% (I used -10%), and inflation rate of 2% (I used 0%). Note that even though he says that the withdrawal "rate" is 4%, what he is actually doing is what Bengen described: starting with 4% ($40K on $1M), he adjusts this fixed amount for 2% inflation annually. He is not withdrawing 4% of the balance annually. Or worse, 4% of the balance plus an additional 2% of the balance purportedly to "adjust" for inflation.He also cites a recent interview with Bengen that answers @davidrmoran's question:

Michael [Kitces]: And so, what do you think about as the number in the environment today?
Bill [Bengen]: I think somewhere in 4.75%, 5% is probably going to be okay. We won’t know for 30 years, so I can safely say that in an interview.

Worldwide/Global "Leaders." Harbor. HGGIX. Does anyone care to offer a quick and dirty evaluation of this fund for me? I earlier asked about Seven Canyons because it was featured... I'm not picky about the category, but the money will be for a medium-term goal: 3-4-5 years. Only 138M AUM in HGGIX, but its performance vs. peers looks good to me. Thank you.

If I understand it correctly, when the mortgage is new, then the mortgage payments are mostly interest. But if this is a fixed rate 30 years old mortgage, and only few years left to pay it out, then most of the monthly payment are for the principal. In other words, the effective interest you pay is maximal at the beginning and it is getting smaller and smaller at the end. Therefore it may be less advantageous to refinance during the last few years. A more detailed calculations is required, what I said is just a guess.

You're paying the same rate, say 3%, on the amount of the loan outstanding each month. What is happening is that as you make your monthly payment, you're reducing the outstanding balance - part of your monthly payment goes toward paying down the loan. The rest of the payment is the 3% interest on the outstanding balance.
The next month comes along, and your outstanding balance is less than before, because you paid off some of the principal in the previous month. You still pay 3% on the now smaller outstanding balance. So less of your monthly payment than before is interest. You wind up reducing the balance at a faster and faster pace. Each month you pay less and less interest, but it's still 3% interest on the ever shrinking outstanding balance.

One other point. Is interest payments still tax deductible ?

If the interest is deductible, then paying it off is equivalent to putting the money in the bank at that same rate of interest. For example, if your interest rate is 4% and your tax rate is 25%, then you're really paying only 3% (3/4 of 4%) after counting the value of the deduction. That's the same after tax return you get from a 4% bank account, once you subtract the taxes.
OTOH, if the interest is not deductible, you should compare the nominal rate of the mortgage with the after tax rate of a savings investment. For example, if your mortgage rate is 3% but you can't deduct it, and you're in the 25% bracket, then this is equivalent to a 4% rate at a bank. If you put money in a bank at 4%, you net 3% after taxes, which is what you'd save by paying off the mortgage.

Some attributes that you've mentioned or implied:
hedged international
utilities
value leaning, mid-to-large cap (TBGVX was midcap until drifting into large cap)
GLFOX would seem to check these boxes. A value leaning, 3/4 foreign, hedged fund, sitting between midcap and large cap, 50% utility (with much of the rest in industrials, like railroads and airports). It's slightly less volatile than TBGVX.

Yeah, great thread. Very informative. And in addition to "green hydrogen", battery storage solutions have been improving at a breakneck pace, mostly due to research and engineering into EVs. Merely 10 years ago a tiny subcompact like the Nissan Leaf had only a 72 mile range. Today 250 to over 300 miles of range is becoming the norm. The 2020 Tesla Model S is rated at over 400 miles. Illustrating how far battery tech has evolved in only a decade.
I must admit, I always thought of solar as a "local" power solution. If this is a feasible option, it seems like a real game changer. Imagine a continent like Africa, with all it's economic hurdles, becoming a vast exporter of energy to far-flung locations.

Thanks for the heads up on this one. I missed it in the Commentary. They focus on high growth small cap innovators and have a high portfolio turnover rate.
9/30 Quarterly Commentary:
https://sevencanyonsadvisors.com/newsandinsights/wagtx-commentary-q3-2020
9/30 Fact Sheet:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e31f61806a57f2c2ea37a4a/t/5f91dfc8c3521479efade89d/1603395530032/seven_canyons_world_innovators_fund_fs_3q20_final+%281%29.pdf

From Morningstar:
http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart?t=wagtx&region=usa&culture=en_US
The fund has:
Total Assets
$ 225.6 mil

Thanks to all for your valuable comments. I didn’t know if the subject held interest for the group so I did not provide personal info that could have informed the advice offered.
We are in our late 70’s and have 10 years to go on a 15-year mortgage at 3%. Our situation is hardly typical in that we up-sized to our current home in 2007-8 because our fortunes improved considerably. We were able to get a very desirable property that has increased a lot in value since then. Our large family of 5 daughters, ages 49 to 22, and 3 grandchildren, has required us to have a large place. So far our health is good and we do all our own housework, yard work, and routine maintenance. Many of our friends have moved to condos, but we’re not ready for that yet (knock on wood...).
One development of importance is that when the COVID crisis hit this spring, I purposely raised quite a lot of cash in our taxable account, partly out of a fear that our two youngest daughters (single) might have lost their employment and would have had to be supported. That fear appears to be unfounded now. Even though I stopped my TIAA RMDs, we do not have a cash flow problem because we haven’t traveled since January, nor have we needed a new vehicle or a major home project done. In short, there’s ample cash to pay off the mortgage without altering our current lifestyle. My thinking is to retire the debt because it seems a good way to use the cash that’s sitting idle now. Please comment. Thanks in advance.

Contribution limits are generally the same for T-IRAs and for Roths: $6K (or $7K for those age 50 and above), not to exceed your compensation. That's a combined limit, i.e. you can split the amount allowed between Roth and Traditional.
There is also an income cap on Roth contributions. Here's the IRS table:
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/amount-of-roth-ira-contributions-that-you-can-make-for-2020
Should your Roth contribution be capped, you are still free to contribute the remainder of the allowable amount into a traditional IRA, albeit without taking a deduction. For example, if you are allowed to make $7K in contributions, but your Roth contribution is capped at $3K, you could make a nondeductible contribution of $4K to your traditional IRA.
It doesn't matter whether you create a separate T-IRA for nondeductible contributions. They are all aggregated for tax purposes. You are making a commitment to keep track of your nondeductible contributions for life, or until you deplete all your traditional IRAs. The form is easy, but you're still stuck with it for life.

My results, which are not accurate as yours came up pretty close after 22 years.
The ending size of your portfolio is $876K nominal, $543K real. The size of the portfolio resulting from Bengen's scheme is $1.366M nominal, $847K real. These two portfolios are not close in value.
You designed a scheme radically different from Bengen's. Bengen assumed that one would withdraw a constant amount of money each year, in real dollars. Your scheme withdraws an amount each year that fluctuates based on the value of the portfolio.
From the way you describe your design, 4.5% + 2% for inflation, it seems that you still think that Bengen's scheme is to withdraw 4.5% of the value at the end of each year after adjusting for inflation. This is the miscommunication.
Bengen wrote (same quote as before): "After the first year, the withdrawal rate is no longer used for computing the amount withdrawn; that will be computed instead from last year's withdrawal, plus an inflation factor." In contrast, each year you use a withdrawal rate (7%) to compute the amount withdrawn.
You direct PV to withdraw 7% of the portfolio each year, leaving 93% to grow (or shrink) over the following year. So the withdrawals can never exhaust the portfolio. However, as the portfolio shrinks in size, so will the size of the withdrawal.
----------
For example, suppose that the portfolio is invested in something that loses 10% of its value, no more, no less, each year. Then under your scheme, a portfolio that started with $1M would progress as follows:
Start: $1,000,000.
Year 1 end: $900,000.
Withdraw $63,000 (7%).
Year 1 after withdrawal: $837,000.
Year 2 end: $753,300.
WIthdraw $52,731 (7%) - notice that the size of the withdrawal is shrinking.
Year 2 after withdrawal: $700,569.
...
Year 22 end: $21,452.46
Year 22 withdrawal $1,501.67
Year22 after withdrawal: $19,950.79
I find it instructive to do calculations by hand, but in case you don't believe me, here's PV's calculation. If you mouse over the graph to year 22, you'll see that the value is $19,951 (before adjusting for inflation).
----------------------
Bengen's scheme (assume 0 inflation for simplicity, higher inflation would merely make the results worse):
Start: $1,000,000
Year 1 end: $900,000
Withdraw: $45,000
Year 1 after withdrawal: $855,000
Year 2 end: $759,500.
Withdraw $45,000 - or more if there is inflation
Year 2 after withdrawal: $724,500.
...
Year 11 end: $50,025.36
Withdraw $45,000
Year 11 after withdrawal: $5,025.36
Year 12 end: $4,522.83
Not enough to withdraw $45,000. Portfolio is exhausted.
Again, I think that the figures above are more instructive than blindly using a calculator. But here's PV's calculation. Mouse over year 11, and you'll find the value $5,025 (before adjusting for inflation). Obviously PV reports that the portfolio is exhausted in year 12.