The rule given, to save 10% (including employer contributions) for retirement, is a bit simplistic, as even the writer acknowledges:

Of course, there will be times when you’re between jobs or you need your money for a pre-retirement-age emergency. In those cases, ...
Of course, everyone’s situation is and will be different, so 10% is a guideline, not a guarantee. (Furthermore, if you start later in life, 10% won’t be nearly enough.)

Still, one had better have a single number in mind. Otherwise, your employer is going to pick one for you when it automatically enrolls you in its 401(k). How do the tools you suggested help a 25 year old determine how much to set aside for retirement?
The column references an EBRI model that "estimates the risk of running out of money after retirement by taking into account many more factors than the usual online calculator: contributions, market changes, Social Security benefits and salary growth, as well as a range of health outcomes and longevity prospects."
It's a little ironic, criticizing the idea of identifying a target savings rate number as too simplistic, while praising a tool for its simplicity that essentially says: for this asset allocation and retirement spending rate, here's the magic dollar number you need to survive.
As I've said before, simulation tools (regardless of the underlying technology or simplicity) are better than a stick in the eye. By the same token, so is the suggested 10% savings rate guideline.

Hi Guys,
Retirement planning is a challenge because it is complex with many uncertainties. One absurdly simple rule is a dream; it just isn't so.
Given the complexity and uncertainties is a situation that almost demands a Monte Carlo simulation approach to provide some outcome ranges and probabilities. The industry has recognized this and has responded with many such codes that do the job. The best of these codes are easy to use and yield quick and informative predictions.
One such code is provided by Vanguard. Here is the Link:
https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGApp/pe/pubeducation/calculators/RetirementNestEggCalc.jsf
Please give it a try. Other codes can be located by simply searching for retirement Monte Carlo simulators. Answers will vary. That is the nature of projecting future outcomes. Portfolio survival is always the target goal. Vary parameters to explore their impact on portfolio survival odds. You can improve those odds and these codes give you a rough roadmap. Good luck to everyone.
Best Regards
I provided the Vanguard reference because of its simple input requirements. Here is yet another Link to a Monte Carlo code provided by Portfolio Visualizer that has a more complete set of input demands:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation#analysisResults
You might give this tool a few tests. Yes results vary, but the trends are your friends when exploring possible outcomes. Indeed, good luck is a major part of the equation.

FYI: Make sure you understand leverage, each fund a lot)
What’s better than a portfolio that will pay you a $117,000 salary every year in retirement?
How about one that delivers a consistent paycheck each and every month that you can plan all of your regular expenses around?
I’ll show you how, via with three already-diversified high-yield monthly dividend stocks. But first, let me show you how most income investors get it wrong.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brettowens/2019/07/13/this-diversified-3-click-portfolio-yields-11-7-pays-monthly/?ss=etfs-mutualfunds#303cd9e81ad2
M* Snapshot THW:
https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/xnys/thw/quote.html
M* snapshot PDI:
https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/xnys/pdi/quote.html
M* Snapshot OXLC:
https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/XNAS/OXLC/quote.html

FYI: “Eventually, I’ll stop working.” Most of us think that and know it will happen, but millions of us worry whether we’re saving enough to live on once we do. We want to know: How much of my earnings should I set aside? What’s the magic number? 3%? 5%? 10%? More?
What your financial adviser won’t tell you:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-math-of-saving-for-retirement-2019-05-22/print

I don't keep up with the various offerings from all of the fund families (especially funds like these, being more of a DIY person myself), so I hadn't looked into TRLAX.
Apparently T. Rowe Price rebooted the fund two years ago, changing it from a target date fund into a managed payout fund. So the short answer is that this fund isn't much different from other managed payout funds now, but it used to be.
https://retirementincomejournal.com/article/t-rowe-price-reopens-the-market-for-payout-funds/
Viewing 4% as a "safe" withdrawal rate, that's what Vanguard targets. It adjusts the amounts periodically based on performance (as do virtually all managed payout funds). As @hank noted, T. Rowe Price fund targets 5%, while pointing out that it is designed to pay out more early in retirement and less later on (possibly not keeping up with inflation). That's not necessarily a bad idea; generally retirees are expected to spend more in early retirement while they are still more active.
You're not giving up flexibility with managed payout funds. As T. Rowe Price notes on the overview page, you have the "Freedom to withdraw additional funds", and to "Increase (or reduce) your monthly payouts ... by adding or removing investment assets."
The expense ratio does seem high, and is due to "other expenses", not management fees. I don't know why Price isn't operating more efficiently. In theory, you could mimic the fund yourself (it's a fund of funds), except that (a) you'd pay more than the 0.47% it pays for the aqcuired funds because you can't buy institutional class shares, and (b) some of the funds it uses are closed. Using retail class shares (if you could) would bring your expenses up to around 0.60%. (That's about the same as Fidelity charges for its 2020 RMD fund.)
Can one do better on one's own? Maybe. ISTM this question is not much different from asking: why invest in any allocation fund; can't one do better by investing one one's own in separate large cap, small cap, investment grade, junk bonds, international? Or would one do better by paying that same 0.71% and just buying PRWCX?

"So what's needed instead? ... Well, it's something called target-income funds or TIFs. Those are funds that would provide investors with a specified level of income in retirement -- much like a defined benefit plan or an annuity."
There's already a product that provides investors a specified level of income much like an annuity. It's called an annuity. If this is what one really wants - a fixed, specified level of income that lasts a lifetime, no more, no less - one can already convert part of one's retirement savings into an immediate fixed annuity.
However, that might not be what one desires. If one wants an income stream that might grow with inflation and might leave something for heirs, and one is willing to take some risk with the variability of those payments and whether they will last a lifetime, there are managed payout funds, from providers like Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab.
https://www.myretirementpaycheck.org/How-My-Paycheck-Works/Savings-and-Investments/Managed-Payout-Funds
https://humbledollar.com/money-guide/managed-payout-funds/
"Savers know how much income they can expect to receive from Social Security and, if they have one, their defined-benefit plan. But that's not the case with a 401(k) plan which only tells the investor much money they've accumulated, and not how much income those assets will produce."
That's a matter of disclosure, not product design. If you like this idea, take a look at HR 2367, the Lifetime Disclosure Act.
https://govtrackinsider.com/lifetime-income-disclosure-act-would-project-your-monthly-retirement-paycheck-based-on-your-4b976ee2e8db
https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/Academy_Comments_LIDA_07062018.pdf

https://www.thestreet.com/retirement/target-date-funds-may-fall-short-for-retirement-savers-15016076
Target-date funds, or what some call TDFs, have become the investment of choice for many folks saving for retirement. You buy one fund that is aligned with your anticipated year of retirement and you don't have to do much else.

FYI: Given the thin margins in the retirement business, firm says it was justified in cutting deals with money managers to boost profits
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=X6IlXfPLMsu4tQbGr5XADw&q=Fidelity+says+it's+entitled+to+alleged+'secret+payments'+in+401(k)+plans&oq=Fidelity+says+it's+entitled+to+alleged+'secret+payments'+in+401(k)+plans&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3664.3664..5791...0.0..0.274.340.1j0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0.VxBR-Lln1ck

FYI: To still believe in active management is quite something, especially when you work at BlackRock (ticker: BLK), the world’s largest asset manager and a giant in the world of index investing. Yet Mark Wiseman, 49, believes it’s a critical component in long-term investing that will provide the returns that people need for retirement.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/blackrock-talks-solutions-to-short-termism-and-the-retirement-crisis-51562370565?mod=past_editions

@Old_Skeet - Thanks for commenting. One of the main problems with bonds is that virtually all of us own them either directly or indirectly. I know I do. Bonds are everywhere. If you own a balanced or asset allocation fund you likely own a great many. There’s a reason why the balanced fund came into existence. It relates to the conventional wisdom which says that when equities decline in value bonds appreciate in value, helping to compensate for the equity losses. However, with rates now so low, bonds wouldn’t seem to have the degree of offsetting value (vs stocks) they would have had 10 or 20 years ago.
If you are investing in bonds for “income” than you (or your fund managers) are probably not holding a lot of U.S. government paper. My initial comment pertained to the U.S. 10 year, which if held 10 years to maturity should generate about 2% per year. I suspect you’re banking on a much healthier income stream than that 2%. There are bonds that produce much more than 2% of course. However, the lower you go on the credit scale the more closely linked to the fortunes of equities those bonds become. And the less immune to carnage during a steep stock market slide they become.
No other single investment class that I can think of so permeates the financial markets as do bonds. They affect mortgage rates and thus the affordability of housing. They affect auto loans and thus the automotive industry. They’re intrinsically linked to the dollar’s value in the foreign exchange markets which affects the prices we pay for everything from clothing and smart phones to gas and oil. And, for older investors, bond rates affect the ability to grow their assets and maintain a decent standard of living during the retirement years.

I have no familiarity with Fidelity or Vanguard other than they have some pretty good fund and ETF options. But for the most part you can get any of those options through Schwab if you wanted. Same for TRP funds. But, that probably doesn't stand out as unique to other big brokerages, like Fidelity, Vanguard and TRP.
All my experience is with Charles Schwab where I rolled most of my 401k and pension-lump to an IRA when I left my long time employer. That was about 5 years ago. At the time I wavered keeping everything in my employer's 401k at TRP or transferring everything to an IRA at TRP or transferring to CS. I chose CS for a few reasons:
1- maybe the biggest reason was they had a local office. I much prefer a human, 1 on 1 sit down than phone or computer contact. I ended up being linked to a very nice guy who has gained my trust. He is often just my sounding board for ideas I have. He calls or emails about every 6 months or so to check in and see how things are going. And best of all, I don't pay a dime for the advice, feedback and help! Schwab does offer many different options for paid advisory including a very low cost advisory service linked to their robo portfolio. I do have money in the robo, but at this time I haven't gone the advisor route. They also offer the standard 1% fee where they manage everything in your financial life. Not for me but maybe for some.
2- the product selection, everything from 1000's of funds, ETFs, banking products like MMs, CDs, credit cards, checking and savings accounts, numerous managed portfolio options.
3- the option to have multiple accounts at one place. My mind tends to like "buckets" or separating money for different purposes. A separate 3 year retirement withdrawal account with MM, CDs, treasuries that is linked to my credit union checking account is an example.
4- the online and local learning seminars to just hear new ideas or learn different skills and options (I'm not great at it, but I like to dabble or "play" in stocks and there was plenty of info on that along with a trading platform to manage buys and sells).
Just some personal reasons for where I ended up. At 65 I'm still working full time but will probably go part time or quit altogether soon. Good luck Art.

I think that David was comparing the fund houses, not the brokerages. Fidelity has done a good job at improving its bond funds, and it has the occasional fine equity fund. But overall, and especially for equity/hybrid funds, I would go with T. Rowe Price over Fidelity.
Here's M*'s latest set of reports on target date fund series by some of the largest families. (Premium membership required).
https://www-prd.morningstar.com/articles/847110/morningstar-targetdate-fund-series-reports.html
I think anyone can access the reports it links to; here are the links for reports on three different series of target date funds:
Vanguard: https://news.morningstar.com/pdfs/STUSA04OVV.pdf
Fidelity: https://news.morningstar.com/pdfs/STUSA04OLH.pdf
T. Rowe Price: https://news.morningstar.com/pdfs/STUSA04OMN.pdf
And a more detailed report on the T. Rowe Price Retirement Target Date Funds; however this report is three years old.
https://mpera.mt.gov/Portals/175/documents/EIACPacket/20170126/V.d.Morningstar_Addendum.pdf
Note that T. Rowe Price has two different series of target date funds, which it calls Retirement Funds and Target Date Funds. The former are more aggressive.
https://www.troweprice.com/content/dam/fai/Collections/DC Resources/Target Date Solutions/GlidePathComparison.pdf
You're asking about brokerages though, and that's a different question. A nice thing about Fidelity's brokerage is that you can now get both Fidelity funds and T. Rowe Price funds NTF.
As far as brokerage services are concerned, Fidelity is way ahead of the others. Vanguard's comes in for its share of criticisms, but they've improved over time. It seems reasonably competent though not first tier in variety of services or quality or even hours of operation. I haven't used T. Rowe Price's brokerage, and I dare say few have unless they're primarily Price fund investors. It's more of a convenience offering by Price for its fund investors than it is a full fledged brokerage.
Fidelity is especially suited for decumulation, because you can pay a one time transaction fee to set up your position in a cheaper institutional share class of a fund, and you pay nothing to sell shares periodically. (Schwab has a similar pricing structure).
Vanguard is of course better if you want Vanguard open end funds. Many Vanguard funds are not available through Fidelity, and those that are cost $75 to buy (as opposed to Fidelity's customary $49.95 charge for most transaction fee funds). Also, Vanguard provides access to some institutional class shares with lower minimums than at Fidelity. Finally, if you have over $1M in Vanguard funds, you get 25 free transactions per year, which you can use to buy and sell transaction fee funds of other families through their brokerage.

In the July commentary David S. says ...I far prefer T. Rowe. Fidelity forever seems to be scrambling to expand The Fidelity Empire, T. Rowe seems to be focused on managing my portfolio. So I moved money from Fidelity to T. Rowe....
I was wanting to ask what MFO contributors use for a brokerage house and why. Especially those in or nearing retirement.
Personally I have experience with Fidelity and Vanguard but only in the accumulation phase. As retirement nears I will have 401's to rollover and would like to consolidate both mine and my wife's portfolios. Due to work retirement plans we now have monies in 4 different investment companies. Once retired the 2 main 401's will need to be rolled over.
Vanguard, Fidelity or T. Rowe Price? What are your thoughts.
Art

updated again 7/2:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1486174/000143510919000310/chou497.htm
497 1 chou497.htm
CHOU AMERICA MUTUAL FUNDS
Chou Opportunity Fund (CHOEX)
Chou Income Fund (CHOIX)
Supplement dated July 2, 2019 to the Prospectus dated May 1, 2019, as supplemented
This Supplement supersedes and replaces in its entirety the Supplement dated July 1, 2019 to the Prospectus dated May 1, 2019.
Background: Fund Liquidation, Rescission of In-Kind Redemption to Affiliate, and Continued Ability of Shareholders to Redeem for Cash Prior to the Liquidation Date
On June 28, 2019, the Board of Trustees (“Board”) of Chou America Mutual Funds (the “Trust”):
1) approved an Amended and Restated Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution (the “Amended Plan”) for the Chou Opportunity Fund and the Chou Income Fund (the “Funds”), in order to amend and restate in its entirety the Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution originally adopted by the Board at its June 5, 2019 meeting (the “Original Plan”); and
2) rescinded the proposed redemption-in-kind of the 1.75 Lien Term Loans (the “Exco Loans”) of Exco Resources, Inc. (“Exco”), by a company that owns shares of each Fund and that is owned and controlled by Francis Chou, the Portfolio Manager to the Funds and the chief executive officer of the Adviser (such company, the “Chou Affiliated Shareholder”).
In anticipation of their liquidation, the Funds stopped accepting purchases on June 5, 2019. The Funds are in the process of winding up and are no longer pursuing their respective investment objectives and strategies. Reinvestment of dividends on existing shares in accounts which have selected that option will continue until the liquidation.
Shareholders will be permitted to redeem from the Funds prior to the Liquidation Date (as hereinafter defined), according to the ordinary procedures for redemptions from the Funds described in this Prospectus. Mr. Chou intends for the Chou Affiliated Shareholder to retain its shares in each Fund until the liquidation is completed, so each Fund expects to have sufficient cash to pay any redemptions by the other shareholders.
The Exco Reorganization and Risks to Shareholders
As previously disclosed, Exco is involved in an insolvency proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Bankruptcy Court”) and each Fund has determined that the Exco Loans constitute illiquid investments. On June 18, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court approved a Plan of Reorganization of Exco Resources, Inc. that, when implemented, will result in cancellation of the Exco Loans in return for newly-issued common stock of Exco (the “New Exco Shares,” and together with the Exco Loans, the “Exco Investments”). According to the Disclosure Statement for the Plan of Reorganization, New Exco Shares will not be listed on or traded on any nationally recognized market or exchange and there can be no assurance that an active trading market for the New Exco Shares will develop. In the absence of a trading market for the New Exco Shares, the Funds’ expect that they will need to continue to calculate their net asset value per share (“NAV”) based on the Board’s good faith determination of the fair value of the New Exco Shares.
As of July 1, 2019, the Exco Loans represented approximately 23.88% of the net assets of CHOEX with the remaining portfolio assets represented by cash. As such, any changes in the NAV of CHOEX will derive almost entirely from changes in the value of the Exco Investments.
As of July 1, 2019, the Exco Loans represented approximately 11.78% of the net assets of CHOIX. CHOIX expects to complete the liquidation of its other portfolio holdings shortly, after which time any changes in its NAV will derive almost entirely from changes in the value of the Exco Investments.
The Funds anticipate that they may have difficulty reducing their holdings of the Exco Investments prior to the Liquidation Date (a) in the absence of a market for the Exco Investments and (b) due to the rescission of the redemption in kind by the Chou Affiliated Shareholder.
As redemptions from the Funds continue to occur prior to the Liquidation Date, the Exco Investments will represent an increasing proportion of the Funds’ net assets. Consequently, if redemptions continue, any changes in the value of the Exco Investments will have an increasing effect on the Funds’ respective NAVs and total performance.
The Amended and Restated Plan of Liquidation
Under the Amended Plan, the Liquidation Date will be the first day on or after July 31, 2019, on which the Funds can reasonably transfer such shares to any remaining Shareholders following the receipt by the Funds of the New Exco Shares.
Unlike the Original Plan, the Amended Plan will require Shareholders to receive their liquidating distributions in the form of a pro rata interest in (1) the New Exco Shares and (2) the cash remaining in the applicable Fund. However, if there are any restrictions on the transferability or ownership of the New Exco Shares that would prohibit a distribution of those shares to a Shareholder or make it impracticable, the Shareholder will, without election, receive the cash equivalent of the value of such shares.
You should consult with your own adviser or attorney to discuss whether any such restrictions may apply to you, and whether any tax or other considerations may apply to your receipt of the New Exco Shares upon the liquidation of the Funds.
The New Exco Shares could be subject to market and other risks, and Shareholders that receive the New Exco Shares could incur increased transaction fees and other costs, including brokerage costs, upon any eventual sale or other transfer of those shares. As noted above, there can be no assurance that an active trading market for the New Exco Shares will develop. Shareholders can find more information regarding Exco and its plan of reorganization at the following website:
https://dm.epiq11.com/case/EXCO/info
After the Funds receive information regarding the number and form of the New Exco Shares they will receive and have completed arrangements for the distribution of the shares, they will distribute to Shareholders instructions for providing directions for the delivery of their pro rata interest in the New Exco Shares. The instructions will also specify the date by which such directions must be provided and the expected Liquidation Date.
Any Shareholder who does not wish to receive the New Exco Shares must redeem its shares in the Funds prior to the Liquidation Date.
If you own Fund shares in a tax deferred account, such as an individual retirement account, 401(k) or 403(b) account, you should consult your tax adviser to discuss the Fund’s liquidation and determine its tax consequences.
* * * *
For more information, please contact a Fund customer service representative toll free at
(877) 682-6352.
PLEASE RETAIN FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

Updated again:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1486174/000143510919000308/chou_497e.htm
497 1 chou_497e.htm
CHOU AMERICA MUTUAL FUNDS
Chou Opportunity Fund (CHOEX)
Chou Income Fund (CHOIX)
Supplement dated July 1, 2019 to the Prospectus dated May 1, 2019
Background: Fund Liquidation, Rescission of In-Kind Redemption to Affiliate, and Continued Ability of Shareholders to Redeem Prior to the Liquidation Date for Cash
On June 5, 2019, the Board of Trustees (“Board”) of Chou America Mutual Funds (the “Trust”) approved a Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution (the “Plan”) pursuant to which the assets of the Chou Opportunity Fund and the Chou Income Fund (the “Funds”) will be liquidated and the proceeds remaining after payment of or provision for liabilities and obligations of the Funds will be distributed to shareholders.
Each Fund will seek to complete the liquidation on or around the close of business on July 31, 2019 (the “Liquidation Date”). Shareholders will be permitted to redeem from the Funds prior to the Liquidation Date, according to the ordinary procedures for redemptions from the Funds described in this Prospectus. Francis Chou, the Portfolio Manager to the Funds and chief executive officer of the Adviser, owns and controls a company that owns shares of each Fund (the “Chou Affiliated Shareholder”). Mr. Chou intends for the Chou Affiliated Shareholder to retain its shares in each Fund until the liquidation is completed, so each Fund expects to have sufficient cash to pay any redemptions by the other shareholders.
In anticipation of their liquidation, the Funds stopped accepting purchases on June 5, 2019. The Funds are in the process of winding up and are no longer pursuing their respective investment objectives and strategies. Reinvestment of dividends on existing shares in accounts which have selected that option will continue until the liquidation.
On June 28, 2019, the Board of the Trust rescinded the proposed redemption-in-kind of the 1.75 Term Lien Loans (the “Exco Loans”) of Exco Resources, Inc. (“Exco”) by the Chou Affiliated Shareholder.
The Exco Reorganization and Risks to Shareholders
As previously disclosed, Exco is involved in an insolvency proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas United States (the “Bankruptcy Court”) and each Fund has determined that the Exco Loans constitute illiquid investments. On June 18, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court approved a Plan of Reorganization of Exco that, when implemented, will result in cancellation of the Exco Loans in return for newly-issued common stock of Exco (the “New Exco Shares,” and together with the Loans, the “Exco Investments”). Shareholders can find more information regarding Exco and its plan of reorganization at the following website:
https://dm.epiq11.com/case/EXCO/info
According to the Disclosure Statement for the Plan of Reorganization, New Exco Shares will not be listed on or traded on any nationally recognized market or exchange and there can be no assurance that an active trading market for the New Exco Shares will develop. In the absence of a trading market for the New Exco Shares, the Funds’ expect that they will need to continue to calculate their net asset value per share (“NAV”) based on each Fund’s Board’s good faith determination of the fair value of the New Exco Shares.
As of June 28, 2019, the Exco Loans represented approximately 23.85% of the net assets of CHOEX with the remaining portfolio assets represented by cash. As such, any changes in the NAV of CHOEX will derive almost entirely from changes in the value of the Exco Investments.
As of June 28, 2019, the Exco Loans represented approximately 11.57% of the net assets of CHOIX. CHOIX expects to complete the liquidation of its other portfolio holdings shortly, after which time any changes in its NAV will derive almost entirely from changes in the value of the Exco Investments.
The Funds anticipate that they may not be able to reduce their holdings of the Exco Investments prior to the Liquidation Date due to (a) the absence of a market for the Exco Investments and (b) the rescission of the redemption in kind by the Chou Affiliated Shareholder.
As redemptions from the Funds continue to occur prior to the Liquidation Date, the Exco Investments will represent an increasing proportion of the Funds’ net assets. Consequently, if redemptions continue, any changes in the value of the Exco Investments will have an increasing effect on the Funds’ respective NAVs and total performance.
If you own Fund shares in a tax deferred account, such as an individual retirement account, 401(k) or 403(b) account, you should consult your tax adviser to discuss the Fund’s liquidation and determine its tax consequences.
* * * *
For more information, please contact a Fund customer service representative toll free at
(877) 682-6352.
PLEASE RETAIN FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

oi ---
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/01/business/rolling-stones-social-security-retirement.html

That excerpt from the report seems to be diametrically opposed to the way "gambling" was used in the MW story. The former is talking about some investors' perceptions, while the latter was talking more about "reality" (my word).
Here's the same excerpt including preceding and following sentences:

The American Council of Life Insurance found that some participants equated lifetime annuity payments with gambling on their lives, meaning they perceive annuities as increasing risk rather than decreasing it. The individual sees the annuity as a bet, and if they receive the full cost of the annuity payouts before they die, the annuity was a worthwhile investment, but if they die beforehand, it was a bad investment. Less consideration is given to the utility of peace of mind, or the benefits of mortality pooling. This suggests that many participants hold deep beliefs and convictions regarding the loss of principle [sic], control of retirement balance, and a desire to maintain an ability to draw on accumulated savings, which potentially stops participants from making beneficial long-term decisions.

The MW article says that in the real world ("Without more and better ... choices") retirees are gambling. So here, gambling is not about annuities, which do exist, but rather the lack of education ("information") and the lack of alternatives.
Here's how I look at gambling with respect to retirement (not really much different from hank's view):
I use a traditional pension (defined benefit plan) that is just large enough to fully fund a person's retirement as the baseline for a "safe" retirement. An objective equivalent would be a lump sum payment that is converted into the same income stream as that pension. Another objective equivalent would be a defined contribution plan, which is also just a pile of cash, likewise converted into the same income stream as that pension.
One stream is called a "pension", the others, an "annuity'. Strip away the emotion, the deep beliefs, the convictions, and they're the same thing.
Now, nearly all retirees would not take that income stream (unless you called it a pension). Rather, they would take the money and invest it. They would put that safe retirement at risk for the chance to wind up with more. Perhaps more to enjoy during retirement, perhaps more to leave as a legacy. It doesn't matter. The point is that they are putting something at risk (a safe retirement) for the possibility of "winning" something.
That's gambling. No value judgment. They may feel, for example, that it is more important to leave a legacy than to have the certainty that they won't wind up destitute.
It is more likely that they don't have enough to start with, so the safe baseline alternative doesn't exist. In that case, no matter what they do, it's is a gamble. Of necessity.

We are holding off drawing SS as long as possible. My wife started at full retirement age (66), and I’m considering waiting until 70. For us, SS functions as a sort of longevity insurance. Plus, my wife has many close relatives who lived into their 90s and later.

“Without more and better lifetime income choices, retirees are essentially gambling with their retirement savings. Too few have the tools and information needed to manage their nest eggs to last throughout their golden years.”
I’m not up to speed on all this. Glanced at the MW story only. But what in heck do they consider “gambling”? Since there’s a significant body of opinion in the investment community and here on the board that one should actually “ramp up” their equity exposure as they progress during retirement, this reference to “gambling” strikes me as vague at best and misdirected at worst.
I don’t subscribe to the school that recommends increasing equity exposure during the retirement years. But the bigger “gamble” in the early years of retirement seems to me to be in locking-in a low growth potential, be it by going heavily into cash / bonds or putting all your eggs into an annuity (less ”growthy” than maintaining a well diversified portfolio with as much exposure to equities as you can tolerate).

The cited paper discusses how various different decumulation strategies could work: SPIA, laddered bonds, systematic [periodic withdrawal] spending, target date fund + QLAC, managed payout fund, and annuity with GMWB rider.
The paper is focused on defined contribution plans (401(k), 403(b), etc.), not IRAs. Nevertheless, the same sort of approaches could be applied to IRAs.
Judging from the reader comments on the MarketWatch site, people seem to view investing during one's decumulation period is no different from investing in one's accumulation period, except perhaps that one focuses a bit more on income-generating securities.
But as the paper states: By recognizing the clear difference between accumulation and decumulation risks, it is easy to understand why income solutions can vary so greatly in terms of composition and the risks they seek to address.
The paper, though it does some simulations, strikes me as largely an overview (albeit a very clear one) of the considerations people have in retirement and how the different approaches address or fail to address them. It's a nice writeup (skip the MarketWatch piece). The three page exec summary in turn makes for a good, somewhat quick read.
http://cri.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/policy-report-19-02.pdf