I was intrigued by the absence of Janus from the short best balanced list, and of Wasatch from the short best SC list, and must investigate that further. What was most striking to me, though we all know how conservative DS tends toward in this long richly valued market, was:
"In general, for non-retirement investors, stocks should be treated like cooks treat habañero peppers: cautiously and with a clear understanding that a little bit is good and a lot is disastrous. Asset allocation research from T. Rowe consistently illustrate the risk: stock-light portfolios make a bit above 5% annually, stock-heavy portfolios make a bit below 6% annually while nearly quadrupling your risk."
If I had followed that thinking for long at almost any point during the last 40y, I would have had great difficulty privately educating my two kids, and my wife and I would have never been able to endure forced retirement ~6y ago.

Hi @Old_Joe
This is Morningstar's convertibles funds list.
Numerous duplicates among fund families due to the "R" type for dedicated retirement accounts and some institutional that may not be available to us regular folks.
You can sort the return list with a click upon the "year".
Course, I don't know what you may have access to via Schwab. I've not used their web site for a long time; but wondering what they show for a search list or investment style list.
Being a Fidelity acct. I chose their similar fund to chart against The Franklin fund, which appears to have the edge over other similar funds for the past several years......
Chart here
If you find something available at Schwab, use this active chart and add a comma and the ticker and click GO. The time frame should remain the same if the new add has long enough time frame.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834419005915/fp0040734_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
SUPPLEMENT DATED APRIL 1, 2019
TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND PROSPECTUS FOR
THE GRANDEUR PEAK INTERNATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND (THE “FUND”)
DATED AUGUST 31, 2018, AS SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME
Effective April 15, 2019, the Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund will no longer accept purchases through financial intermediaries unless the purchase is part of:
● a retirement plan which held the Fund prior to this closure,
● an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund, or
●a de minimis annual rebalancing approved by a member of the Grandeur Peak client team.
The Fund will remain open to new purchases from existing shareholders and to new shareholders who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

If I'm told that sometimes I act like an idiot (as I likely am by interjecting in this nonsense), I take that as a comment on my actions, not my mental acuity.
ISTM that "Here is a Link that identifies 3 candidate Monte Carlo codes that are available on the Internet" is an example of a statement that falls into the dimwitted category. The referenced page doesn't laud Monte Carlo simulators per se.
Rather, it states unambiguously that not all three "codes" use Monte Carlo simulation. It goes out of its way to make that point:

Two of the finalists have this [Monte Carlo or backcast capability], but one doesn’t, by design. ... The Ultimate Retirement Calculator from Todd Tresidder ... [has] is no Monte Carlo or historical simulation, so the calculator won’t tell you the probabilities for failure of your scenario. (Understand that is by design: Todd believes probabilistic retirement planning is fundamentally flawed.)

On another page, the same writer critiques those calculators from the referenced page that actually do perform Monte Carlo simulations:

Some higher-fidelity calculators try to model the fluctuations of the markets by incorporating Monte Carlo algorithms into their calculations. You input statistical measures of the range of possible values for important parameters like inflation and investment returns. The calculator then picks random values from those ranges, combining them into hundreds, thousands, even millions, of variations. It sounds very comprehensive, but it turns out that markets aren’t actually completely random. And the randomness they do exhibit is not the kind of randomness most often used in Monte Carlo calculators.

@MJG, you really present as a windy dimwit sometimes. You posted an article with the hed the 3 Best Free Retirement Calculators and subheds Final Three and Conclusion. It is six years old and out of date and likely superseded and updated and the methods and sophistication of the data usage. One specific criticism charged within it is probably fixed. Who knows? You did not dive into each program and check for the latest state of play. You did not survey the field to see what is new. And now you just go off about asking me whether I think the rules still apply. Wrong question! What is wrong with you that you would miss the obvious and simple point and then still argue about it?? It is the programs we are talking about and historical databases. The car analogy was hasty but is fully apt. Would you accept from anyone an article that says these are the best cars today and stopped at 2011 models?
Please just sometimes think before posting one of your automatic windy responses. Who said anything about taking exception to the advice? Find a latest-state-of-play article to post instead.
When someone points out foolishness on your part, you come back with wait, wait, what about the content? I mean, the old cars still roll and work and have wheels and follow the laws of gravity. Jeez, man.

Basically you could subscribe, use the services to set up your financial plan and opt-out after you had what you needed. Bet this new pay scheme might have been in response to people doing just that.

If one uses their services wisely to set up their retirement, estate planning, and others, the on-going service could be very useful as the client's mental capacity decline slowly over time. The article also questions how deep the advisory team is? Certainly this is beyond a robo type service.

@DavidV: Thank you for your question about my all weather asset allocation.
My all weather asset allocation of 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity affords me everything necessary to meet my needs now being in the distribution phase of investing. The benefit of this asset allocaton is that it provides sufficent income, maximizes diversification, minimizes volatility, and provides long-term returns.
The 20% held in cash area provides me ample cash should I need a cash draw over and above what my portfolio generates plus it can provide the capital necessary to fund a special investment position (spiff) should I choose to open one during a stock market pullback. In addition, cash helps stablizes a portfolio during stock market volitility.
The 40% held in the income area provides me ample income generation to meet my income needs in retirement. It is a well diverisfied area that incorporates a good number of diverisified income generating type funds including a commodity strategy fund that has a yield of about 11%.
The 40% held in the equity area provides me some dividend income along with some growth that equities generally provide that offsets the effects of inflation plus, over time, they tend to offer up a growth of principal benefit as well.
I found years back this asset allocation model gave me good comfort when I ran my parents money during their retirement years. It is also the model my parents broker recommended that I follow which worked well for them and now I have adopted it.
My father's all weather model had less risk than the one I have described above. His model was 25% cash, 25% fixed income, 25% stocks and 25% real estate. Also know he was raised during the depression and farm land was a cherished asset.

Yes, a great deal depends on one's circumstances, prospects and specific desires as to what to actually DO with retirement income. I could forget about Medicare and live like a king in The Philippines, even after needing to buy an insurance policy over there which covers my long list of prescriptions and doctor/hospital care. (Wife is from there.) But the food and the climate in The Philippines both really suck. I could, as an Irish citizen, move there, too. But the health insurance system is not as good as some others within the EU. I do know for certain specifically that diabetes needs are covered 100%, totally free, in Ireland. And I'd first have to establish residency in Ireland for long enough to be able to fill out a form which transfers my health coverage to a different country within the EU which I actually want to live in--- maybe the south of Portugal, where it's sunny and warm for more of the year.
But as long as my wife remains 19 years younger than I am, there is a very reasonable expectation for as long as I live that at least one full-time income can be depended upon, between the two of us. That's like an "ace in the hole." My income-producing mutual funds only continue to grow, too. So, we can afford to leave the principal behind me, so that she will get it after my passing. Which I hope will be many years away. Our Will provides the specific destinations for various percentages of what we will both leave behind, once that happens. It is satisfying to be able to do this, emotionally and spiritually. But I worry about my son's prospects re: retirement. Nothing like my own case. He's 25. ... Re: healthcare, just imagine how much easier and stress-free everything would be if we could provide decent healthcare to everyone, globally?! ...It would require some very stoopid countries to get smart, though. I'm talking about IQ as well as putting POLITICAL stoopid-ity behind them!

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.

@msf- Yes, it's definitely a theoretically decent alternative approach. To me, though, the weakness lies in the statement (from your article):
"secure in knowing that all payments beyond that point will be covered by the longevity annuity and backed by the longevity insurance company."
I may be unduly cynical, but I have very limited faith in the desire of insurance companies to stay in any business if things go wrong and the future doesn't unfold according to their expectations. The fact that our long-term health care insurance, originally carried by General Electric, has been sold several times because GE and subsequent carriers didn't see enough profit potential makes me very uneasy about any insurance companies long-term annuity promises.
ADD:
I continued to read the article (it's pretty lengthy) after posting the above comments, and can recommend that it's well worth your time to do so. It gives a fairly balanced and quite interesting analysis of various alternative retirement schemes, and honestly concedes that in some cases an equity-based retirement approach may give superior long-term results.

Hi Guys,
The correctness and applicability of the 4% drawdown rule is situational dependent. What is the asset allocation distribution? What is the expected future annual returns? How solid is the economy? An endless array of questions and uncertainties exist.
When uncertainties exist, Monte Carlo codes rise to the top of candidate tools to explore these uncertainties. Given my earlier posts, this suggestion likely surprises no one. Here is a Link that identifies 3 candidate Monte Carlo codes that are available on the Internet:
https://www.caniretireyet.com/the-3-best-free-retirement-calculators/
The author rated 3 codes as best from the many he tested. He highlights the pros and cons of each code.
You get to pick the tool that you find most attractive for your purposes. These tools are all fast, free, and easy to use. Give them a try. What-if scenarios are easy to do, and will yield insights into what uncertainties greatly influence successful outcomes. Good luck to all.
Best Wishes

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

Okay...wait...
...oh darn. I was expecting to see a pig flying outside my window
Now I don't think I need to opine what I think about people like Suze Orman. However, regardless of the dollar amounts she is quoting, I can't find fault with what she is saying at all.
Yeah, that's right. If it takes $5M, most people wouldn't be able to retire. Most people shouldn't retire unless they have that kind of money. Your Truly is never going to retire unless he is forced into it by employer or his own personal circumstance. It's not about money can't buy you happiness. It's about I'm going to freakin' try to do whatever I can to see if my kids can buy my grandkids into Harvard. I'm not ashamed to say I'm not going to hold it against either my kids or grandkids as long as they do it legally. You know why? Once someone freakin' gets into Harvard, then their progeny never has to do it again.
I stopped making plans for retirement. That Europe trip, nah...I don't even want to go anymore. You tell me I'll give you $1M and a month off I'll say, thank you for that $1M and I'll work the month, and you better make sure I earn salary for that month.
I'm really like a robot right now. As long as my battery holds charge, I'll keep working. I don't need a vacation (or maybe it's because I return more tired from vacation than before I left for vacation). I don't need to re-charge my batteries. I've given myself a psychological lobotomy so I don't have to worry about getting depressed. More importantly, I've finally found a way - literally 3 or 4 weeks back - to not give a FF about anyone, to feel insulted, or humiliated, or threatened, or anything. I just do what I have to do and not just for as long as I need to, but forever.
Suze Orman, I'll tell you when I have $5M dollars. Don't you die before I get there. Not because I can tell you I can retire. No. To tell YOU to retire.

Picking a number like this is ridiculous, and she knows it. There are way too many variables when it comes to retirement finances, no matter what the age. Yes, some people will be lucky and never have to worry. But most of us are not in that elite group (including Suze Sells-A-Lot). Debt servicing is perhaps the biggest issue to resolve BEFORE retirement...pay off the mortgage and all consumer debt. This gives you a much better handle on cash flow needs. Social Security benefits, any pensions, potential income from 401k, IRAs, and other savings can help reduce the need for a huge nest egg. A competent fee-only planner can ask the right questions, answer your questions, and show you how all of this looks, the good and the bad.

Hmm, thought I already read this. A good one worth reading again. You posted it 4 days ago too.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/920390/3-retirement-bucket-portfolios-for-minimalists.html

FYI: Ugh, busy--crazy busy!"
"Our schedules are just nuts right now."
"We have to get together--it’s been forever!"
If you’re a working person--and especially if you’re a working person with young children--it’s a good bet that any brief text or email exchanges with friends have included some variation of those words. You’re scrambling to meet your commitments and squeeze in time for family and friends. If you have aging parents, you may be doubly crunched for time.
Regards,.
Ted A.K.A. Night Owl
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/920725/3-retirement-saver-portfolios-for-minimalists.html

“My error. I was mistaken: TRRIX (not TRRAX) did even better than you remembered: -18.39% in 2008. Up 22.07% in 2009, for a combined 2 year total return of -0.38%. So just standing pat would have broken even with this fund. TRRAX (target date 2010) gained 27.95% in 2009, for a combined 2 year total return of -6.23%.

“
@msf - I did not know you were capable of error. :) Thanks for continuing to check this out and for getting back with the correct numbers.
Once ‘08 returns dropped from the current prospectuses (after 10 years) I lost track. That was something I always looked at for every fund I owned (or considered owning) until it got harder to do. An easy error to make. TRRIX is different from their other retirement funds in that it bears no date, nor does it follow a glide slope. As such, it’s not a target date fund.
Anything near 20% is still a steep loss for TRRIX.
Thanks.

I thought the linked article from @JohnN good - but pretty rudimentary.
On a different (I hope related) note, a slick 30-minute TV infomercial - from one of those free dinner annuity peddlers provides occassional comedic relief Sunday mornings (especially if you missed SNL Saturday night). Always interesting observing their various scare tactics designed to dissuade folks from investing in mutual funds. Lots of big impressive looking charts. They seem to prey on poorly informed seniors and those nearing retirement.
The guy today was focused on frightening people away from mutual funds (and Target Date Retirement funds in particular) by highlighting the performance of American Funds Target Date 2010 REATX during 2008 (hardly a representative year). He claims it lost 28% in 2008 despite having only 38% in equities and over 60% in bonds (75% of them rated A or higher).
Can’t confirm his numbers. I’m surprised if REATX actually lost that much. However, in 2008 those invested in it would likely have been working (and importantly still contributing) and at least 2 years from retirement. For comparison, Price’s TRRIX runs a similar 40 / 60 allocation and lost around 20% in ‘08. What these hucksters did not mention was that 2009 was a strong up year. Likely REATX recouped most (not all) of that 2008 loss.
Obviously if you want to frighten folks away from target date retirement funds, highlighting the worst stock market / financial year out of the past 30 or 40 is the way to do it.

Nice... Will look into it.. May add for mama retirement portfolio