I disagree with your interpretation of the quoted statement (quoted from where?)
It suggests that employees should invest only in "funds managed by the firm", not just funds they manage, and not just managers but all employees.
Regarding employees, it would make more sense to me to confine this restriction to anyone with investing responsibilities, including analysts and traders, but not the cleaning crew, answering service, etc. assuming any of these people are employees.
In practice, money management firms may have a hard time imposing this policy. A number of firms have been sued over their retirement plans when they have included only house funds. See, e.g. this suit against SEI. Though the Barron's article cited below implies the issue may be more about excessive fees or poor performance; it claims that exclusive use of house funds is in itself okay:
" the law gives companies wide flexibility to design and run plans as they see fit. Employers aren’t required to select index funds or the lowest-cost shares; they can use their own investment products exclusively."
https://www.barrons.com/articles/fidelity-blackrock-401k-lawsuit-1539977967

Is this Bill Gross's fund ?!?!?!

Yes and no. If the question is whether Gross manages this fund, Shadow's yes is the answer.
If the question is whether this is the billion dollar fund that garnered all the PR, the answer is no. This fund is a teeny, tiny $6.9M fund sold in variable annuities. It's not even a clone. Compare the fact sheets:
Variable Insurance Trust (VIT) Portfolio fact sheet
Mutual fund fact sheet
"shares of the Portfolio are only eligible to be held by insurance company separate accounts on behalf of variable insurance contract owners, or certain qualified retirement plans"

There's pushing the envelope and there's playing well within the lines. Not completing one's first RMD until April 1 of the year after which one turns 70½ is the latter.
One might as well suggest that contributing to a 2018 IRA in March 2019 is a gray area.
Here's an IRS page clearly stating that both of those are fine. Just following the rules of the game.
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/ira-year-end-reminders

I'm not quite clear on what you're asking. I've got the part where you have to take your first RMD by April 1 (note 1, not 15) of next year, and you've taken half so far (in the form of QCDs).
It sounds like you want to use the other half for income. But it's not at all clear whether your concern is over CG distributions inside the IRA or outside. In what follows, I'm assuming that they're inside, though the next couple of paragraphs apply either way.
I think that CG distributions are a distraction. IMHO they are simply return of principal. So it doesn't matter if you sell fund shares in your IRA to generate cash or take CG divs, it amounts to the same thing.
The reason why I view them as return of principal is: a fund owns various securities. Say that some of them appreciate. The fund has unrealized gain. If the fund swaps those securities for other securities, the principal is unchanged, but the fund has realized gain.
No difference in your principal. But due to tax laws, in December, the fund is (conceptually) required to sell off some of its principal to pay those cap gains divs. (For investors who "reinvest" those divs, it doesn't have to sell some holdings; on paper the investors get cash that goes right back into the fund to "rebuy" the same fund holdings.)
If you're tapping principal for income (as I feel one does by taking CG divs in cash), then the question becomes what is a good time to sell principal? I leave it to each individual to guess whether this is a good time to lighten up on investments or a good time to be buying.
The other half of your question seems to be, given that you're going to be taking a certain amount of cash out of your IRA for income in the next 12 months and four days, whether you're better off taking part of that now, or all of it next year.
If you're in the 24% bracket in both 2018 and 2019, then from an income tax perspective, it won't matter. Either way, that 2nd half of your RMD will be taxed 24%. But if it would push you into the 32% bracket next year, you'd be better off taking it now - even if you leave it invested in funds in a taxable account (so as not to be tapping principal now).
There may be another concern. In the 24% bracket, you're likely paying IRMAA on Medicare. (Some retired people have medical coverage paid for as part of their retirement benefits; they may be protected from IRMAA.)
I haven't gone back to cross check the IRMAA brackets against the income brackets, that's something you would have to do yourself. Especially since IRMAA is based on MAGI that includes the 15% of SS that isn't otherwise taxed and non-taxable income. (If your CG divs are outside of your IRA, they would also get included in MAGI.)

Last week I was emailing one of my old high school buddies and I was lamenting the timing of my retirement (Oct 1) . He told me he never trusted the market and had his money elsewhere. I didn't give it much thought until the market closed today . Today was as fixed as the election of the last president . As of today I don't trust the market either.

- where does he put his moneys?
- how is a large market drop 'fixed'? you mean automatic trades, or something else?
- election definitively swayed by efforts of foreign power, sure

Last week I was emailing one of my old high school buddies and I was lamenting the timing of my retirement (Oct 1) . He told me he never trusted the market and had his money elsewhere. I didn't give it much thought until the market closed today . Today was as fixed as the election of the last president . As of today I don't trust the market either.

Reading this just makes me chuckle.

Well, ya. I'm sort of investing now for my wife and me, and I'm post-retirement. But sort of investing for heirs, too. In The Philippines, if you're not among the tiny minority born into wealth, then you are born shit-poor, and you will stay that way, without any outside help. I'm down from my all-time high, but not doing badly. Not trying to time the market, but the Thursday sell-off spooked me, so I did then what I ought to have done in late September, but 6% poorer. ...And I was waiting for end-of-year pay-outs, too.

Last week I was emailing one of my old high school buddies and I was lamenting the timing of my retirement (Oct 1) . He told me he never trusted the market and had his money elsewhere. I didn't give it much thought until the market closed today . Today was as fixed as the election of the last president . As of today I don't trust the market either.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/906185/000119312518356597/d663166d497.htm
497 1 d663166d497.htm 497
Janus Aspen Series
Janus Henderson Global Unconstrained Bond Portfolio
Supplement dated December 24, 2018
to Currently Effective Prospectuses
The Board of Trustees (the “Trustees”) of Janus Aspen Series (the “Trust”) has approved a plan to liquidate and terminate Janus Henderson Global Unconstrained Bond Portfolio (the “Portfolio”) with such liquidation effective on or about March 1, 2019, or at such other time as may be deemed appropriate by the officers of the Portfolio (the “Liquidation Date”). Termination of the Portfolio is expected to occur as soon as practicable following the Liquidation Date.
Effective January 1, 2019, the Portfolio will no longer accept investments by new shareholders. The Portfolio may be required to make a distribution of any income and/or capital gains in connection with its liquidation.
If a shareholder has not redeemed their shares as of the Liquidation Date, the shareholder’s account will generally be automatically redeemed and proceeds will be sent to the shareholder at the address of record. For shareholders holding shares through a variable annuity or variable insurance contract, check with your insurance company or financial representative for your alternative investment options.
To prepare for the Portfolio’s liquidation, the portfolio manager may increase the Portfolio’s assets held in cash and similar instruments in order to pay for Portfolio expenses and meet redemption requests. As a result, the Portfolio may deviate from its stated investment strategies and policies and accordingly cease being managed to meet its investment objective.
Additionally, any asset reductions and increases in cash and similar instruments could adversely affect the Portfolio’s short-term performance prior to the Liquidation Date. The Portfolio will incur transaction costs, such as brokerage commissions, when selling certain portfolio securities as a result of its plan to liquidate and terminate. These transaction costs may adversely affect performance.
Because shares of the Portfolio are only eligible to be held by insurance company separate accounts on behalf of variable insurance contract owners, or certain qualified retirement plans, the liquidation of shares held by a shareholder is not expected to be considered a taxable event. Shareholders should consult their personal tax adviser concerning their particular tax circumstances.
Shareholders may obtain additional information by contacting their plan sponsor, broker-dealer, insurance company, or financial intermediary, or by contacting a Janus Henderson representative at 1-877-335-2687.
Please retain this Supplement with your records.
Janus Aspen Series
Janus Henderson Global Unconstrained Bond Portfolio
Supplement dated December 24, 2018
to Currently Effective Statements of Additional Information
The Board of Trustees (the “Trustees”) of Janus Aspen Series (the “Trust”) has approved a plan to liquidate and terminate Janus Henderson Global Unconstrained Bond Portfolio (the “Portfolio”) with such liquidation effective on or about March 1, 2019, or at such other time as may be deemed appropriate by the officers of the Portfolio (the “Liquidation Date”). Termination of the Portfolio is expected to occur as soon as practicable following the Liquidation Date.
Effective January 1, 2019, the Portfolio will no longer accept investments by new shareholders. The Portfolio may be required to make a distribution of any income and/or capital gains in connection with its liquidation.
If a shareholder has not redeemed their shares as of the Liquidation Date, the shareholder’s account will generally be automatically redeemed and proceeds will be sent to the shareholder at the address of record. For shareholders holding shares through a variable annuity or variable insurance contract, check with your insurance company or financial representative for your alternative investment options.
To prepare for the Portfolio’s liquidation, the portfolio manager may increase the Portfolio’s assets held in cash and similar instruments in order to pay for Portfolio expenses and meet redemption requests. As a result, the Portfolio may deviate from its stated investment strategies and policies and accordingly cease being managed to meet its investment objective.
Additionally, any asset reductions and increases in cash and similar instruments could adversely affect the Portfolio’s short-term performance prior to the Liquidation Date. The Portfolio will incur transaction costs, such as brokerage commissions, when selling certain portfolio securities as a result of its plan to liquidate and terminate. These transaction costs may adversely affect performance.
Because shares of the Portfolio are only eligible to be held by insurance company separate accounts on behalf of variable insurance contract owners, or certain qualified retirement plans, the liquidation of shares held by a shareholder is not expected to be considered a taxable event. Shareholders should consult their personal tax adviser concerning their particular tax circumstances.
Shareholders may obtain additional information by contacting their plan sponsor, broker-dealer, insurance company, or financial intermediary, or by contacting a Janus Henderson representative at 1-877-335-2687.
Please retain this Supplement with your records.

Another thing I have noticed are those who have pensions in retirement see things through an entirely different lens than those of us without a pension.

You're probably right, but it's something that seems so illogical.
These days, many pensions offer a choice of lump sum or monthly checks. So if a pensioner chooses, he or she can wind up in the same situation as someone who has saved outside of a pension - with a pile of assets to live off of.
Conversely, someone starting with a lump sum can exchange that for a lifetime stream of monthly checks by exchanging it for a single premium immediate annuity.
Assets are neither created nor destroyed, but merely changed in form :-)
Regarding TIBAX specifically - one can purchase the cheaper share class TIBIX with a low minimum at Fidelity. (While there's a TF to buy, there's no fee to sell; in retirement presumably one is decumulating assets.)

Another thing I have noticed are those who have pensions in retirement see things through an entirely different lens than those of us without a pension.

Exactly.

Dark humor.
My math shows the S&P off 17.5% since its high in late summer. Not cheap - but “cheaper” than during the most recent euphoria. To me that implies valuations are heading in the “right” direction. I’m most curious when the report was actually penned. Dated December, 2018 - but likely drafted sometime in November before the steepest losses of the current bear market. The 15+% YTD drop as of today (much greater in some segments) might have been enough to mitigate the paper’s bear case.
If I’m reading GMO’s “Executive Summary” correctly, it is suggesting “0” exposure to U.S. equities. I’ve been slanting more towards global equities (and currencies) due to the increasingly unstable and chaotiic U.S. political / governmental structure. Certainly bears consideration.
However, the report makes one wonder: Whatever happened to the diversified portfolio - long hearlded as the safest, steadiest approach to investing? Throwing all your marbles into one basket or another is one way to garner outsized reward - if you happen to get it right. But it also opens the door to huge losses if you’re wrong or decide to exit when the pain becomes greater than you can bear.
How bad are things? Price’s TRRIX, a well diversified conservative balanced fund targeted toward retired individuals and having near 60% exposure to fixed income, was off only 4.6% YTD. Their slightly more aggressive TRRFX - targeted towards those near retirement was off a bit less. For those who have been around the block a few times, these are not staggering losses or something one should lose much sleep over.

I would be on suicide watch if I was down 4.6% YTD (or for that matter 1% or 2%). and I have definitely been around the block a few times. My nest egg is about all I have. No pension and minimal SS benefits of only $1076 monthly of which they deduct $189 for my Part B premium. And now next year they are deducting another $12.40 for something I don’t quite understand. So $874.60 next year is all I will receive. So I have no choice but to live by two rules. - #1 Don’t lose and # 2 Don’t forget Rule #1.

Dark humor.
My math shows the S&P off 17.5% since its high in late summer. Not cheap - but “cheaper” than during the most recent euphoria. To me that implies valuations are heading in the “right” direction. I’m most curious when the report was actually penned. Dated December, 2018 - but likely drafted sometime in November before the steepest losses of the current bear market. The 15+% YTD drop as of today (much greater in some segments) might have been enough to mitigate the paper’s bear case.
If I’m reading GMO’s “Executive Summary” correctly, it is suggesting “0” exposure to U.S. equities. I’ve been slanting more towards global equities (and currencies) due to the increasingly unstable and chaotiic U.S. political / governmental structure. Certainly bears consideration.
However, the report makes one wonder: Whatever happened to the diversified portfolio - long hearlded as the safest, steadiest approach to investing? Throwing all your marbles into one basket or another is one way to garner outsized reward - if you happen to get it right. But it also opens the door to huge losses if you’re wrong or decide to exit when the pain becomes greater than you can bear.
How bad are things? Price’s TRRIX, a well diversified conservative balanced fund targeted toward retired individuals and having near 60% exposure to fixed income, was off only 4.6% YTD. Their slightly more aggressive TRRFX - targeted towards those near retirement was off a bit less. For those who have been around the block a few times, these are not staggering losses or something one should lose much sleep over.

I look at the headline for this thread and then look at its results. -6.43 YTD and a paltry 3.40% annualized the past 5 years. No thanks! But so as not to sound contentious, I fully understand we all play this game from different comfort levels and varied goals. Another thing I have noticed are those who have pensions in retirement see things through an entirely different lens than those of us without a pension.

Commercial banks only fit the category [of institutional investors] when they buy treasuries or other IG bonds for their balance sheet.

So you too are disagreeing with the cited page. It says that "institutional investors ... buy and sell securities on behalf of their members." Not on their own behalf for their own balance sheets.
Then there's the Financial Times definition that is more inclusive:

A financial institution, such as a bank, pension fund, mutual fund and insurance company, that invests large amounts of money in securities, commodities and foreign exchange markets, on its own behalf or on the behalf of its customers.

Only buy side qualifies as an investor. I know it's confusing.

Yes it's confusing because (a) this is more a simple rule of thumb than an inviolate requirement and (b) because there's rarely a clean dichotomy between buy side and sell side. From a then (2013) SEC commissioner:

Market participants are often described as either “buy-side” or “sell-side”. Buy-side firms, like asset managers, buy financial products and services; while sell-side firms, like broker-dealers and investment banks, create and sell those products and services. When viewed in these simple terms, institutional investors are generally considered to be on the buy-side. However, mutual fund and asset management companies can also act like sell-siders when they market their own pooled-vehicles, whether directly or through broker-dealers.

One way of viewing institutional investors is any entity with enough heft and buying discretion to move markets. That's the view you expressed: "they have the ability to move the markets", and the view echoed in part of the cited article "Due to the size of their holdings, institutions exert the largest impact on the financial markets."
Another way of viewing institutional investors is more structural, focusing on the form rather than the impact (even if the former is used as a proxy for the latter). Thus mutual funds like CVLEX are considered institutional investors, despite the reality that with $50M AUM invested in large cap equities such funds won't move markets even "if they do it in a hurry."
Here's a little exercise: which of these is an institutional investor: traditional pension plan, defined contribution pension plan, individual retirement account?
I'd like to think you'd call the first an institutional investor and the third not. What about the DC plan? Structurally, legally, it is a pension plan. Here's a CFA Institute piece classifying DC plans (section 2.2.1.1) under pension plans (section 2.2.1) which in turn fall under institutional investors (section 2.2).
Yet a 401k plan has no discretion in allocating assets among the investments offered (which may include brokerage gateways, leaving the choice of investments wide open). In terms of market impact, it's very much like a thousand distinct IRAs. Form and heft but without discretion to move that heft in one motion, little impact.
You offered one perspective. The cited article offered several, sometimes conflicting, perspectives. I'll wrap this up with a quote from an OECD paper:

There is no simple definition of an “institutional investor”. The closest we get to a common characteristic is that institutional investors are not physical persons. Instead they are organised as legal entities.

Institutional Investors as Owners: Who Are They and What Do They Do?

FYI: It has been a tough year for investors in general, but investors in target-date funds have more reason to be wondering what went wrong. The average fund lost 4% this year through Dec. 10, notes Morningstar, while the S&P 500 is up just under 1%. Not one of 664 target-date funds on the market, which together hold more than $1.1 trillion in assets, has had a positive return, according to Morningstar.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/target-date-funds-fall-but-can-still-help-with-retirement-51544817528?mod=djem_b_Weekly barrons_daily_newsletter

Several folks have shared articles on minimum volatility funds recently -- VMVFX being one. In the tumultuous market that we find ourselves in I wondered where such funds should fit into an overall equity strategy. I'd value your thoughts. I'm 10 years from retirement with holdings that are 70% allocated to equities and 30% to fixed income and cash. Do these types of funds make sense as core holdings and if so what % should one consider allocating to them? thanks for the advice.

Slightly OT, but has anyone used NewRetirement's simple retirement (do I have enough?) calculator??
It is unbelievably pessimistic even on its optimistic setting, compared with other calculators, and I am curious why.

The best "1 fund" will always be a retirement target date fund - over time.

Reviewed:
MAPOX PRWCX JABAX RPBAX VTMFX DODBX. This is not for me. Someone who's a babe in the woods wants to get a rather late start, saving/investing for retirement. I wanna KISS the whole thing. Keep it simple, stupid. A single fund should be fine, starting from scratch. DODBX is already where another individual has money, per my recommendation. Could be that I'll recommend that one for this other person too, since PRWCX is still closed. But starting at 50 years old may present both a challenge and opportunity to decide upon another. I'm starting to do some preliminary looking for her, is all.
I see RPGAX up there, but I've not looked at it yet. Thanks, guys.