This is the most useless thing I have read in some time:
... ask yourself if your TDF's risk level is right for you. Here are three questions to ask your 401(k) ... fund company:
-- How much market risk are you taking within five years of your target or retirement age? If the stock mix is more than 70% in that timeframe, you could get nailed by a bear market.
-- How much bond-market risk are you taking? Shifting most of your money into bonds near retirement is risky as well. ....
Whatever you do, don't plug into these funds and forget about them.
Gawd.
@Bee's take above is thorough and thoughtful while Surz's is insanely conservative and seems to ignore recovery times of recent decades.

@JohnN, From your linked article was this quote:

Ron Surz, president of Target Date Solutions, a company that designs "smart" TDFs, has been sharply critical of conventional TDFs for years. “These funds with high concentrations in stocks are a time bomb,” Surz told Reuters

I found a paper that RS wrote that further explains his strategy.
targetdatesolutions.com/pdf-source/DeRisking-Target-Date-Funds.pdf
If I understand his strategy correctly he is recommending that investor's in TDF reallocate all accumulated contributions into safe assets 15 years prior to retirement date. So if your retirement date is age 70, then at age 55 one would separate out all accumulated contributions and place them into "safe assets". He doesn't explain what these "safe assets" are other than saying that they will not lose money. I assume the accumulated gains remain invested in the TDF.
My take:
With this strategy, does one assume contributions made during the 15 year window (age 55 - age 70) also no longer get directed to the TDF? I am assuming they are being directed into "safe assets". I would worry about inflation risk over this 15 year time frame. Shifting the contribution component of your TDF 15 years prior to retirement seems excessively conservative to me as well during this 15 year period. Depending on the size of that accumulated contribution and its importance in supplementing retirement income I would shoot for funding a 5 year supplemental income bucket (safe assets...maybe laddered CDs or Treasuries).
Setting aside five years of safe assets seems appropriate. Creating this 5 year bucket during these 15 years before retirement would allow the portfolio to re-allocate during years when the portfolio had positive returns or excessive returns or growth in a dollar amount equal to 1/5 of the safe asset bucket or whatever criteria would sustain growth without compromising market opportunities.
These 5 years of safe assets could be accessed (withdrawn from the retirement account) to supplement other retirement income (SSI, pension, work or rental income, income from LT capital gains, etc.). In addition, It should be adequately funded to help the retiree meet inflation increases that are not built into their retirement income sources.
Keeping in mind that the first five years of retirement will have different supplemental needs than year six or year 16 or year 26, this 5 years supplemental income bucket will likely have a rolling balance that reflects the future 5 year rolling withdrawal needs throughout retirement.
Preparing to add to the 5 year bucket could start 10 years prior to the need. Again, market opportunities (positive volatility) could be maximized to help determine the timing of the funding. This would allow this reallocation to be laddered to mature when needed or be place in some other safe investment strategy.
Your thoughts?

Updated
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/763852/000119312518088631/d553787d497.htm
497 1 d553787d497.htm JPMORGAN TRUST II
J.P. MORGAN U.S. EQUITY FUNDS
JPMorgan Multi-Cap Market Neutral Fund
(All Share Classes)
(a series of JPMorgan Trust II)
Supplement dated March 20, 2018 to the
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of
Additional Information dated November 1, 2017, as supplemented
NOTICE OF CHANGE TO LIQUIDATION DATE FOR JPMORGAN MULTI-CAP MARKET NEUTRAL FUND (the “Fund”). The Board of Trustees of the Fund had previously approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund, which was scheduled to occur on or about April 6, 2018. The Board has approved the advancement of the liquidation distribution due to redemption activity. The liquidating distribution is now scheduled to occur on or about March 28, 2018 (the “Liquidation Date”). The information contained in this supplement replaces the information contained in the supplement dated March 15, 2018 for the Fund.
The Fund may continue to depart from its stated investment objective and strategies as it increases its cash holdings in preparation for its liquidation. Unless you have an individual retirement account (“IRA”) where UMB Bank n.a. currently serves as the custodian, on the Liquidation Date, the Fund shall distribute pro rata to its shareholders of record all of the assets of the Fund in complete cancellation and redemption of all of the outstanding shares of beneficial interest, except for any proceeds from any securities that cannot be liquidated on the Liquidation Date, cash, bank deposits or cash equivalents in an estimated amount necessary to (i) discharge any unpaid liabilities and obligations of the Fund on the Fund’s books on the Liquidation Date, including, but not limited to, income dividends and capital gains distributions, if any, payable through the Liquidation Date, and (ii) pay such contingent liabilities as the officers of the Fund deem appropriate subject to ratification by the Board. Capital gain distributions, if any, may be paid on or prior to the Liquidation Date. If you have a Fund direct IRA account, your shares will be exchanged for Morgan Shares of the JPMorgan U.S. Government Money Market Fund unless you provide alternative direction prior to the Liquidation Date. For all other IRA accounts, the proceeds will be invested based upon guidelines of the applicable Plan administrator.
Upon liquidation, shareholders may purchase any class of another J.P. Morgan Fund for which they are eligible with the proceeds of the liquidating distribution. Shareholders holding Class A Shares or Class I Shares will be permitted to use their proceeds from the liquidation to purchase Class A Shares of another J.P. Morgan Fund at net asset value within 90 days of the liquidating distribution, provided that they remain eligible to purchase Class A Shares. They may also purchase other share classes for which they are eligible. If shareholders of Class C Shares purchase Class C Shares of another J.P. Morgan Fund within 90 days of the liquidating distribution, no contingent deferred sales charge will be imposed on those new Class C Shares. At the time of the purchase you must inform your Financial Intermediary or the Funds that the proceeds are from the liquidated fund.
FOR EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS OF RECORD OF THE FUND AS OF MARCH 19, 2018, ADDITIONAL PURCHASES OF FUND SHARES WILL BE ACCEPTED UP TO OR AROUND MARCH 23, 2018, AFTER WHICH NO NEW PURCHASES WILL BE ACCEPTED. FOR ALL OTHER INVESTORS, PURCHASES OF FUND SHARES ARE NO LONGER ACCEPTED.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT
WITH THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, PROSPECTUS AND
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
SUP-MCMN-LIQ-318-2

Cetusnews seems to have vanished, so my comments are limited to what bee described.
1. Roth income limits. Here are some concerns about Kitces backdoor solution, a couple pragmatic and one a matter of principle.
I don't know how many 401(k) plans allow transfers from IRAs. If you can't segregate pre-tax and post-tax IRA money via an IRA to 401(k) transfer, backdoor conversions are often impractical. Too much pre-tax money in the IRA.
Also, even if you can move your pre-tax IRA money to your 401(k), that money will be stuck there, whether the 401(k) is a good plan or not.
The matter of principle is that, as Kitces stated, what makes backdoor conversions illegal is intent. The fact that you won't get caught if you follow his prescription doesn't make it legal. Just in case that matters. Me, I jaywalk daily and twice on Sunday.
3. Time value of Roths. Locking in rates can be good or bad. Would you lock in a 5 year CD at 3% now when you can get 2.5% on an 18 month CD? There is potential value in flexibility - one can contribute to a traditional IRA and convert to a Roth some time in the future when taxes are lower (locking in that lower rate when it materializes).
Whether you want to wait depends on what your crystal ball shows for future tax rates from now until retirement, and perhaps beyond. Personally, I'm betting on higher taxes (and locking in via Roth conversions of past years' contributions), but that's just one individual's opinion.
Someone who has difficulty maxing out IRA contributions is more likely in retirement to draw steadily from an IRA for income. That will limit the growth of the IRA, so that RMDs (and taxes) don't grow out of control. On the other hand, if one can easily max out IRA contributions, the time value of the Roth becomes even more important.
Here's a numeric example showing that even if tax rates are somewhat lower in retirement, contributing to a Roth (if you max out) can be better than contributing to a traditional IRA. It comes out better because when you max out a Roth you're sheltering more dollars (in after tax value) than you would in a traditional IRA.
Say the person is in the 24% bracket, but will be in the 22% bracket at retirement.
Assume there's $5500 in earnings, and $1320 (24% of $5500) in a taxable account. Finally, also assume that the taxable account is 100% tax-efficient (no taxes along the way), and gets taxed 15% (cap gains) at the end.
The investor can either put the $5500 into the Roth, using the $1320 from the taxable account to pay the taxes up front, or can put $5500 into a traditional account, and invest the $1320 in the taxable account.
Even with the higher (24%) taxes up front, the Roth breaks even once the investments have grown 125% (i.e. 2.25 times the original value). From that point on, the Roth pulls ahead. I've shown below what happens at the 125% growth mark, and at the 250% (3.5 times original value) point. That's still a lot less than Bee's growth (600%, to 7 times the original value).

Roth     |    Traditional  +  Taxable
Start:   $5500     |     $5500       +   $1320
125%:   $12,375    |    $12,375      +   $2970
-taxes     $0      |   ($ 2,722.50)  +  ($ 247.50)    22% tax, 15% cap gains
Net     $12,375    |    $ 9652.50    +   $2722.50   = $12,375
250%:   $19,250    |    $19,250      +   $4620
-taxes     $0      |   ($ 4,235)     +  ($ 495)       22% tax, 15% cap gains
Net     $19,250    |    $15,015      +   $4125      = $19,140

@Sven, depending on your need to access that cash you could build a CD ladder at Fidelity ( and I'm sure other places) that will get you closer or above 2% returns. A couple of examples can be found here:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4156499-retirement-strategy-cash-set-free-make-money

My question to ponder: Do you see balance & retirement funds increasing their equity positions ? If so let me know.
derf

I'm gonna disagree...mostly.
Problem 1- Roth IRAs have income limits: If your income is too high to contribute to a Roth IRA (a good problem) you have the financial ability to contribute to a taxable retirement account and then orchestrate a "back door" Roth strategy...problem solved.
Source:

Since the income limits on Roth conversions were removed in 2010, higher-income individuals who are not eligible to make a Roth IRA contribution have been able to make an indirect “backdoor Roth contribution” instead, by simply contributing to a non-deductible IRA (which can always be done regardless of income) and converting it shortly thereafter.

https://kitces.com/blog/how-to-do-a-backdoor-roth-ira-contribution-while-avoiding-the-ira-aggregation-rule-and-the-step-transaction-doctrine/
Problem 2 - Roth IRA benefits can be limited: Roth death benefits are tax free for the beneficiary. Tax deferred IRAs are taxable upon death to the beneficiary. If you die early...your dead... regardless. I would agree that if your beneficiaries are non - profit organizations, then, by all means, contribute to tax deductible IRAs and pass the entire tax deferred account on the the non-profit tax free.
Problem 3 - The time value of money can be hard to beat:
Time value is the very reason Roth IRAs are such a great long term retirement investment. You pay less "real dollars" in taxes. When you contribute to your Roth IRA you pay taxes in today's dollars. A $5500 contribution at the 15% tax rate would equate to $825 additional income tax...at 20% rate would equate to $1100...at 25% rate would equate to $1375. The 2018 lower brackets look like this:

If you will fall within these lower brackets it make tax sense to contribute to the Roth. It also makes sense to lower yourself into these brackets by deducting income on contributions to tax deferred IRAs. A combination of the two is also a good strategy.
Fast forward to age 60 (30 years of compounding growth @ 7%):
This one Roth contribution ($5500) would have a value of about $39K (tax free) and has no RMD requirements at age 70. At age 70, it will have grown to almost $77K. This money can help you strategically lower your taxable withdrawals from other taxable accounts to further minimize taxes. This can also help you avoid many income based costs (i.e.- income based medicaid premiums) or qualify for income based subsidies (too many to list).
Fidelity article on Strategic Income Withdrawals:
https://fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/tax-savvy-withdrawals
Had this contribution grown in a tax deferred IRA, the deferred tax liabilities at age 60 would be - $5850 (@15% rate), $7800 (@20% rate), and $9750 (@25% rate) and about twice that at age 70. Roth locks in the tax rate at the point of contribution...tax deferred is always the differential between what you saved on contributions (your tax deductions) verse what you paid on withdrawals (your tax liability on your withdrawals). RMDs force your income higher so you have less control over income levels.
If you can lock in a low tax rate on a contribution with either or both tax free (Roth) or tax deferred (401K, 403b, 457, etc.) this is a tax bird 'in the hand". The real problem is not knowing what your taxable income will be on your tax deferred withdrawals in retirement... that is the "tax bird in the bush." and not having a mechanism to help strategically live on some tax free income when it is to your advantage. Saving 15% on contributions to then, 30 years later, pay a higher tax rate on withdrawals is a real long term loss of capital (withdrawal tax rate - contribution tax rate) compared to the Roth IRA (contribution tax rate).
I like to think of the taxes paid on a Roth contribution that permanently locks in the cost of taxes. Obviously, there are many other advantages to a Roth IRA such as access to you contributions at any time tax free, no RMDs, and the ability to fine tune your retirement income with regard to tax liabilities by accessing tax free dollars.

FYI: In the 1980s, 60% of employees were offered pensions by their employers. Today, that figure is less than 5%. The decline has shifted the responsibility of saving for retirement to workers, many of whom are turning to Roth IRAs. Over one-third of U.S. households owned a Roth IRA in 2016, and if you're thinking of joining them this year, you have until the tax-filing deadline in April to make a contribution for 2017. Investing in a Roth IRA can be smart, but there are drawbacks you should know about beforehand. These three problems with Roth IRAs could make saving for a retirement in a traditional IRA a better option.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cetusnews.com/business/3-Big-Problems-With-Roth-IRAs.S1-nwcViFz.html

On the contribution side of things.
Employees are required to contribute to their pension. In 13 states these pension plans replace SS as a retirement benefit (Windfall Elimination Provision).
Employers (often state politicians) commonly under-fund these pensions. As a result, they often come up with creative ways to "Pay-Go" their pension obligation using bonds and other stop gap measures.
Bond issuers are wise to these pension problems and many bonds have "a contractual pledge made to bond investors that prohibits the restructuring of the teachers’ pension". In this case, the State of CT, "first must prove (to bond issuers) that it is funding the pension system at the proper level (70% level) before asking for employees to restructure their pension plan."
Source:
smooth spiking teacher pension contributions
Also interesting, some state treat pensions as an asset that has property or other legal rights.
gov-pension-protections-state-by-state.html

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/763852/000119312518083422/d552167d497.htm
497 1 d552167d497.htm JPMORGAN TRUST II
J.P. MORGAN U.S. EQUITY FUNDS
JPMorgan Multi-Cap Market Neutral Fund
(All Share Classes)
(a series of JPMorgan Trust II)
Supplement dated March 15, 2018
to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
dated November 1, 2017, as supplemented
NOTICE OF LIQUIDATION OF THE JPMORGAN MULTI-CAP MARKET NEUTRAL FUND. The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the JPMorgan Multi-Cap Market Neutral Fund (the “Fund”) has determined that it is in the best interests of the Fund to terminate the previously approved proposed plan of reorganization and cancel the related special meeting of shareholders.
Instead, the Board has approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Fund on or about April 6, 2018 (the “Liquidation Date”). Effective immediately, the Fund may depart from its stated investment objective and strategies as it increases its cash holdings in preparation for its liquidation. Unless you have an individual retirement account (“IRA”) where UMB Bank n.a. currently serves as the custodian, on the Liquidation Date, the Fund shall distribute pro rata to its shareholders of record all of the assets of the Fund in complete cancellation and redemption of all of the outstanding shares of beneficial interest, except for any proceeds from any securities that cannot be liquidated on the Liquidation Date, cash, bank deposits or cash equivalents in an estimated amount necessary to (i) discharge any unpaid liabilities and obligations of the Fund on the Fund’s books on the Liquidation Date, including, but not limited to, income dividends and capital gains distributions, if any, payable through the Liquidation Date, and (ii) pay such contingent liabilities as the officers of the Fund deem appropriate subject to ratification by the Board. Capital gain distributions, if any, may be paid on or prior to the Liquidation Date. If you have a Fund direct IRA account, your shares will be exchanged for Morgan Shares of the JPMorgan U.S. Government Money Market Fund unless you provide alternative direction prior to the Liquidation Date. For all other IRA accounts, the proceeds will be invested based upon guidelines of the applicable Plan administrator.
Upon liquidation, shareholders may purchase any class of another J.P. Morgan Fund for which they are eligible with the proceeds of the liquidating distribution. Shareholders holding Class A Shares or Class I Shares will be permitted to use their proceeds from the liquidation to purchase Class A Shares of another J.P. Morgan Fund at net asset value within 90 days of the liquidating distribution, provided that they remain eligible to purchase Class A Shares. They may also purchase other share classes for which they are eligible. If shareholders of Class C Shares purchase Class C Shares of another J.P. Morgan Fund within 90 days of the liquidating distribution, no contingent deferred sales charge will be imposed on those new Class C Shares. At the time of the purchase you must inform your Financial Intermediary or the Funds that the proceeds are from the liquidated fund.
FOR EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS OF RECORD OF THE FUND AS OF MARCH 19, 2018, ADDITIONAL PURCHASES OF FUND SHARES WILL BE ACCEPTED UP TO OR AROUND APRIL 3, 2018 AFTER WHICH NO NEW PURCHASES WILL BE ACCEPTED. FOR ALL OTHER INVESTORS, PURCHASES OF FUND SHARES WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTED AFTER MARCH 19, 2018.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT
WITH THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, PROSPECTUS AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
SUP-MCMN-LIQ-318

There are substantial differences between Social Security and pension plans. For one, while SS may walk like a duck and quack like a duck, it doesn't eat (get funded) like a duck - it's pay-go as opposed to pension plans which are supposed to be prefunded. For another, it covers virtually the entire population as opposed to covering just employees. Even federal, state, and local governments are employers when it comes to pensions. SSA is not.
Here's an older (2010) NYTimes column by Floyd Norris that does a much better job of going into the distinctions. It begins:

Is Social Security a pension plan?
No, but it was sold to the public in the 1930s as if it were one, and that matters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/business/05norris.html
So while I tend to agree that immigration (and demographics in general) are intertwined with Social Security, that's much less the case with actual pensions. If a company's (or government's) business doubles in size, its workforce is not going to double. Automation and other improvements in productivity will preclude that.
The Bloomberg piece is describing pension plans in general, though it's making things out to appear that only public employers have this problem. Yet its conclusion applies universally: "Fully funded plans would have enough assets to cover the projected payouts."
CNN (Oct. 2015):
Is your [private] pension safe? These are the next funds to fail
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/20/retirement/pension-fund-cuts/index.html

The standout defect in Morningstar's methodology is that the yearly survey is based solely on one year's performance. It would be helpful if Morningstar provided 3/5/10 year ratings. This paragraph in the article is suggestive:
"Many of the laggards have consistently ranked low on our Best Fund Families survey. That isn't to say that they don't have some standout strategies, only that as a firm they don't outperform consistently. The list can also fluctuate from year to year, as different styles go in and out of favor."
Coincidentally, on Friday, I sold my Mutual Series Funds (Quest/Global Discovery/Europe). I've owned Mutual Series funds since the early 80s when they were managed by Michael Price. For the last several years, they just haven't performed well. I don't believe their poor returns can be excused solely by their style of investing being out of favor; Great managers adapt. Besides performance, I was further discouraged by the latest shareholders' report that announced the retirement of another one of their managers (Philippe Brugere-Trelat). A picture of one of the remaining managers leads me to suspect the man spends his weekends shopping for a retirement home. The Quest fund was a great owl fund, but I think it's time has passed. Quest suffered from heavy redemptions last year. Franklin Templeton, which owns the Mutual Series funds, came in the survey's last place.
I decided to invest the sales proceeds in my winners: (1) 25% to the four funds managed by Meridian Funds [I like the new young managers who have taken over the funds-I've owned Meridian funds for about 15 years, and bought its Small Cap fund on the day it opened-thanks, in part, to David Snowball's positive comments about the funds' new managers .], (2) 25% to Primecap funds, and (3) 50% to T Rowe Price [Would it be possible to invest too much of my money in PRWCX? I've owned it since the 80s.]

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
They were in a culture where they believed their vision and values have carried them for the past 30 years and were continuing to carry them," said Sister Nora Nash, who oversees retirement funds for Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, which led the proposal. "Obviously, there was tremendous risk in their culture, and we need to take a serious look at the code of ethics, accountability and really look at the needs of the customer and community."
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=u-mfWtHsFc685gKE2JS4Ag&q=How+nuns+got+Wells+Fargo+to+address+its+ethical+lapses&oq=How+nuns+got+Wells+Fargo+to+address+its+ethical+lapses&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1.6635.6635.0.13834.3.2.0.0.0.0.100.100.0j1.2.0....0...1.2.64.psy-ab..1.2.211.6...113.xpJHvAOP-AI

I am close to retirement so my first objective is not to loose much money, given how overvalued most of everything is.
I try to group bond funds by duration, relying on M* stats ( although they are somewhat dated and unreliable)
In order of increasing duration my positive funds seem to be
ZEOIX VUSFX FLRN VWSUX VMLUX ( all less than 1- 2 years duration)
FPINX
BAIIX PFIUX IOFAX
Then specialty funds
Inflation WIW
International MAINX
Worth noting PFIUX outperforming PONDX
FPINX is a very slow mover but may be worth keeping for times like this, although I am concerned their heavy use of asset backed loan might hurt if auto loan defaults go up
Traditional TIPs fund underwater, assuming because inflation lower than interest rate rise
I too am buying CDs but under a year so I can have cash for market correction or to live on.

Not all targeted date funds are created the same. Fidelity is no exception.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/special-report-fidelity-puts-6-million-savers-on-risky-path-to-retirement/ar-BBJSUgr?li=BBnbfcN

An RMD is a "required minimum distribution", to be a little obvious. It's a very precise amount determined by the IRS. It sounds like one of your concerns is that you satisfy the RMD requirements.
Going step by step:
1. RMD on 401k to IRA transfer:
a) If you are still working at the employer where you had your 401k, then there was no RMD requirement on the 401k.
b) If you terminated work at the employer with the 401k prior to transferring it, then I believe you must take an RMD from that 401k (based on Dec. 31, 2017 balance) before transferring the remainder to the Fidelity IRA. I'm not certain of this; a quick search turned up this piece (without supporting citations):

Since the RMD cannot be rolled over, the plan should first issue one check to the plan participant for the RMD before issuing any checks for a direct rollover. When the check for all the plan funds is issued to the plan participant, he can only roll over any amounts in excess of the RMD

https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/rmds-must-be-taken-doing-rollover
If this information is correct, and if you transferred the full amount of the 401k to the IRA, Fidelity should be able to work with you to get the 401k RMD portion distributed to you.
2. Withholding on 401k to IRA transfer:
a) If the check you got from your employer was payable to Fidelity (as trustee or custodian for your IRA), withholding wasn't mandatory. But if you nevertheless elected to have some withheld for taxes, that amount (as well as any RMD, see above) will be taxable to you as 2018 income.
b) If the check you got was payable to you (i.e. you could have cashed the check yourself), then the employer was required to withhold 20% federal tax on the amount of the distribution above the RMD amount. As above, any money (RMD or taxes withheld) that didn't make it into the IRA will be taxable to you.
You can avoid taxes on the amount withheld by adding this money to your IRA as a 60-day rollover of the 401k. That is, you put back the money within 60 days of receiving the check. Note that you are not allowed to put the 401k RMD into your IRA.
3. 2018 IRA distribution:
a) If you had no traditional IRAs before establishing this one in 2018, you had no IRA RMD for 2018.
b) If you had other traditional IRAs at the end of 2017, then you must compute your RMD for all of those IRAs. You seem to be implying that you had other IRAs, because you talk about taking your RMD distribution (for 2018) by April 2019.
Note the deadline for the first RMD is April 1, not April 15, of the following year. RMD deadlines for subsequent years are on Dec 31.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/many-retirees-face-april-1-deadline-to-take-required-retirement-plan-distributions
If you have an RMD for 2018 (case (b)), then you must take that RMD amount and set it aside before doing a Roth conversion. Until you do that, you are not allowed to convert 16% of the IRA into a Roth.
4. Future RMDs and conversions
Each year you will need to compute your IRA RMD based on your December 31 balances and how many years the IRS says you can expect to live. You must first withdraw that amount from your IRA. After that, you'll be able to do your annual Roth conversions.
Disclaimer - this is not tax advice, just a little information I've picked up as I've gone along. It may or may not apply to you, it may or may not even be accurate information.

Just trying to be clear on things here ...
- You're planning to take money from your traditional IRA in 2019 to pay taxes on your 2018 Roth conversion. (I guess this from your saying you'd use RMD money, and there's usually no RMD on a Roth.) So far, so good.
- You're planning to take 4% (of what, the traditional IRA?) in 2019.
-- The "usual" 4% rule of thumb is for how much you can safely spend in a year (including "spending" on taxes); it's not an amount you must spend, or even move from investments to cash. Don't confuse RMDs, which are amounts that must be withdrawn from traditional IRAs - that's a tax event - with financial planning - how much money you have available to live on in retirement.
-- The first RMD is usually 1/27.4 = 3.65% (if your 70th birthday is the same year you turn 70.5) or 1/26.5 = 3.77% (if your 71st birthday is the same year you turn 70.5). You don't have to withdraw more than that from your IRAs, and you don't even have to sell any investments (you can just move that amount of securities from your traditional IRA to your taxable account).
- You'll owe taxes in April 2020 for whatever you withdraw from your traditional IRA in 2019.
- You'll be able to withdraw from your Roth tax-free, anytime, tax-free the money your converted in 2018 to your Roth tax-free at any time. But if you dip into the Roth earnings (which happens only after you withdraw all the converted moneys), you'll owe taxes on them unless you wait until Jan 1, 2023 (the beginning of the fifth year after conversion).
- Going forward, you're planning to convert more money each year. That will work if you take your RMD for the year before you do the Roth conversion.

Taxes due on a Roth conversion initiated in 2018 will come due in April of 2019.
As far as RMDs, here's one of Fidelity FAQ (Fidelity FAQ Link):

Your first RMD calculation is based on your total IRA balances on December 31st of the year prior to you turning 70.5. I will assume that date is December 31, 2017. Here's the Fidelity RMD calculator to help you with this:
https://gpi.fidelity.com/ftgw/interfaces/rmd/#/rmdform
If your first RMD will be based on your 2017 IRA balances then your proposed 2018 Roth conversion will not impact your IRA end of year balance for December 31, 2017, but it will be subtracted from your December 31, 2018 balance.
Your second RMD will be calculated by using your 2018 IRA end of year balances (which will have been lowered by completing a 2018 Roth conversion).
Realize that you will have two different tax payments here, one for the Roth conversions and one RMDs. Also, Roth conversions after 2017 can not be re-characterized going forward.
Finally, nothing stopping you from doing Roth conversions after 70.5, but once RMDs start they have to be calculated and distributed first before considering future Roth conversions.
Ed Slott's Discussion Board does a nice job of answering these types of scenarios and I believe I have stated things correctly, but verify my take on your situation. Hopefully others well chime in here at MFO or I would suggest asking your question to (discussion Board found under resource link):
https://irahelp.com/phpBB