Hi Districtwanderer,
If nothing else, I'll remain consistent when savings and retirement withdrawal rate issues are discussed.
Please you Monte Carlo simulations to explore what-if scenarios and to inform a decision.
No decision is forever final because of all the uncertainties. Uncertainties are exactly what Monte Carlo simulations were designed to address. Many Monte Carlo codes are available on the Internet. One of the more flexible that I use is from Portfolio Visualizer. Here is the Link to it:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation#analysisResults
Give it a try. Before retirement, explore the potential end wealth during the savings segment of retirement planning. After retirement, numerous planning options can be also explored using a second set of what-if possibilities. The end wealth simulator provides a portfolio survival probability. The composite of all these simulations allow for a better informed and wiser planning decision.
Whatever the results, repeated calculations will likely be needed as the situation matures and changes. And change it will!
The Monte Carlo tool was specifically formulated to explore any range of uncertainties. I do not apologize for being so committed to the decision making utility of this tool. I have greatly benefitted from using it. Like most anything else, the more you use it, the more comfortable you will become with its outputs.
Best Wishes

The best thing a person can do is unload debt before retirement. Yeah, I know, I sound like a stuck record. But it is true, and it makes a big difference on the amount of dollars needed for regular cash flow in retirement. No one can control the rate of return their portfolio gets (unless everything is in cash, and then you know the return will be nothing). But we all have some or a lot of control of what we spend and what we pay for our investments. Why not concentrate on what we CAN do and not spend time fussing with how we are invested? Seems logical.

FYI: It's hard to plan for retirement, and one of the trickiest questions is: How much should I save?
The honest answer is: It depends. "The best-laid plans can be undone by a messy divorce, a disabling disease, or a stock market crash," Jonathan Skinner, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College, wrote in a study on the topic. Your future health-care expenses are almost impossible to predict, for example, especially as Congress considers big changes to the system.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/how-much-should-you-save-for-retirement

My reaction was similar, though not as harsh.
This is just a repackaging of Fidelity's managed payout funds, though you can't tell the players without a scorecard. Fidelity's original managed payout funds were designed as "pseudo annuities" that would exhaust their assets on their target dates. In contrast, some other managed payout funds, like VPGDX, are designed to provide a constant income stream indefinitely.
Some of the Fidelity managed payout funds were rebranded and closed, e.g. Fidelity Managed Retirement 2020, FIRVX, was originally Fidelity Income Replacement 2038. I believe the difference in dates is because the former is about the time you turn 70.5 (but I'm not quite sure); the latter the date the fund is exhausted.
Other Fidelity managed payout funds were rebranded as Simplicity RMD funds, e.g. Fidelity Simplicity RMD 2020, FIRWX, Fund was originally Fidelity Income Replacement 2040. These are the "new" funds that are now open.
"They have an optional feature that automatically calculates and distributes an investor's RMD from the account."
Bzzzt. Wong reporting (what else is new?). Here's Fidelity's PR page, saying (like the prospectus) that "The fund's investment objective is intended to support a payment strategy designed to be implemented through a shareholder's voluntary participation in a complementary systematic withdrawal plan" - not a feature of the fund itself. That is, just what BobC described that's available for any other fund.
Though Fidelity offers such services (i.e. RMD calculations and automatic withdrawals), (a) they don't always get the calculations correct, and (b) other IRA custodians may not provide this service at all. Suffice to say, this comes from actual experience (helping a relative).
The lesson: you're the one responsible for RMDs, regardless of the service you expect the custodian to provide. All that these Simplicity RMD funds do is provide glide paths that may or may not suit your RMD needs.

This is one of the dumbest things I have heard in a long time. Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard, and all custodians of IRAs and other retirement accounts can and do automatically calculate RMDs. Investors can opt for the custodian to automatically distribute the RMD on a regular basis, withhold specific federal and state taxes, and deposit the after-tax amount in a corresponding brokerage or bank account. As the article says, for these to make sense (and I would say they do not make any sense at all), investors should consolidate all of their retirement dollars into them, "which some would be reluctant to do". No kidding.

Thanks Ted,
Here a few more options:
7-ways-to-reduce-your-required-minimum-distributions-in-retirement

@RForno: The 32 funds are in two seperate retirement portfolios, one a traditional ira the other a roth. The roth is the more aggressive of the two (and larger) since it will be the last to use if at all. Each portfolio does have some commonality of funds and etfs though.

So much has been in the financial news lately about index funds and etfs beating mutual funds, so I decided to look at my holdings in Morningstar Portfolio and see how mine have done, I do use etfs and have about 6 individual stocks, but I do have about 2/3 of my retirement portfolio (non retirement portfolio is mostly bonds) in mutual funds. Amazingly, 60% of the funds are beating the S + P, and 78% of them are beating their benchmark. Only 2 of the 32 funds I have missed the mark by 1% or more, but barely. For those that think this is too many funds, I recently cut it back, and got rid of a few that I felt were overkill.
I am very much aware all this could change in a moments notice with the market being so high, but thought I would report my surprise finding for those that think indexes are the only way to go.

The language here is very strange. It reads like this is a hard close except for retirement accounts but it seems to include retail IRAs. It also includes advisor managed accounts but only for rebalancing. Am I reading that incorrectly? Do they really expect Fido or Schwab, E*TRADE or TD to block taxable accounts and allow IRAs? Maybe they have that capability but I don't think I've ever seen it before. And isn't restricting advisors to rebalancing a wide open door that's almost impossible to police? It means all the advisors and clients who follow rules no matter what will limit themselves while anyone who views rules with more flexibility can do what they want more or less. If the old studies are still accurate that should mean about 10% of advisors wouldn't consider being more flexible.
I own the fund in a rollover IRA for years and I've been a very happy camper. I just hope they'll let me continue to buy and sell as I desire.

FYI: Employers, academics, and policymakers all recognize that drawdown is the major challenge facing the 401(k) system.
Participants face the risk of spending their money too quickly and exhausting their assets or hoarding their balances and depriving themselves of necessities.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-a-way-to-get-retirees-to-spend-their-savings-responsibly-2017-06-05/print

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/803020/000114420417031272/v468560_497.htm
497 1 v468560_497.htm 497
The OBERWEIS FUNDS
Oberweis International Opportunities Fund
SUPPLEMENT DATED june 6, 2017
TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED MAY 1, 2017
Effective as of the close of business on June 9, 2017, the Oberweis International Opportunities Fund will be closed for investment, except that existing shareholders as of the close of business on June 9, 2017 who own shares of the International Opportunities Fund through (i) a qualified retirement plan account (e.g., IRAs and other tax-advantaged retirement plans, such as 401(k) Plans and 403(b)(7) Plans) and participants in qualified retirement plans that offer the International Opportunities Fund as an investment option may continue to invest in the International Opportunities Fund, and (ii) an account advised by an investment adviser may continue to invest in the International Opportunities Fund if such investments are being made pursuant to a rebalancing program. Employees of Oberweis Asset Management or its affiliated entities or trustees of The Oberweis Funds, and their families, may continue to invest in the International Opportunities Fund. In addition, all existing shareholders of the International Opportunities Fund will be permitted to reinvest any dividends, capital gains or distributions in additional shares of the International Opportunities Fund and may exchange their shares in the International Opportunities Fund for shares of the Oberweis International Opportunities Institutional Fund provided that the exchange meets the minimum investment requirements for the Oberweis International Opportunities Institutional Fund – generally, $1 million. Further all existing shareholders of the Oberweis International Opportunities Institutional Fund may exchange their shares in that Fund for shares of the International Opportunities Fund, subject to a $1,000 minimum. Shares will be exchanged for each other based upon their relative net asset values.
The Oberweis International Opportunities Fund may resume sales of shares to new investors at some future date.
The Oberweis Emerging Growth Fund, the Oberweis Micro-Cap Fund, the Oberweis Small-Cap Opportunities Fund and the Oberweis China Opportunities Fund remain open to both new investors and existing shareholders.
June 6, 2017
THE OBERWEIS FUNDS
3333 Warrenville Road, Suite 500
Lisle, Illinois 60532
1-800-245-7311
Incidentally, here is the supplement to the Prospectus:
http://oberweisfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Oberweis_Funds_Prospectus.pdf

Discussed this with a recently-retired client. We (our wives and us) simply don't buy clothes the way we used to, and probably will buy even less into retirement. New suits, no. Dress shirts, no. Dress shoes, no. New cars, no. Same goes for many other household things. We just are not shopping nearly as much. If that is true for much of the boomer generation, it helps to explain the pickle in which the big malls find themselves. Instead, the boomers are spending dollars on more meaningful things like travel, concerts, grandkids, volunteering, etc. It's not that we are pulling money out of the stock market (we are not, contrary to what some predictions were 10-15 years ago). We are simply changing our spending habits: spending less overall and for sure not spending as much at the malls. It goes to my comments on my most recent Retirement Blog.

Those of my demographic that I know (outdoorsy Westerners & Nor'westers at/near retirement age) are seriously paring down the optional stuff; we're certainly not helping the consumer economy get even more over the top than it already is.

Perhaps there are those who learned to live within their means, and that is good to save for their retirement and paying down other debt.

The problem is one shouldn't really invest 100% in 1 fund like VWINX. It is just too risky to do that. If there was "guarantee" I would get 3%, keep my principle, year after year in retirement, accepting the occasional loss, is one thing. However, I need multiple funds like that invest in retirement to offset single fund list.
In my Scottrade IRA, I keep a few "income" funds. I don't trade them. Not that I'm retiring, but just use remaining money to get in/out of stocks while I keep part of it always invested in income funds. VWELX/VWINX would be swell to own in this portfolio, but I just don't have that option. I'm making do with RNDLX, SIRIX, ETNMX, MAINX, RPHYX, RSIVX, PLMDX (for now) and IRNIX (contemplating)

Posted today on The Independent Adviser for Vanguard Investors forum.
Summary
Some really good actively managed funds are being overshadowed in the current index fund craze.
Vanguard Wellesley Income is a nearly 50-year old fund with a stellar track record of delivering shareholders strong returns while limiting downside risk.
This fund may particularly appear to retirees given its 3% dividend yield and its history of limiting shareholder losses in down markets.
With so much attention focused on the billions and billions of dollars flowing into passively managed index ETFs, you might be surprised to find that actively managed mutual funds still exist! But they do, although the reasons that this segment of the market is shrinking are easy to understand.
For most funds, the cost of active management continues to be prohibitive. The average expense ratio for an actively management large cap mutual fund is around 1.25%. The average for an S&P 500 index fund? About 0.15%. That difference of over 100 basis points annually combined with the difficulty of trying to consistently pick outperformers over time has proven a steep hill to climb. Roughly 80% of active funds fail to match their benchmarks over time.
But not all active funds should be kicked to the curb. Some funds have great long-term track records, low expenses and smartly managed portfolios. At Vanguard, one of their oldest funds is also one of their best.
The Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund (MUTF:VWINX) is a nearly 50-year old fund that maintains a balance of around 60-65% bonds and 35-40% stocks. The mix of investment grade bonds and large-cap stocks makes it an ideal choice for retirees, those planning for retirement or new investors right out of the gate.
This is particularly intriguing for folks in or near retirement who may not have a great deal of time or resources in order to bounce back from a significant market decline.
The S&P 500's biggest drawdowns occurred during the tech bubble and the financial crisis. In each of those situations, the index retreated around 45-50% off of its near-term highs. The Wellesley Fund on the other hand has only twice experienced a drop of 15% over its five decade history and one of those times wasn't even during the tech bubble.
The other factor I look at is the fund's downside risk. How well does the fund protect investors when the market's winds start shifting? In Wellesley's case, pretty darn well.
In almost every long-term period, the fund has been able to deliver category-matching returns when the bulls take hold, while reducing market losses by around one-third when things start heading south. The one exception has been in the last year when a number of the biggest tech growth names have provided market leadership.
Digging into the fund, the fund's 0.22% expense ratio (0.15% if you qualify for the fund's Admiral shares) falls well below the Lipper category average of 0.81% and remains true to Vanguard's low-cost theme. Dividend seekers will enjoy the fund's 3.1% yield, a number that's boosted by its focus on corporate fixed income issues over government bonds (about 85% of the fund's bond holdings are corporate). The bond portion's 6.5 year duration is a little on the long side but provides a nice balance between yield and risk.
One important note to make is concerning the fund's long-term average annual returns. Wellesley boasts a nearly 10% annual return over the life of the fund, but investors should be cautioned against expecting those returns going forward. Those returns have been boosted by one of the longest fixed income bull markets in history and an equity market that continues to hit record highs and has not posted a calendar year loss since the financial crisis. With stocks looking relatively expensive and interest rates looking to continue heading higher, shareholders may want to temper expectations in the near-term. Investors looking for a heavier equity allocation might want to consider the Vanguard Wellington Fund (MUTF:VWELX).
Conclusion
Wellesley Income continues to be one of Vanguard's shining stars. The fund remains a popular option in workplace retirement plans so savers who don't have access to good index fund options (or even if you do) might consider this as a core 401(k) holding.
Even in the current era of index fund popularity, Vanguard Wellesley Income should be considered just as good a fund as you'll find in the marketplace today.
[seekingalpha.com]

@LewisBraham. It is ANALysis. Of a different kind than mine, but still same category :-D
As long as you don't marry it and have horrible children it is what determines portfolio returns in both up and down markets. The lowercase version NEVER worked for me.
Thing is "intelligent" people always like the lowercase version. Like Hussman. What is the point in being "right" if the rest of the world thinks you are "wrong"? Market is going to listen to the "wrong" people who think from their behind. He can take his PhD and...do whatever with it. The joke is if the market turns, it is not as if he is going to provide returns like a 2x inverse S&P 500 fund. Once you realize that you know the fund is to be sold. In my profession, this is known as "design" vs "implementation" issue. His design is good, his implementation is bad.
Every "hindsight" article in the media tells us investors buy and sell at the wrong time. This is because they don't know how to do "analysis", but they are also not doing "ANALysis" which is easier to do than a monkey throwing darts at internet stocks in the 90s and has bette probability of sucesss.
So it does not matter that article is nonsense. Do enough people believe it, and will they act on it. That will determine if what the article says will come true. 1-day market crashes are rare, and no one can predict them. For every other market crash, there is enough time to get out before your portfolio gets destroyed. There is also enough time to get back in without screwing up your chances of retirement. How I wish I would have hung out with the right people when I was young. I think I would have had enough money to just sit home and trade and I would already be retired.
I finally reached investment nirvana when I decided to manage my portfolio "actively" by "indexing" through ANALysis. We think too much.

Finally! Someone talking some sense. It doesn't matter if one does not agree with every reason provided in the article for making this argument.
Unless you are invested with absolutely incompetent manager over the long run it is going to matter diddly. The quest to measure against index is futile. One needs to focus on absolute returns and permanent loss of capital. What I call ANALysis. This lets me navigate my retirement accounts even when I get locked out of repurchase when I am forced to sell on whipsaws in index funds. I just go into another "large cap" fund or a target retirement fund.
What I like is a "smooth" line going upward all the time and I'm okay if the slope of that line is below the index slope. I just need my slope to be smoother and I have been achieving it for the past 10+ years. I'm perfectly fine seeing a "flatline" in my portfolio before my models tell me to start moving "upward" again, and I don't try catching the index slope.

I'm really surprised that one of my very long-term investments, Franklin Mutual Global Discovery (MDISX), made this list, with an eye-popping outflow of 16%.
It has a great long-term record (even though Michael Price is just a fond memory). Solid team managing it. Guess that isn't enough.

I'm a recent buyer in MDISX, but not a meaningful position. I used to own it long time back when I was with E*Trade and it was NTF. However, I couldn't stand E*Trade and with it I had to exit my MDISX position. Now I'm back, and let's hope people fleeing MDISX is a contrarian indicator.
I also own MALOX in one of my retirement accounts and VGHCX for a trade.

VWINX highlighted here:
Long-Term Growing Income From An Open-End Mutual Fund: Is This Possible?

Criteria:
The Retirement Income withdrawal will be 4% of the beginning investment value with each successive year's withdrawal increasing by 3% to allow for inflation. Any dividends collected in excess of this will be accumulated in a money market account (MMA) until the year the mutual fund produces less in dividend income than is required and the difference between the next year's household income need and the dividend collected is taken from the MMF. I'm assuming the interest rate on the MMA is zero. If the collective cash reserve is not sufficient…or non-existent…and the dividend collected that year is not sufficient to meet household income need, then sufficient shares will be sold at the end of the year to provide the required cash. This is repeated each December at the end of the month (last trading day).
VWINX is the clear winner. Providing 25 years of inflation adjusted 4% annual distributions with a residual value over 89% greater than its beginning value.

long-term-growing-income-open-end-mutual-fund-possible