IMHO, the simplest thing to do is stop listening to people like Paul Merriman. You will figure out quickly what you want to do with your money, and based on your age how long to hold it for.
"Try this...". Sure. Let's "try". At worse, it's just like bad coffee. Not like it can mess your life up. Which 65 year olds retirement messed up in 2002 and 2008 with this buy and hold strategy? No one's. At least no one we know. Besides can't you see the sheer genius of moving 10% from S&P 500 into Large Value? OMG. Been waiting for someone to explain to me all my life.

Bob, I feel your pain :-) I really do. Have you ever dealt with TRS? I spent something like 6 months to a year, including meeting in person at least a monthly basis, to get my parents' retirement accounts straightened out with them. Dealing with TRS and TIAA is like night and, well, twilight.
You find yourself in the position of having clients dump all their TIAA issues in your lap, and being largely unable to help because of the lock up. Here though, I'm somewhat unsympathetic to the "victims". Don't invest in what you don't understand.
At retirement, TIAA usually does not require participants to annuitize (the 10-year certain TPA or a lifetime annuity). Most contracts allow retireees to keep money in TIAA Traditional, subject only to RMD requirements. On the other hand, if you want your money immediately at retirement, some contracts (e.g. SRA, GSRA) allow that. The tradeoff is that participants get a lower rate of return. Flexibility isn't free, at TIAA or elsewhere.
See FAQ #27: https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/TT_FAQ.pdf
TIAA Guide to Your Payment Options: https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/TT_FAQ.pdf
As a DIY retail investor, I personally focus more on the investment products available and their costs than the service offered. So I'll invest with Vanguard, even though the service I receive isn't as great as it is at Schwab or Fidelity. Likewise, if TIAA has something different to offer me, I'll consider them as well. So long as they can get their 1099s straight (something that Scottrade botched badly when I tried them out years ago), I can live with most other foibles. But each person has his own priorities.

I hesitate to wade back into a discussion on TIAA, since some folks obviously have had good experiences with them. The reason for my earlier comments are simply that, based on our experiences over the last 30 years, working with clients who have accounts at TIAA has not been positive. Acknowledging that all these accounts were 403b, mostly in the traditional fixed-annuity bucket (which is a decent product), our experience was and is that working with TIAA customer service people has been worse than having teeth pulled. And then you have the salespeople who fail to disclose the roadblocks of moving dollars from the traditional bucket to the CREF bucket, or the 10-year withdrawal requirement at retirement. Perhaps they have a different service culture on the retail brokerage side of their business. I shut up now.

I have reservations about turning funds over to a new retirement fund manager. I would think it would be more advantageous to put into a personal IRA and manage independent of a new 401K. Just saying!!!
Gary

I'm looking specifically for growth because I believe this bull market has years left to run - perhaps to 2030. After nearly a decade, we're finally transitioning from an interest rate driven market to an earnings driven market, and growth stocks are likely to benefit the most. Earnings will come from the application of new technologies.

Okay. Ask yourself this question. What are the changes of an actively managed mid cap growth fund outperforming VIMSX over the next 13 years?
I don't mean to preach. When I buy an actively managed fund, I'm not trying to mimic/outperform the market. I want to buy it because I want to assume MANAGER RISK. In my retirement accounts, I buy index funds because I am assuming MARKET RISK.
The worst outcome is when you get both MANAGER RISK and MARKET RISK. So if you want to buy an actively managed mid growth fund, maybe you can consider something like VMRGX. Take any of the above suggestions that are "mid growth" and compare against VMRGX. Hopefully that is instructive.

I have my doubts about PMCPX being available, since the fund and its VA clone (PVC Mid Cap Account) have been closed for some time.
But if you can get in, it's a fine fund (as one can see from the summary page I linked to for the clone fund). Principal (and its PVC clones for VAs) are often very good funds. I was happy to see them opened up to retail investors (they had previously been available primarily through employer retirement plans - at least that was my impression).
Long term management, low turnover, moderately low cost, fine pretty consistent performance. The main concern would seem to be bloat (which explains why it's been closed for awhile).

I am a Schwab enthusiast--banking, brokerage and retirement accounts all there. Some of my favorite things about Schwab:
1. Awesome customer service
2. An extensive list of NTF/load-waived funds, including T. Rowe funds now.
3. Minimum fund investments as low as $100
4. Cheap equity trades: $4.95
5. Seamless transfers between banking/brokerage
6. Intuitive website
I also have (and like) Vanguard, but Schwab is still my favorite.

It all depends on your gastric acidity and if you need the money. Excluding the Great depression, if you believe James Clooney of AAII regardless of the downturn if you can hang on for four years and not sell you will be OK.
While I cannot really counter this argument intellectually, I know myself emotionally and having experienced October 2008, I know that I will not be able to hang on if I lost 30% of my retirement savings, even if I do not need the money tomorrow.
So I am willing to accept lower returns as the price of not buying all the Prilosec at CVS.
It is critical to look at what you could loose to know how far out on a limb you are.
BUT the bond market is a lot different now than 2008. I hope we get fair warning of recurrent "stagflation" where bonds crash as do equities.

I have used Schwab for three decades and have been pretty well satisfied. I also use Fido and Vanguard.
I think their customer service is better than Vanguard, at least there are fewer restrictions on accounts at Schwab so less maneuvering. Fido is pretty good too but we have less money there.
the account executives at Schwab leave you alone unless you ask for help. When asked they are knowledgeable and professional and it is nice to talk to the same person. Having said that there is a lot of turnover. I have been thru three in ten years.
Statements are better than Vanguard which consolidates all the accounts in one statement, including retirement non retirement etc
The only problem I have ever had with execution ( I mostly use market orders and MFs) was a mutual fund changed the NAV two days later after I sold it. Both Schwab and Vanguard said it was not their responsibility. The Mutual fund refused to answer. I went to the SEC and they were interested but as it was only a few bucks I decided I had better things to do. I posted on this earlier so you can reference it if you want
My major complaint about Vanguard is the limited selection of funds. Schwab and Fido have much better lists, and usually have A shares without a load and lots of funds with huge minimums available for a song. I haven't compared Fido and Schwab but I think they are close.
Schwab wants $75 a mutual fund buy vs $35 at Fido. ( Vanguard Flagship is only $8), but when I asked, in the guise of a "500 free stock trades for two years from Fido" my Schwab rep immediately said they would drop the $75 to $30. If you have a large account I would ask before you move.
The website is a little irritating as you get this drop down menu that hangs there unless you move off of it. I find Fido's clearer and easier to maneuver around. Both beat Vanguard hands down.. There you have to click thru three screens to find the cost basis and can hardly ever find daily return. I guess they want investors who only are in it for the long term, not daily.
All in all I think Fido is a little better ( cheaper, cleaner web) but it is slight.
One thing to keep in mind if you are truly paranoid like I am, Schwab as a public company has to disclose it's quarterly results, so if it were ever to get over leveraged or make an insanely bad acquisition, you would know.
At Fido, you are at the mercy of the Johnsons. While Abigail seems like a nice gal, with her cute bob haircut and horn rims, you are not picking her up in a bar( well if you live in Boston and get a chance, go for it) . You are giving her your hard earned money and it makes me a little nervous you really can't tell and will never be able to tell what is going on behind the scenes.
I have the same general concern about Vanguard with all their propaganda about the "funds" owning the company. Maybe, but try to find out who really makes decisions there and what they get paid. Notice shareholders do not get much say.
Hope this helps. Bottom line... don't put your eggs all in one basket, unless you really do meet Abby in a bar and she seems to like you.. but get it in writing.

she's on a roll
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=804419

I read your fatherly advice (M* comment) and also read this other M* comment added below. There's something about home ownership that goes far beyond the numbers, but it's also nice to have the numbers work in your (daughters) favors. Good luck!

When I bought my first home 4 years ago, I withdrew my contributions plus $10K from my Roth to help get me a 20% . While it would have been nice to keep that $44K total in the IRA, I do not regret it for a moment.
Effectively, I was just moving my retirement investment into another form - a home of my own. Since then, I've paid $30K to the principal, instead of that money going to a landlord. My home has appreciated considerably in value, and my monthly mortgage on a 3 bedroom house is apparently slightly less than the average monthly rental for a 1 bedroom apartment in the same area.

Also, don't some mfunds try and curtail such trading? Maybe the intervals you cite are long enough not to trigger a response.

In my retirement accounts, if you sell any shares of a fund, you cannot buy back again until 15/30 days. TRP also has such restrictions. So what? You can buy other funds.
Sell Target Date 2060, Buy Target Date 2050.
Sell S&P index, but midcap index.
Hardly an issue for me.

@msf. I'm taking about risk adjusted return. If you waited till fund dropped 40% to sell and THEN again waited until it crossed $100, then that would totally be silly.
The point is to not "buy and hope" and have some mental stop loss. When you sell at 10% loss, you keep assets in risk free treasuries. They are going to accumulate some interest. You can decide to go back in sooner if you like, e.g. maybe on some moving average crossover.
All of our "investment advice" is predicated on "the stock market always goes up in the long term". Unless I'm mistaken, Japanese market has still not captured its all time high.
I trust I have made my point. To each his own.
Regarding "trailing stops". I think I do something similar. My ANALysis tells me how much % I should be invested and I gradually sell down or buy up to that allocation in increments. Additionally I don't fight the tape. Keeps me sane, able to sleep, AND most importantly invested to some degree at all times. I only do this in my retirement accounts where I don't have to worry about taxes.

@msf I'm suggesting that perhaps we need to change the narrative. Investors should not have "expectations". They should always expect the unexpected.
"Buy and Hold", "Value Investing", etc. may have merits of their own, but they are in Isolation. Financial Advisors (telling people where to invest), Financial Planners (how to generate income stream for retirees), etc. are professions that have been "created" by the industry.
Some of us like me learnt it the hard way and I think the long way. And that is if one is going to invest in the market, don't do it because his neighbor is doing it. One HAS to go and get an understanding of how investing/markets/etc work. One does not have to get a PhD in it, but one has to have enough knowledge. My better half has a PhD, but has no clue about any of this. I wake up in the middle of most nights in a cold sweat with the scenario I'm dead, and she is the hapless victim various Financial Asswisers and Financial Plunderers.
You know how much money you have. You know how much loss you can tolerate. Educate yourself on the RISK of various investments. THAT is in your control. RETURNS are NOT in your control. So stop making assumptions, worse, stop letting OTHERS makes assumptions on your behalf what/if/how etc. you will need. I'm simply appalled when I hear "How much money do you think you need in retirement" question is asked by Financial Planner to an individual. If the individual does not know the answer to that question, then I'm very sorry, but I have no sympathy for them, and they deserve what they get. I've even shared that opinion with my wife, unfortunately she's my wife, so while I may not sympathize with her after I'm dead, which would be impossible, I still worry about it.
WAKE UP PEOPLE! Sometimes unemployment rate has to go up. Let's put most Financial Bullshitters out of business.

Happened to us, 2007/08. Fortunately we didn't need retirement accounts for living expenses, which allowed us to stay and ride it out.

What! Really? OMG !!!
So we stay invested in the downturn all the way in our retirement accounts. If we didn't then why would there be something called sequence-risk?

I can remember Mr. Know-All Gross and a lot of other self-appointed poobahs predicting low, single-digit returns for the last decade (2000-2010), then just about every year thereafter.

While I agree with your sentiment that a lot of these guys are self-inflated blowhards, IMHO Bogle is not in that camp. As I recall, he did predict that in the 2000s bonds would outperform stocks. He also said that stocks would do better than bonds in this decade. (Hard to find citations for these, but I do trust my memory here.)
The numbers seem to have borne him out. Here's a total return chart comparing VFINX and VBMFX from 1/1/2000 to 1/1/2010. Bonds win the total return race, +80% vs. -9.8%. In case you think that this was just luck with the stock market peaking in 2000, here's the comparison from 1/1/2001 to 1/1/2011, bonds winning +72% vs. + 13.9%. Even the comparison from 1/1/2002 to 1/1/2012 shows bonds winning +71% vs. +32%. In the current decade (to date), stocks have outperformed +147% to +28%.

Mr. Gloom, Jeremy Grantham has certainly been forecasting similar numbers for some time. Gosh, if you listen to him, the only place to make real money is investing in timber. The "baby-boomer" concept has also been floating around for some time. I can't speak for all the other baby boomers, but I don't intent to pull money from my retirement accounts until the RMD rule forces me, and then only the minimum amount.

IRA distributions and asset allocations are essentially independent concepts. If you want to pull money out of the market you can do that while keeping your money inside your IRA.
Not that Bogle has ever suggested significantly adjusting allocations based on market conditions, let alone pulling money out of IRA, which wouldn't be necessary for that purpose. For example, "Fix your proper allocation and either leave it completely unchanged, irrespective of circumstances, or change it, but never more than 10 percentage points. Never be 100% in the market or 100% out of the market."
http://premium.working-money.com/wm/display.asp?art=107

The amount of dollars you should have in cash/CDs/short-term bonds depends on what you need to withdraw from your portfolio. We advocate 4-6 years, some folks use longer time frames. Let's assume a person needs $1,250 per month from their investments. That would mean $15,000 per year multiplied by five for five years of protected income stream. This does not account for any taxes that might need to be withheld. You would gross up the monthly amount to accommodate that.
On a $300,000 portfolio, that would require $75,000 be in cash/CDs/short-term bonds. Have at least 6-12 months of this in cash or CDs maturing in the near term. The remaining portfolio can be invested as aggressively as your risk profile and time horizon allow. In years when the stock markets are good, you would capture gains from your equity investments to replenish the $75,000. In lean years, you use dollars from your set-aside stash. The last two market crashes have meant recovery of values in about 5 years or less for our clients. The stash means you won't have to sell devalued assets in a down market.
Does this work? Yes. We have used this strategy with many clients for 30 years. The variables are the dollars needed, the number of years selected for protection, whether to withhold taxes from distributions in retirement accounts. Many clients reduce spending in years when returns are not good or negative. Some do not have that option. The key is to establish a very conservative total return projection for your retirement, and be able to adjust your cash flow need. If you base your lifetime income projection (to age 100) on a 7% annual return, you may be asking for a rude awakening.

FYI: Portfolio returns in the early years of retirement could have a large bearing on the success or failure of a retirement income strategy; a few years of early market appreciation means a high likelihood for a healthy retirement, while a flat or declining market in the early years could throw a wrench into the calculation.
It is called sequence-of-return risk, and it poses a serious conundrum for advisers putting together a retirement-income plan for client
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20170425/FREE/170429938?template=printart

@BobC Bogle has never advocated pulling money from your retirement accounts because of potential low returns. Quite the opposite. He advocates similarly to you to maximize your retirement investments and minimize your costs to prepare for a low return environment. David is right. The future is highly uncertain, more so today I would agree than in the past. We have high valuations, likely rising interest rates, and a potentially unstable geopolitical environment. In such an environment one should try to save more if possible and invest conservatively. That is not to say market time and pull all your money our of stocks.

I can remember Mr. Know-All Gross and a lot of other self-appointed poobahs predicting low, single-digit returns for the last decade (2000-2010), then just about every year thereafter. Mr. Gloom, Jeremy Grantham has certainly been forecasting similar numbers for some time. Gosh, if you listen to him, the only place to make real money is investing in timber. The "baby-boomer" concept has also been floating around for some time. I can't speak for all the other baby boomers, but I don't intent to pull money from my retirement accounts until the RMD rule forces me, and then only the minimum amount. At least that is the plan. As for inflation, most folks have been terribly wrong about that since the 2007-08 economic meltdown.
All the predictions for low returns are based on interpretations of current valuations, economic growth, and other guesses. And keep in mind that the prediction in question is for the S&P 500. What about other U.S. markets, developed international, and emerging markets, not to mention non-traditional investments? It seems to me that there is no way to predict this with any accuracy - heck, the weather people can't even get it right for the next 24 hours, and they have all sorts of ways to monitor things. The best thing is to assume your portfolio will achieve a very conservative return during your retirement years, and then run some scenarios to see if your dollars will outlast you. I would urge a similar strategy for the accumulation phase up to retirement. If the numbers turn out to be better, wonderful. You will have saved "too much".