Maybe swap PONDX for PDI, and make some other sells to put more into DSEEX
add to FRIFX, start GABCX, consider preferreds also for the non-equity part of the nut.
70 in a few weeks and must start full SS, so will want to see how cashflow from retirement moneys changes.

With no intent on my part to "diss" the new managers, it seems like the current/departing managers are "officer level" at PIMCO, and the new managers hold "manager level" positions. Again, I am certain the new managers are quite as adept at bond-picking as the current managers, but it seems like officer-level current managers, unable stem the outflow of AUM at BOND have decided to pawn off the management of the ETF to (essentially) their subordinates.
I also note, the departing managers of BOND, also run its OEF equivalent PTTRX -- which is nearly-ubiquitous in company retirement plans. It will be interesting to watch..
It might be embarrassing if the new managers of BOND begin to outperform their bosses who will still be running PTTRX..
Or, is the handover of management of BOND, preliminary to the eventual handover of management duties on PTTRX?

Hi Nick de Peyster,
I couldn't agree more! Garbage in, garbage out is always an accurate cautionary summary.
And since future investment returns and inflation rate changes are unknowable unknowns, the sensitivity of retirement success to these unknowns should be explored. Monte Carlo codes that are fast running with simple input features make that exploration easy. Simulations like these alert the potential retiree to the risks of that decision and the survival robustness of his portfolio.
For example, Monte Carlo simulations can be used to guide the construction of a portfolio by demonstrating the survival sensitivity to the portfolio's standard deviation. For any given projected returns, reducing the portfolio's standard deviation increases its survival prospects. Running a what-if case will put odds to that generic truism.
I also fully agree with your statement that Monte Carlo is only a tool that plays a small part in the retirement decision. It provides some odds estimates. When gambling, the player who knows the odds will likely do better than a player who is ignorant of those odds.
A successful retirement is much more dependent on the emotional stability and the flexibility of the retiree over any calculation, Monte Carlo or otherwise.
Monte Carlo does not guarantee happiness in retirement. But it can enhance a retiree's comfort feelings if a bunch of what-if Monte Carlo simulations all produced portfolio survival estimates in excess of 90%. Even more comfort if those simulations yielded estimates above 95%. We can work a portfolio to increase its survival likelihood over an extended timeframe.
Thank you for your contribution. I enjoyed the opportunity it provided.
Best Wishes

Hi Old Joe,
Well time hasn't changed much for us. You're the same Old Joe of FundAlarm days. That's not only good for you, it's good for me.
It's amazing how your earlier submittal mirrored my initial entry. I said: " When I first became interested in the retirement riddle, Monte Carlo calculators were not readily available. So I built my own copy." You later said:"When I first started work on our retirement plan, Monte Carlo calculators were not readily available. So I built my own projection engine....". That's an unexpected similarity in words, but not in methodology.
The question has always been how the year-to year-projected returns were selected in your spreadsheet. I used a random generator command to select my annual returns. That's the heart of all current Monte Carlo codes. Random return selections is not so easy a task. Avoiding bias in the selection process is a real challenge.
But let me end this exchange with a famous humorous story. I'm sure you're familiar with the scientist who was awarded a Nobel prize when he discovered an error in the Random Number tables. Anyway, that's my attempt at humor!
I'm pleased that you recovered from the 2008 market debacle. I retired in the early 1990s and our portfolio has fortunately never been in any dangerous survival zone. I'm sure much of that success is pure luck.
I wish you and your family well and much pure luck too.
Best Regards

Hi Old Joe,
More sophisticated time related portfolio failure rates are not the problem with the codes. All Monte Carlo codes generate that data as a natural output of their calculation procedure. The problem is that many code designers elect not to include that data in their output summaries.
As an example, I like both the MoneyChimp and the Portfolio Visualizer Monte Carlo codes, mostly because of their easy accessibility and easy input formats. The Portfolio Visualizer code includes a summary graph that depicts portfolio survival as a function of study time; the MoneyChimp code does not. You can choose depending on your needs.
Either code can be a useful part of a retirement planning toolkit. Since these are Monte Carlo tools, precise answers are not possible. Given identical inputs, each code will generate a slightly different portfolio survival rate. Hell, running the same code twice will produce slightly differing output survival odds. That"s the nature of uncertain, unknowable future events.
In terms of the sensitivity of portfolio failure times, the problem is not the code being used. The construction details of the portfolio being examined is the culprit. Portfolios that have a high returns standard deviation are likely candidates for a bunch of some early failures. Being flexible in drawdown is also useful to avoid that outcome.
Thanks for the question. I hope this helps.
Best Wishes

The Swedroe article is very informative and interesting, especially with respect to taking a hard look at the retirement plan projected failure rate. While various plans may have an apparently similar rate, the failure may occur at significantly different points along the retirement timeline. Mr Swedroe recommends the use of the more sophisticated Monte Carlo simulators to help deal with this problem.
When I first started work on our retirement plan, Monte Carlo calculators were not readily available. So I built my own projection engine, using a spreadsheet which allowed for multiple variable inputs, especially tailored for worst-case simulation. It also included an option to reduce withdrawal rate percentage if the portfolio suffered negative returns.
I am a firm believer in Murphy's Law: "If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong, and at the worst possible time". True to form, 2008 came along soon after our retirement. Thanks to the planning, we survived very nicely, and have completely recovered.

Hi Guys,
A double hooray is warranted. To complementt the Larry Swedroe endorsement of the Monte Carlo simulator, Professor Snowball has added his informed investment weight. Recently he posted a reply that mentioned a Monte Carlo code that he favored. I'm sure it is a worthy tool. Here is the internal Link to his submittal:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31674/suggested-reading-for-a-teenage-investor-next-step
All this is useful stuff when making retirement decisions in a random investment returns environment.
Individual investors who resist this fairly modern tool, which only became available in the1990s, are missing out on a methodology that is specifically designed to focus on uncertain investment outcomes that's generate uncertain end wealth and portfolio survival odds. These outputs give some insights when exploring the retirement quagmire.
I am no longer the Monte Carlo Lone Ranger on this site with both the Swedroe and Snowball endorsements of this methodology. Persistence pays off! With time, Monte Carlo will become as welcomed and as common as our morning coffee.
My Monte Carlo recommendations are certainly not exhaustive. Other more sophisticated Monte Carlo codes are accessible on the Internet. Typically they require more specific inputs because they assess taxable circumstances and tax implications on end wealth. I have not recommended them because of my self imposed simplicity ground rule.
Best Wishes

As of last night's close 70% cash and 30% bank loan. I have been making adjustments based on personal/retirement issues however. The link below from this site may be prophetic. Let's hope that panic buying day last week is not the reverse of that panic selling day in February of 2016 that marked the bottom. The newsletter writers per Market Vane have been at multi decades levels of bullishness.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31645/wsj-asks-who-else-is-left-to-buy#latest

@Paul: Wake up and smell the coffee !!! I linked both article on 3/4 & 3/6. Please, in the future, scroll to see if you articles have already been linked.
Regards,
Ted
American Funds:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31702/paul-katzeff-psst-want-to-turbocharge-your-retirement-account-check-out-american-funds-buys-sells#latest
Will Danoff:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31666/paul-katzeff-fidelity-s-will-danoff-talks-about-the-super-bowl-and-super-stocks#latest

@Nick: While I don't know the figures, many states are moving public employees away from defined benefit plans (the traditional pension) towards 403(b)-type plans for which employees need to make greater contributions and for which they must take a more active role in selecting investment options. Employees must be more knowledgeable than ever before, must make greater voluntary contributions, and often face (as described in the Times article) bad or confusing choices. Ideally, a group of employees, similar to those described by David at his college, can exert pressure on the employer (municipality, school board, etc.) to offer low-cost, no-load funds. One of the sad consequences of the "gig economy" or the "right to work" movement is to leave workers with no voice or place at the table, especially with respect to funding retirement. Even those who are represented face reductions in funding and, primarily in the private sector, complete abandonment when an employer is bought out or ceases operations.

My wife was a teacher in the SF Public School System for 35 years (and deserves a hero medal). She was extremely fortunate, in that the SF teachers had a decent pension system (CA Teachers Retirement), were allowed to also contribute to Social Security, and also were allowed a self-funded, self-directed 403B. After she retired we rolled the 403B over to an IRA.
Because of that, we contributed self-funding to the max on her salary, and Social Security and self-funded IRA on my salary. For the twenty years of my final job with San Francisco as a radio tech I also received a city pension.
While we were very fortunate to be in the right spot at the right time for those benefits, we also saved like crazy for forty years, and are now very comfortable.

@Mark.

I'm just trying to figure out what influences those votes or do they just not care.

Let's say you're running one of the biggest fund shops on earth, and you have the opportunity to run General Electric's 401k plan and collect millions of dollars in management fees for running it. Are you going to vote against GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt's $33 million annual compensation plan? There is an inherent conflict of interest at the biggest fund shops regarding these votes. Their answer to questions about these conflicted interests is that they have a Chinese wall up on the votes and their 401k/retirement business doesn't get in the way of their decisions on CEO pay. But here's the thing, there's a simple way around that conflict of interest wall--vote in favor of all or almost all executive compensation plans no matter how egregious. That way they can say, "See no conflict of interest with this specific company we have 401k business with. We vote terribly on everything. "

Hi Guys,
Hooray for Larry Swedroe! In this current article Swedroe identifies Monte Carlo simulators as an important tool when making a retirement decision. He joins many financial advisors who also exploit this useful tool when making that life changing decision. I too have recommended application of Monte Carlo simulators since the early 1990s.
Swedroe emphasizes that a projected failure rate from these Monte Carlo estimates is not sufficient as a standalone output. He argues that the time of potential portfolio exhaustion failure during the retirement lifecycle is also critical. I completely agree.
The code that I frequently recommend, from Portfolio Visualizer, does provide that information in a graphic format. Once again, here is a Link to that excellent website tool:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
When I first became interested in the retirement riddle, Monte Carlo calculators were not readily available. So I built my own copy. I too recognized that the time of failure was a critical output. So on my version of a Monte Carlo code I included a user option to reduce withdrawal rate percentage by a user input if the portfolio suffered negative returns for 3 consecutive years.
An input of a 10% withdrawal rate reduction after 3 down markets lowered the portfolio failure rate substantially. These Monte Carlo studies encouraged my early retirement. Other approaches to protect against a portfolio failure exist.
I encourage you guys to visit the Portfolio Visualizer website and to consider using their Monte Carlo code. It's a terrific tool; give it a try.
Best Wishes.

FYI: Retiring without sufficient assets to maintain a minimally acceptable lifestyle (which each person defines in their unique way) is an unthinkable outcome. That’s why, when investors are planning for retirement, the most important question is usually something like: How much can I plan on withdrawing from my portfolio without having a significant chance of outliving my savings?
The answer is generally expressed in terms of what is referred to as a safe withdrawal rate—the percentage of the portfolio you can withdraw the first year, with future withdrawals adjusted for inflation.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-retirements-routes-failure?nopaging=1

Receiving a steady stream of income over the course of your retired life is not a terrible concept, in fact it's necessary. Not all annuities are designed the same. Most 403(b) annuities have high initial costs, poor investment choices, and many ongoing costs. In my case, I looked closely at my retirement systems options, I ran my budget, and I evaluated how to construct my retirement plan. I, too, had a required pension (annuity) in lieu of Social Security. I realized that this pension alone was not going to keep the light on and the beer tap flowing. So I saved additionally to help compliment my pension annuity. These were non-annuity choices such as Roth IRAs, 403(b)(7)s, T.IRAs.
If I had, instead, funded additional annuities I would have had fewer retirement choices. The retirement distribution options for these annuity plans seemed hard and fast. I decide these choices had too many restrictions, too many fees and too few investment options.
An annuity is a contract...understand the fine print before you start investing in one. They often are very difficult to understand and, like quicksand, awful difficult to get out of without paying an ultimate price.

@bee Thanks, yes! "I'm on the case." I was on the phone to them a year or two ago, and I recall being told that when retirement comes, she COULD annuitize it. I just don't like the way they smell.

@rforno
Yes, to your note.
I'm sure there are also a number of retirement plans that continue to have this offering, too.

Hi Bobpa,
I like your plan to incentivize your grand daughter towards a savings program. That's a tough sell, but the necessary first step in providing for a comfortable retirement. Good for you and good for your grand daughter.
But asking for a formula that uses a fixed annual return rate fails to address the risks associated with any investment program. In our uncertain world, returns will surely vary over any specified timeframe. A formula does not capture that variability; a Monte Carlo simulation does.
Your question allows me to once again Beat the Drum Slowly for the application of Monte Carlo tools. They were specifically designed to assess the impact of uncertainties.
Bravo to Professor Snowball for recommending a Monte Carlo site. I'm sure you can use it to demonstrate the range of possible savings outcomes coupled to investment return uncertainties.
Allow me to suggest my favorite Monte Carlo website for the same purpose. Please take a look at the Portfolio Vizualizer website at:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation
The simulator gives likely end-of-period wealth results almost instantaneously. Just running the code together should interest and impress your grand daughter in real time.
Explore with her some what-if scenarios. Input various average and standard deviation estimated returns rates using the Parameterized input option. The code even permits a fat-tailed distribution option. Show her the value of increasing, or the penalty of reducing, the planned saving schedule. The what-ifs are almost endless and yield sensitivity insights.
This could be a fun and educational project for both of you.
Best Wishes

Hi @PopTart
Hoping all is well at the A-squared household. Sure you're teaching the children well...as in, an equity is, a bond is......the markets fluctuate, but.........
Okay, I'll provide a few "are you sh*t'in me data points for broad healthcare.
>>>FSPHX and PRHSX from 1-4-99 thru 1-4-2008 (9 months before the full equity market melt)
---FSPHX return = 61% annualized with all distributions = 7.6%
---PRHSX return =161% annualized with all distributions = 20%
NOTE: from the end of December, 2007 thru March of 2008 healthcare had a hit of about -20% and then moved sideways until the full market melt in mid-Sept. of 2008
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?FSPHX,PRHSX&l=0&r=2262&O=111000
>>>FSPHX and PRHSX, 1-4-2008 thru 3-4-2009 (market melt equity bottom, eh?)
Both down about 40% during this time period. Healthcare was already moving to the downside long before the Sept. 2008 blowup.
>>>FSPHX and PRHSX from 3-9-2009 (end of equity market melt) thru 3-3-2017 (now)
---FSPHX return = +431% annualized with all distributions = 54%
---PRHSX return = +508% annualized with all distributions = 63.5%
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?FSPHX,PRHSX&n=2010&O=111000
>>>Last five years via M*, including the Ms. Clinton comments about taking healthcare/pharma "down". Click onto the 5 year to sort return list. Five year health category average = 17.6%
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/health/$FOCA$SH.aspx
As to the future directions....well, forces are pushing from many directions and there will likely be the continued swings in this equity sector. As to the challenges for the political faces portion, is part of this "lobby" link. One might presume that the big monies will continue to "talk", eh?
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=i
Now on the personal and sometimes scary side for this house, is at this time 67% of all invested assets are in equity with 80% U.S. and the other 20% mostly in Europe. Direct healthcare invests are FSPHX, PRHSX (before closed to us) and FHLC (Fido etf). With the other mutual funds, etf's or index funds; a M* snapshot indicates that 41% of our equity is in U.S./global healthcare. The majority of the monies being in the direct investments. These holdings placed a damper on our 2016 returns, but has us at 6%k YTD, thanks to the recovery in this sector. Keeping the faith at this time for this sector. Active traders are having even more fun; but this house doesn't play in the short time areas very much anymore; but attempt to watch for signs of sector "sickness".
Lastly @PopTart , I do believe PRHSX is available to those within some retirement plans or direct investors with the company, but as you know, not via Fido. Also, the better of these two mutual funds was PRHSX. Within the past several years, even prior to the manager change at PRHSX, FSPHX was traveling a very similar path for returns. Your having direct access to FSPHX should more than cover this area. You may also choose to review some of Fido's other health/medical related select funds. And keep in mind that you likely already have a decent amount of healthcare inside of broad based mutual funds or indexes.
I've tried my best to recall and submit everything I thought about earlier today to reference your post. I'm going to take another check of links and data to help eliminate any mistakes. Questions?
Take care,
Catch

The NY Times article cited is really depressing reading for current or former teachers. I may have made this point in another thread, but my view, as a retired faculty member and union officer and the spouse of a retired public school teacher, is that the NEA and its state affiliates have failed to properly represent the interests of teachers, especially with respect to retirement. I have observed a paternalism that expresses itself in opaque arrangements with third parties, probably negotiated in expensive restaurants in full knowledge that most teachers won't notice the commissions and high ERs on the products sold. @bee is obviously very knowledgeable about what is available in CT (my home state) and I wish others were as well informed. I was ignorant about my retirement plan when I started work and I doubt I was alone. I wonder if a course in financial literacy in HS might help.