Rjb, you really might want to look into Soviero's work, since you know what you are doing, or think you do :). Quite a ride but not quite as lumpy as these two guys.
An investment friend of mine in Boston who would know (quite a mucka, with a big firm and himself extremely wealthy) says that Heebner is, famously, an amazing nerd, sitting and researching for hours and hours reading and taking notes. I left his funds only upon forced retirement a year or two ago.

@cman:

You can see this as an extreme capital preservation strategy where the drawdown is at or close to zero under any scenario. They are definitely not for the kind of capital growth needed by the 99% to make their retirement.

So why do these managers create retail mutual funds? Because they need the money to grow the asset base and their revenues and it is easier to raise money from mutual funds especially if it becomes popular. They all look at funds like PRPFX (easiest money ever made by fund managers) and salivate and wonder why they are working so hard for just a few million.

Ha! Love it!

Funds/strategies like this are so outside the needs/experiences of typical retail investors as may be represented here that a discussion can only be generic as posted so far in which everybody is right but all miss the point.
There are a number of "opportunistic capital preservation" money managers like Frank Martin running boutique funds primarily for high net worth (HNW) individuals via word of mouth and networking. Some of them try to create retail funds for reasons I will cover later on. I, personally, know a manager like this, so some of the following is not necessarily what you might hear from such managers in public.
In private money management, the typical investor in such funds is a HNW individual with a few millions that may be needed in 2-3 years for some investment like real estate or a new business, money that they do not want to lose or be tied up without liquidity. They definitely do not NEED the growth from that money for their retirement but wouldn't mind if somebody opportunistically made some money on it.
You can see this as an extreme capital preservation strategy where the drawdown is at or close to zero under any scenario. They are definitely not for the kind of capital growth needed by the 99% to make their retirement.
The strategies vary using different asset classes from equities to bonds but the math is usually similar. The managers choose the allocation of capital to the opportunistic classes calculating Value At Risk so that the worst case scenario drawdown even in the short term (and hopefully the expenses as well) is balanced by guaranteed returns in the safest asset classes such as holding treasuries to maturity. In other words, they have fully "hedged" the potential downside.
The upside of the opportunistic class can vary but it is typically more like high yield or equity like returns in 5-15% range in the best case scenario. Dumb bell return asset classes like venture capital can also be used but very little of the capital can be put to work to be able to fully hedge it and picking almost guaranteed winners opportunistically is not easy.
In most cases, the asset picking ability of such managers is overrated. They have the luxury of waiting with nothing invested and growing nothing unless the asset meets the draconian investment criterion they set up for themselves. They just have to wait for a deep correction in the asset class or some other event that creates massive pricing anomalies.
The upside is usually a function more of the type of market condition (like a crash) they encounter and the frequency of such events than the asset picking.
This is very different from the funds that stay at 60-80% invested with an eye towards capital protection but cannot afford to flatline their returns waiting for opportunities.
Is a money management strategy like this relevant for typical retail investors? In theory, yes. But not for typical portfolios designed for growth overall that is of necessity. Not even to reduce volatility or adjust risk or benefit from bear markets. The reason is that there is no allocation to such funds that makes mathematical sense If you allocate a large amount, the potential opportunity costs in the flat line scenarios put your needed growth at risk. If you just put in a small amount, the opportunistic upside won't make much difference. It is relevant only for money (or a bucket) that you do not want to lose under any circumstance - down payment for a house, cash buffer beyond the emergency requirements, etc.
In practice, most retail investors either put such money in FDIC insured assets or put it in some short term bond funds and forgo the potential for opportunistic upside.
So why do these managers create retail mutual funds? Because they need the money to grow the asset base and their revenues and it is easier to raise money from mutual funds especially if it becomes popular. They all look at funds like PRPFX (easiest money ever made by fund managers) and salivate and wonder why they are working so hard for just a few million.
Raising money from a few HNW individuals has many disadvantages. It is very labor intensive and pretty much like getting political contributions. So, it is difficult to scale. It is also very lumpy as a few individuals coming in or getting out changes asset base substantially. On average, you need about $20M in AUM for every person you want to hire. Most private managers plateau out with less than $50M in AUM and always under a threat to lose chunks of it quickly from withdrawals.
So, retail and institutional funds are the next step for anybody who is tired of private money management and has built up a record they can advertise. With increased assets, they can hire people and take a much less active role in day to day management. Most go the advisor route because marketing directly to investors is expensive and difficult for specialty funds like this whose purpose is never understood enough.
The success rate in raising assets is not very high but people like Hussman give them hope. Tom Forester of Forester funds is probably the one big success story (relatively speaking in the ability to raise AUM) with an approach similar to Frank Martin early on.

I think the possibilities are almost without limit. Your company can probably work out whatever they want in there. There are tons of possibilities that are not possible in a regular Fidelity IRA.
For example, I have a company 401k with Fidelity and it contains the PIMCO Total Return Institutional Share Class PTTRX, 0.46% expense ratio, which normally has a $1 Million minimum, but in the 401k plan there is no minimum at all. It also has Vanguard Institutional Index Plus, VIIIX, an S&P 500 Index fund that charges only 0.02% expense ratio (2 basis points!), there is a private Stable Value investment as a choice, there are two DFA mutual funds, and DFA funds are normally not available to anyone who doesn't go through a Registered Investment Advisor, there is VBTIX, the Vanguard Total Bond Market Institutional class, with only a .07% expense ratio, etc........
So yes, your corporate 401k plan with Fidelity has a lot of flexibility to put funds into your 401k plan from many different fund companies, institutional shares, etc.....And mine also has a Brokerage Link option, where you can purchase anything available to anyone with a Fidelity Brokerage account.
I would lobby to get a Stable Value fund, which is a fixed income fund that uses Guaranteed Investment Contracts to produce an investment with a $1.00 NAV that always stays at $1.00/share, but has a decent yield. It's a super conservative, almost no risk fixed income investment that yields a lot more than the traditional counterparts such as CDs, MMAs, etc., and not available outside a 401k, so it is very unique. Standish BNY Mellon is a company that has these investments ready made, a very high quality company that I would recommend.
Regarding SGIIX, that's probably something your company would have to negotiate with Fidelity to see if they can get it in there. My guess is that the chances are good with respect to getting a bunch of institutional share classes in there, especially if your company has a decent size. The size of your company and the number of 401k participants may be a factor here. I would also lobby to get some DFA funds in there. Certainly you want some Target Date Retirement funds in there. I think the Brokerage Link is great, because you can purchase any stock/bond/mutual fund/ETF, so no one in the 401k plan will feel left out.

This math (cost differentials) reminds me of a retirement decision I grappled with a few years ago:
"When should I take my retirement pension".
My employer provided me with a retirement pension calculation chart to consider (an annuity chart of sorts) . Calculations started at 25 years of service and maxed out at 37.5 years of service. To simplify the math of this annuity chart, a 59.5 years old worker with 30 years of service could retire with a pension roughly equal to 60% of their salary. An employee could also continuing working (earning a full salary) for 7.5 more years at which time that employee would qualify for a pension roughly equal to 70% of their salary.
What I tried to get across to my follow workers who wanted to continue working towards qualifying for a 70% annuity rate was the fact that they were working for the differential (salary minus a pension @ 60% of last year's salary) or basically 40%.
Of course this worker would earn 40% more money while continuing to work and eventually qualify for a higher pension payment (70%), but from my standpoint these 7.5 years are the "last best" 7.5 years of our lives.
Aside from the enjoyment of work (not really), I was not willing to spend 100% of my time over the next 7.5 years earning a 40% pay differential (salary - pension). Much of this 40% differential disappears from net (take home) income anyway (in the form of pension contributions, union dues, Medicare / SS deduction, state and local tax deductions, and work related expenses).
Cost differential can be steeper than we might image.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Retirement-adviser-Christine-Fahlund-taking-her-5443293.php

Effective at the end of market trading (4:00 p.m. EST) on May 9, 2014, the Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund (WAFMX) will close to new investors. The Fund will remain open to existing Fund shareholders, as well as current and future clients of financial advisors and retirement plans with an established position in the Fund.
The Fund will also remain open to new and existing shareholders who purchase shares directly from Wasatch Funds.
Wasatch takes fund capacity very seriously. We monitor assets in each of our funds carefully and commit to shareholders to close funds before asset levels rise to a point that would alter our intended investment strategy. At this time we believe it is appropriate to begin limiting future access to the Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call us at 800.551.1700.
Regards,
Gene Podsiadlo
Director of Mutual Funds
Wasatch Funds

Referencing a previous thread here:
5 Ways To Protect Your Retirement Income
This was kinda my point regarding target date funds. They often get you "to" retirement. When you step off into retirement a target dated fund may not be designed to get a retiree "through" retirement.
Cman's comment (condensed paraphrased version):
Someone ought to do a target dated fund with a strategy of moving from indexed funds to all managed funds that have a good record of balancing performance with downside protection. Interpolate smoothly between them. It is not that difficult to do on your own either.
For me, the search is on to create this type of portfolio...Help welcome.

@bee: A managed payout fund could add to the discussion. Example:
Vanguard Managed Payout Fund (VPGDX)
Product summary/Fund facts:
"The Managed Payout Fund is intended to supplement an investor’s retirement income by paying a monthly distribution that is based on an annual distribution rate of 4%. The Managed Payout Fund invests in a number of Vanguard funds, providing exposure to a broad range of asset classes and investments.
The fund’s strategic objective is to try to make monthly payouts that, over time, keep pace with inflation. The fund seeks to balance its payout level with its potential for future capital growth. If the fund’s investment returns are low, the fund may distribute capital as part of its payout, which could lead to a decline in monthly payment amounts and in the value of fund shares over time."

Note in the article's pie chart which asset allocation from conservative to aggressive had the best returns over time.
Regards,
Ted

Thanks for the article Ted.
Here's an approach I would like others to comment on if you would be so kind.
For simplicity, I propose using Retirement Dated Mutual Funds to help a retiree properly allocate their overall retirement distribution needs during 30 or more years of retirement. Retirement Dated Mutual Funds have a built in mechanism that, over time, allows them to follow an "allocation glide path" from aggressive growth to conservative allocation at a specific date in the future. This eliminates the need for an individual investor to "manage" their retirment portfolio. Allocation decision are built into the overall protfolio by virtue of fund selection. in addition cost as low to resonable dpending on the fund selected.
I propose that these Retirement Dated Funds be thought of as Distribution Dated Funds. The date would coincide with the start date of a 5 year distribution period during retirement. As each five years period end another Distribution Dated Fund would be gliding into position to help fund distributions for the next five years of retirement.
If a retiree were able to determine what periodic distributions they would need (adjusted for inflation and in addition to their retirement income pension, SSI, annuities) and (over each five year period of time in retirement) they could then work backwards and determine initial funding levels using historical performance data as a guide.
So, for example, if one were to retire in 2015 at age 65 their retirement distribution portfolio might look something like this:
Retirement (Distribution) Dated Funds
2015 - Will provide distributions from age 65-70
2020 - Will provide distributions from age 70-75
2025 - Will provide distributions from age 75-80
2030 - Will provide distributions from age 80-85
2035 - Will provide distributions from age 85-90
2040 - Will provide distributions from age 90-95

Note in the article's pie chart which asset allocation from conservative to aggressive had the best returns over time.

Do you seriously need a chart to realize that? :-)
The "over time" is a problem when one is dealing with probabilistic end of life estimations. The returns are a function of start and end points as much as what happens in between and can make or break a retirement.
In the middle of bull markets everyone in the media preaches getting aggressive and being there right until the end. In bear markets, everyone preaches capital protection and reducing volatility.
I think this is where managed funds with an eye on capital protection can help. Rather than just deciding percentage beta exposure with age, keeping the allocation fixed and increasing assets in downside protection strategy funds as one ages. Starting with just index funds in the beginning when you don't need a life vest or friction on returns from active management. Moving to all managed funds towards the end that have a good record of balancing performance with downside protection. Interpolate smoothly between them.
Someone ought to do a target dated fund with this type of strategy. It is not that difficult to do on your own either.

Since I happen to own both PRBLX and a number of individual stocks, since the 1970,s and 1990,s, why not own both? It has served me well and now I'm 80 and my wife and I have enjoyed our retirement with a portfolio that will take me to age 95+ but don't expect to make that age. good luck. I like my stocks but also that PRBLX portfolio and management, who is the best there is

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.forbes.com/sites/fidelity/2014/04/25/5-ways-to-protect-your-retirement-income/print/

My last nerve got worn out on PAUDX and I replaced it with RSIIX. This was in a taxable account, and I'm using it as a holding in my pre-retirement bucket 1 build-out. I've held the same in retirement account for a bit, and have been pleased.
As an aside, my plan was to purchase ICMUX, but it seems that Schwab has a $100K minimum, which was a bit surprising. I need to sort through the other noteworthy 1* funds for a good alternative.
Press

Turned out to be really good event.
Some quick notes...
All measures passed. 1st >90%. Others 60-75%. Of votes at time of meeting.
I actually had opportunity to ask the new Chairman Charles Pohl and new President Dana Emery a few questions during open Q&A period...
DODLX is expected to launch 1 May. It will complete transformation of D&C into global investment house, which started with DODFX in 2003 and DODWX in 2008.
No new funds in pipeline. No plans for new funds.
No plans to close any funds at this time.
They instituted several lessons-learned after 2008/2009, including taking a more marco view of debt. Members of fixed income team now scrutinize equity fund holdings to "independently" assess credit risk. And, new officers appointed to assess risk across portfolio...no longer just looking bottom-up valuations of individual companies.
In more general comments...
Given current US equity valuations, they expect only single digit returns this year.
As of 3/31, DODBX has 66.2% equities, down from 75% last few years. (Mr. Pohl could not reveal current allocation, but from his tone, I suspect it's lower still.)
They too see low returns in fixed income and are postured against an anticipated interest rate rise by holding shorter duration bonds.
They remain wary of investing in China, Russia, some former eastern-block and EM countries because of poor corporate governance and attendant laws to protect shareholders.
Mr. Pohl acknowledged that virtually all of D&C's $110M employee retirement plan is invested in D&C funds.
The firm currently has 240 employees. Every analyst and fund manager is homegrown. Starting off as an intern while an undergraduate. They hire just 1-2 folks per year full time. Usually staying forever...

"Small funds need not apply."
Morningstar highlights nine funds in the article, with assets up to $101 billion. Those are drawn from a list of 28 that made the cut. Of those 28, one has under a billion in assets.
The key to making the cut: Morningstar must designate it a "core" fund, a category for which there are no hard-and-fast rules. Generally large cap and generally diversified, but also fairly large. There's only one free-standing fund with under $250 million in assets that they think of as "core."
There are a lot of "core" funds under $250 million but that occurs only when they're part of a target-date suite: Fidelity Retirement 2090 might have only $12 in it but it becomes "core" because the whole Fido series is core.
Morningstar's implied judgments ("we don't trust anyone over 30 or under a billion in assets") might be fair, but would be fairer if more explicit.
David

@cman, why do you suppose Vanguard decided to put an allocation to their Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund in all of their Target Date Retirement Funds as well as their "all in one" funds? Target Date Retirement Funds are probably going to see huge growth over the years, both inside and outside 401k plans.

No standalone active-passive fund management study is conclusive by itself. The issue has far too many dimensions to permit a single, all-inclusive analysis to address and to resolve all the multitude of issues. Since no universal investment Ironclad laws exist, all studies are empirical in nature. All models are simplifications of reality; hopefully they still capture the governing elements of that reality. They are all imperfect.

Now it is time to do damage control of the destruction of your own evidence from your opponent's arguments you cannot refute with a counter argument. This requires careful wording because it may require you to contradict your own introduction of the evidence based on which you made rather strong and definitive statements. The easiest is to use logical fallacies to create wiggle room. For example, if your evidence was shown to be invalid or flawed, then use the logical fallacy of the type "all evidence is incomplete and empirical and capture some reality, therefore mine does too". Jury will not see the well known sweeping generalization fallacy.

Selecting bias free data and study timeframes will always influence findings. That’s specifically why numerous studies are needed and will continue to yield more realistic insights. The MIG study fits into that grouping.

You can also use the fallacy of the type "different evidence validates different truths, thus this evidence as part of that group validates some truths". Jury will not recognize the false premise. Only valid and untainted evidence validate truths not all.

I believe the MIG team did an honest job. I even think they were somewhat surprised by their findings. I’m nudged in that direction by the way they presented their findings. Their very first table shows that 4 of their 6 major fund categories delivered positive Alpha before costs. But nobody invests without costs.

Now, it is time to build credibility of your own evidence. Asserting objectivity of the evidence gatherers is critical. Easiest to claim that they reported something they did not expect themselves for this. What better way to establish credibility? Jury will not know that this is well known in prior studies and claims have always been about after costs and fees. The thing that was new was including data from defunct funds.

In the same paragraph, MIG adjusts for costs and concludes that : “When comparing the median outperformance to the median fee for each asset class, the gross outperformance of the median manager has not justified the historical median fee. In other words, it seems that in the asset classes where active managers have added value, the median level of fees negated any advantage.”

Now repeat the already available prior studies' claims ignoring the very criticusm of this study. Even when your opponent has stipulated the valid conclusion of this study, that the average data over all funds is meaningful only if you choose a fund randomly over all existing and defunct funds, the main objection to the structure of the study.
There is no controversy about the performance after fees with that limitation in selection, so repeating this without the actual objection contributes to establishing credibility of the evidence. Remember, it is about convincing the jury, not arriving at the truth or knowledge.

Cman emphasized the “no cost” result to the detriment of the overarching negative Alpha after fees conclusion. That’s a little disingenuous, especially if you proclaim to have no ponies in the race.

With that, it is time to go on the attack again. By this time, the jury has tuned out or asleep to notice misquoting or mischaracterizing the opponent. For example, you can take a statement that talks about both before and after in the same sentence as a disingenuous attempt to emphasize the former. Strong words like disingenuous wake up the jury and it will stick.

Yet Cman elects to destroy the credibility of MIG’s efforts with ad hominem attack words like Junk Science and GIGO. All research is subject to errors ranging from incomplete data collection to poor practices to flawed data interpretations. But an honest attack requires full documentation, not merely shaky comprehensive assertions.

Now attempt to cast the opponent as destroying the credibility with strong words (while you smirk at the irony) rather than pointing out the flaws and limitations of the study to model reality. If the jury is still listening at this point, they will think it true because you have repeated often enough.
You can make the same assertion that the argument against the study requires documentation without mentioning that the only documentation needed to support a logical argument of the valid inference and limitations of the study is a book in logic. But the jury will think the opponent made some unsubstantiated claim of fact. Remember that it is all about credibility and narrative, not arriving at truth and knowledge.

It is not at all clear why MIG would have incentives to prepare a defective report since their reputation is at risk. They do have much skin in the game.

You can also use logical fallacies to establish the credibility of your evidence. One may create a defective report without incentives. It may not be defective at all for the audience it is targeted towards because it confirms a widely held view and there is a financial incentive for that purpose. But claiming ignorance of any such thing and asserting it must be valid because otherwise it would damage the firm is a fallacy of false choice since it assumes they are either necessarily aware of it or that if they were aware of the shortcomings they would necessarily care for the purpose it is used.

The MIG team that Cman so firmly criticized has over 600 billion dollars under management, has been in the consulting business since 1978, and has recently been awarded a competitively bid contract from the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS). I’m sure they have been on the wrong side of some investment advice, but so has everyone else. As a minimum, MIG has demonstrated staying power.

The fallacy of argument from authority is always a useful tool to have in one's pocket because it allows you to throw in a lot of irrelevant data. One can be all that and still write a flawed or a falsely concluded article but it always impresses the jury to throw credentials.

Hi Guys,
This post is very difficult for me. It demands a delicate balanced set of thoughts that just might be beyond my competency reach.
I really like Cman’s submittals. In general I agree with almost 100% of the informational content although I don’t subscribe to his lack of documentation. My admiration ends when he interjects opinions and assertions that are not supported by any analysis or references.
I believe Cman really tries to educate us. Most of my postings are similarly directed. However, I also think that his posts tend to be pedantic; so do mine. As the old saw goes “It takes one to know one”.
I know why mine are so oriented. I spent the larger part of my working experience trying to win competitive contracts. If I wasn’t absolutely positive of my positions, I lost the competition. Perhaps Cman faced the same daunting challenge.
But the Cman and my educational pathways bifurcate at the documentation juncture. Typically, his postings are full of assertions and opinions that are devoid of supportive references, studies, or actual data. It is impossible to judge the merits of these assertions if you are not intimately familiar with the subject matter. I try to be meticulous in this area; hence I’m pedantic.
Mark Twain was on target when he said that “All generalizations are false, including this one “.
Given the lack of supportive documentation, a fair observer might conclude that Cman has fallen victim to the behavioral handicap of Overconfidence.
His judgments are far too rash. He uses pejorative descriptors such as “Junk Science” and “Garbage In, Garbage Out” without describing the junk science elements or the garbage inputs. Garbage Out is an individual reviewer judgment and depends on his personal assessment of the work quality.
During my college years, I was infrequently exposed to “the proof is assigned to the student” charge. I hated that assignment then, and I still dislike it today, especially in the investment world. My interpretation: That assignment either comes from a lazy educator or one that is not confident in his own knowledge or capabilities.
Acting as an educator, Cman often fairly presents both sides of an issue. That’s great, although there are limitations. President Harry Truman detested two-handed economists. He particularly despised the “On the one hand this” and “On the other hand that” type of advice. He pleaded for a one-handed economist who proffered a plain decision.
Denials notwithstanding, Cman and really all MFOers do have a pony in the active-passive race. Costs and results do matter to everyone. The debate is NOT a done deal. Claiming an early closure is equivalent to proclaiming a victory while the battle is still raging. That mostly works to an opponent’s advantage.
No standalone active-passive fund management study is conclusive by itself. The issue has far too many dimensions to permit a single, all-inclusive analysis to address and to resolve all the multitude of issues. Since no universal investment Ironclad laws exist, all studies are empirical in nature. All models are simplifications of reality; hopefully they still capture the governing elements of that reality. They are all imperfect.
Selecting bias free data and study timeframes will always influence findings. That’s specifically why numerous studies are needed and will continue to yield more realistic insights. The MIG study fits into that grouping.
I believe the MIG team did an honest job. I even think they were somewhat surprised by their findings. I’m nudged in that direction by the way they presented their findings. Their very first table shows that 4 of their 6 major fund categories delivered positive Alpha before costs. But nobody invests without costs.
In the same paragraph, MIG adjusts for costs and concludes that : “When comparing the median outperformance to the median fee for each asset class, the gross outperformance of the median manager has not justified the historical median fee. In other words, it seems that in the asset classes where active managers have added value, the median level of fees negated any advantage.”
Cman emphasized the “no cost” result to the detriment of the overarching negative Alpha after fees conclusion. That’s a little disingenuous, especially if you proclaim to have no ponies in the race.
Yet Cman elects to destroy the credibility of MIG’s efforts with ad hominem attack words like Junk Science and GIGO. All research is subject to errors ranging from incomplete data collection to poor practices to flawed data interpretations. But an honest attack requires full documentation, not merely shaky comprehensive assertions.
It is not at all clear why MIG would have incentives to prepare a defective report since their reputation is at risk. They do have much skin in the game.
The MIG team that Cman so firmly criticized has over 600 billion dollars under management, has been in the consulting business since 1978, and has recently been awarded a competitively bid contract from the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS). I’m sure they have been on the wrong side of some investment advice, but so has everyone else. As a minimum, MIG has demonstrated staying power.
I really do want Cman to continue his informative postings. I agree with MFOer davidrmoran that his postings are often elliptical, but when decoded with care and when the unsupported proclamations are discarded, the submittals are substance intense and useful.
I’m positive that Cman will respond; that’s his nature and it’s fully expected and respected. Cman likes to morph simple problems into multilayered complex problems. Remember the classic WWII submarine movie titled “The Enemy Below”. It starred Robert Mitchum and Curt Jurgens as competing captains. The movie plot revolved around the “if I do this, he’ll do that, but he knows I know that so I’ll alter my tactics, but he’ll anticipate that change, so I’ll …..” endless logic circle.
In the meantime the adversary escapes, at least momentarily in this film classic. At some point the circle must be broken and a decision must be forthcoming (no action is part of the decision options). Studies have a diminishing returns aspect to them.
In the investment world, decisions must be made with incomplete information and always with an uncertain future. Further study and delay adds no value. So just do it or not, given a current assessment of the circumstances. I hope my positions on this matter are not elliptical.
Best Wishes to everyone, and especially to Cman.

One of the posters here considers SS as part or all of their fixed income piece of the pie. That's not a bad idea, especially with bonds as they are at the present. Something to consider.

SS is included in total assets when doing a cash flow retirement plan.