FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304640104579487552023485062#printMode

As a whole, my portfolio dropped only 1%, thank you bonds, utility funds and some consumer staples stocks. However, my retirement accounts dropped by 3%, which is just a bit more than the S + P. Consider that portfolio holds FBTIX and ISTIX, and is all equities, I am not unhappy with it. It was not by my design that all my bonds are in my taxable account, the bonds were inherited and will have first call date June 2016, so no need to change anything right now. Bonds 32% Equities 66% Cash and equivalents 2%

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/906352/000093041314001721/c77145_497.htm
497 1 c77145_497.htm
FIRST EAGLE FUNDS
First Eagle Overseas Fund
1345 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10105
(800) 334-2143
SUPPLEMENT DATED APRIL 10, 2014
TO PROSPECTUS DATED MARCH 1, 2014
First Eagle Overseas Fund Closing to New Investors
Effective at the close of business on Friday, May 9, 2014, the First Eagle Overseas Fund (the “Fund”) will be closed to new investors, subject to the following limited exceptions:
• Existing shareholders in the Fund can continue to purchase shares of the Fund. An existing shareholder also may open and fund the following types of new accounts: (a) accounts opened with distributions or roll-overs from individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans or other employer sponsored retirement plans invested in the Fund; (b) accounts opened in a different share class of the Fund; and (c) accounts opened by way of share transfer from an existing account, provided the new account will be for the benefit of an immediate family member of the beneficial owner of the existing account, or has the same taxpayer identification number or primary mailing address as the existing account or is considered a “charitable foundation” related to the beneficial owner of the existing account for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code.
•Existing shareholders in broker-dealer brokerage and wrap-fee programs can continue to purchase shares and exchange into the Fund. Existing broker-dealer brokerage and wrap-fee programs can add new participants. The Fund will not be available to new broker-dealer wrap-fee platforms.
•The Fund continues to offer its shares through certain retirement plans that were invested in the Fund (at the plan level) prior to the Fund’s close.
•Existing registered investment advisers (RIA) that have an investment allocation to the Fund in a fee-based, wrap or advisory account can continue to add new clients, purchase shares, and exchange into the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fund. This exception is also available to accounts opened on certain mutual fund sales platforms designed to facilitate investments on behalf of investment adviser clients. The Fund will not be available to investment advisers, whether investing through a platform or otherwise, that are not already invested in the Fund on behalf of their clients.
• Accounts benefiting employees, officers, directors and trustees of the First Eagle Funds, the investment adviser or the investment adviser’s affiliates and their immediate family members can continue to purchase shares and exchange into the Fund.
• In the discretion of the Distributor, clients of select investment consultants having existing relationships with the Fund or the Fund’s investment adviser will be authorized to purchase shares and exchange into the Fund.
Subject to these exceptions, no new accounts in the Fund will be opened by way of exchange, transfer or purchase, unless the Distributor otherwise determines and documents in limited and exceptional circumstances that the investment would not adversely affect the Adviser’s ability to manage the Fund effectively. Prospective purchasers may be asked to verify that one of these exceptions is available prior to opening a new account in the Fund. The Fund also may decline to open a new account even if the account is otherwise eligible for an exception to the close.
The ability either to permit or decline purchases (or in some cases to limit purchases) in accord with the exceptions set out above relating to accounts held by intermediaries may vary depending upon system capabilities, applicable contractual and legal restrictions and cooperation of those intermediaries.
These terms may be modified in the discretion of the Board of Trustees.
* * * *
The information in this Supplement modifies the First Eagle Funds Prospectus dated March 1, 2014. In particular, and without limitation, the information contained in this Supplement modifies (and if inconsistent, replaces) information contained in the sections of Prospectus entitled “About Your Investment,” “How to Purchase Shares” and “Exchanging Your Shares.”

They incorrectly compared Roth and traditional contributions. Assuming tax bracket in retirement is unchanged, the end result is the same, assuming you add the tax savings to the traditional contribution.
I've posted a longer response on the Kiplinger site, which you can read by going to the regular (non-print) version of the article.
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T001-C000-S002-invest-in-a-roth-401k-if-you-can.html

Not much attention is paid to properly managing a portfolio after retirement which, for some retirees, can be 30 years or more.
"Gliding " into retirement might be helpful to lower risk early on in a retirees distribution phase, but a bigger concern, after this glide path is achieved, is the longer term consequences of an overly conservation retirement portfolio such as out living your assets. The concept of slowly increasing a retiree's portfolio to the appropriate amount of risk over the "last" phase of life is hardly ever discussed by retirement planners. In a sense, part of the portfolio needs to return to "flight" and be exposed to risk so it can continue to grow so it's available when a retiree reaches their 80's and 90's.
Here's a thought...instead of being used as retirement dated funds these dated funds now represent the portion of a portfolio that a retiree will use for income as they glide into that date. In a sense, one would hold a portion of your portfolio earmarked for 5 year increments that stretch out over the 30 - 40 years of retirement.
A 65 year old retiring today would divided their portfolio into 6-8 target dates out into the future...
2015 fund (use for current distribution over the next 5 years),
2020 fund (glide into 70),
2025 fund (glide into 75),
2030 fund (glide into 80),
2035 fund ( glide into 85),
2040 fund (glide into 90) and
2045 fund (Slide into 95...home)
How much to allocate is another important consideration, but time would allow the longer dated funds time to grow and therefore requiring less funding than shorter dated funds which would be needed for income.
Just some thoughts on an alternative use for these target dated funds.

It's an interesting concept, but I'll be a little critical of it as a catch all.
My score ranked, seemingly, around the 20th %ile. I suspect it would have been lower if it weren't for the reason Charles mentioned. But asking questions regarding *if* you have the ability to stick with a task doesn't address *why* you may or may not do so.
I have several learning issues which limit my ability to stick with any one task for extended periods of time. While I score quite high on tests designed to measure ability to manipulate information, testing regarding my immediate processing skills and short term memory rank in the 12th and 4th %iles respectively. In clinical terms I have ADD inattentive type and some form of dyslexia. Physically, I have been told I lack gray matter in my prefrontal cortex. The upshot is that I am highly distractable, forget things easily, and can wander through my day in a daze going from one incomplete task to another repeatedly getting excited for a new task while literally forgetting all about what I was doing not :30 prior. I don't have "grit" as measured by this test.
Yet my non-gritty brain structure also has the ability to conceptualize theory and future results very well. Certain things just make sense. So I am able to set long term investment goals and stick to them because I can conceptualize the framework of the time value of money. While I get slightly upset when things go down, I know that this is a lifelong plan, and that today's results are not my portfolio 35 years from now. If my stocks and funds have bad days, I use my distractability and go find something else to do. It's pretty easy for me. Having most holdings in tax sheltered accounts where I might incur penalties for withdrawl also helps.
My fiancee, I suspect, would score quite highly on the grit test. She's as practical as they come (other than marrying me), but she is not theoretical and does not have an ability to project money's future time value. At least part of that is an over-conservative and anxious attitude towards money learned from her mother (while my grandparents had me charting stocks at 6 or 7, teaching me about ownership in corporations. Like much in life, upbringing is so determinative). She has no intuitive grasp of liquidity, for instance, so wants money in a bank where she can get it immediately, just in case, and doesn't conceive the problems that causes with inflation. She would be entirely incapable of watching a market crash if she knew what she were invested in. So she has agreed to let me handle all retirement and investment accounts. She sends money with each check, I invest it and give her a report every year at Christmas.
Different strokes for different folks and all, but you have to be adaptive to life's complexities. I'm not sure this test completely measures that ability.

@cman: "For example USFIX gets its performance in its short life from overweighting short term junk bonds while having a small asset base. It has a short duration because of that allocation"
Not sure how you arrived at this. Morningstar.com says that 54.52% of their bonds have maturities over 30 years, and 11% in the 20-30 year maturities. And 16% of the bonds in the 7-10 year maturities. I only see 4.42% of their bonds as somewhat short term. My guess is that they have arrived at their 1.66 year duration by using derivatives rather than short term bonds.
I certainly agree that the opportunity cost can be large and is also a type of loss. But due to the very specific purpose for my fixed income allocation, probably the opportunity cost should not be weighted much.
One option I am seriously considering is FPNIX, because it has not had a negative calendar year return in 30 years, and they have as their stated purpose to not lose principal, and to be risk averse. But I would like at least 4 fixed income investments, with FPNIX probably being one of them. And since the purpose of my fixed income is to not lose principal, this is a top consideration. If I could find another 3-4 funds that do a great job with risk management and not losing principal, I would be set.
A great investment would be similar to the "stable value funds" that many 401ks have, which wrap fixed income investments in Guaranteed Investment Contracts, and manage to keep the NAV at $1.00 while still providing acceptable return. I'm not aware of these outside of retirement plans.
I also think that most fixed income managers hew pretty closely to a benchmark, and this limits them in managing risk and loss of principal. Bill Gross tends to use the Barclay's Aggregate Bond Index as the benchmark for his Total Return Fund, which limits his ability to keep the portfolio out of harm's way. And his unconstrained bond fund is very expensive, 1.30% plus a load for the A shares.

A silly and self-evident article, always underdone by 'except when this is not the case'.
Rightly or wrongly, in my retirement I invest only in otherwise good equity funds that have better-than-index downside behaviors. Else why bother?

Perhaps T. Rowe Price needs to head to Valley Forge, PA with a crabcake truck with the slogan "Why settle for "bread on the table" in retirement when, "for a little more", you can afford crab".
Also, Fidelity might want to counter with a "Select High Fidelity" truck (music, weed and oreo cookies).

Bee...good note, thanks...the sub-advisers tend to fly under the radar. In the case of Primecap, and as I am a long-term holder of two of funds you mentioned, I am a huge fan. I also held Vanguard Primecap many years ago in a 401K. The Primecap team has done more for my retirement account than ANY other firm...bar none. Not even close.

I deliberately shy away from the mega-huge big, gigantic names. Can't always do it. Retirement plans offer PRE-selected menus of funds to choose from. I see SFGIX has finally started to do something of late--- speaking of smaller funds/operations.

Hi Guys,
Wish and you shall receive.
There is no shortage of retirement planning tools and services; there are legions of them. They have been available for decades, and are getting better each and every day. The issue is not access to these fine resources, but in choosing one or more that you understand and trust. Note that I purposely suggested using more than one such calculator as a means to test result stability.
All the major mutual fund houses (Fidelity, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price) offer free access to their retirement planning toolkit. Many years ago, I deployed early versions of these tools to inform my retirement decision. I’m sure these extended calculators have improved since that time.
I supplemented these tool sets with my own Monte Carlo simulations. Projecting portfolio likely status, with an odds distribution map, is directly in the Monte Carlo’s wheelhouse in both the accumulation and distribution phases of a portfolio’s lifecycle. The mutual fund houses now make liberal use of this tool.
The Internet is almost choked with competing resources that do the same job, many of them are free and easy to exercise. In earlier posts, I mentioned many of my favorites. Here are three such references. This limited list is certainly not comprehensive, but it is representative of what is available with just a little effort by the pre-retiree.
I suggest that you consider the following resources if you want to engage in any needed retirement planning task:
http://corp.financialengines.com/
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/volatility/retirement.htm
http://www.flexibleretirementplanner.com/wp/
Access to Bill Sharpe’s Financial Engines is somewhat limited, but the other two Links are absolutely free. Financial Engines and Vanguard have partnered, so access is available through a Vanguard account.
These are user friendly simulators. I’m sure other MFO members can substantially add to this brief list.
The simulations run so rapidly that numerous what-if scenarios can be explored in short order. The job is iterative in nature. It is strongly influenced by user investment asset allocation preferences and the uncertainty of unknowable future market rewards. An investor’s optimistic or pessimistic attitude governs the exploration range of inputs. The Monte Carlo calculators permit a testing of the outcome odds sensitivity to this range of unknowable events.
In the end, the user gets to judge if a projected portfolio survival probability satisfies his own personal comfort zone.
A retirement decision is never risk-free. But these Monte Carlo-based simulators enhance the likelihood of a solid decision. The ball is always in the investor/candidate retirees court. Please consider using these Monte Carlo tools to improve the chances of scoring the winning basket.
Sorry, I prepared my comments before some of the intervening submittals, so some of my post is redundant.
Best Regards.

Thanks cman,
Coming from such a sharp knife I appreciate the comment here as well as respect your view points elsewhere.
Not sure if this is what you were looking for, but a quick google search provide these:
crystalbull.com/Critical-Mass-Retirement-Calculator/
or, this one from Mass Mutual?
massmutual.com/mmcalcs/RetirementIncome.html?site=retiresmart&contenttype=calculators
I started a new thread and requested help:
mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/12437/looking-for-a-critical-mass-calculator

Further along savings assets start to "grow" (in one year) in significant ways. They may begins to equals your yearly savings or even a year's salary. I believe it was at that point that the idea of retirement from a day job starts to become a possibility. For many of us, the 2008-2009 downturn ripped many of these thoughts from our heads. But when assets consistently throw off enough earnings to satisfy an individuals financial spending needs that individual starts to feel a sense of critical mass.

@bee, this is very wise thinking and something that resulted in a significant career change for me a few years ago. Not exactly retired but no longer beholden to a job.
After the critical mass (which will be different for each), a salaried job is a very poor investment in the bigger picture. Tax treatment of wages vs capital is so skewed in this country that typical upper middle class wages make no sense whatsoever except as means to accumulate capital as much as possible before you get out (which most people unfortunately don't do). Either you earn in the $180k+ range though in most cases it comes with a high stress or BS at work or you earn less than $60k or so in wages which comes with a lot of benefits which are not means tested and helps the growth of capital with favored tax treatment.
It is much easier to get a net return on capital after critical mass than it is to get on career growth because the game is stacked for capital and against wages and there are signs that it will be increasingly so.
If there was a tool out there for people to estimate their critical mass needs easily and early, it would help immensely in this new normal of short careers and stagnating wages.

Wish I had the author's problem...
I think Bob Brinker (who I stopped listening to on the radio a long time ago) would refer to a concept he called critical mass. A place where money is longer is a daily concern. I interpret this as an amount of money that meets the needs of an average retiree over an average retiree's lifetime invested in growth and income producing vehicles.
I believe we first grow our assets by saving. As saving accumulate (through investing savings) these assets start to represent multiples of our earned income. I remember saying to myself, "Cool, I have savings (assets) equal to a years salary (earned income)."
Further along savings assets start to "grow" (in one year) in significant ways. They may begins to equals your yearly savings or even a year's salary. I believe it was at that point that the idea of retirement from a day job starts to become a possibility. For many of us, the 2008-2009 downturn ripped many of these thoughts from our heads. But when assets consistently throw off enough earnings to satisfy an individuals financial spending needs that individual starts to feel a sense of critical mass.
Pensions, Social Security, and annuities help solidify some of these investment assets into income streams for those who chose to stop earning an income.
Here's Bob Brinker's website definition of Critical Mass:
A state of freedom from worry and anxiety about money due to the accumulation of assets which make it possible to live your life as you choose without working if you prefer not to work or just working because you enjoy your work but don't need the income. Plainly stated, the Land of Critical Mass is a place in which individuals enjoy their own personal financial nirvana. Differentiation between earned income and assets is a fundamental lesson to learn when thinking in terms of critical mass. Earned income does not produce critical mass......critical mass is strictly a function of assets.
Regardless of all this, I still pick up dropped change.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1377031/000116204414000360/ecologicsticker2014328.htm
497 1 ecologicsticker2014328.htm EPIPHANY FFV GLOBAL ECOLOGIC FUND
Class A shares: EPEAX
Class C shares: EPECX
Class N shares: EPENX
a series of
Epiphany Funds
106 Decker Court, Suite 226
Irving, Texas 75062
Supplement dated March 28, 2014 to the Fund’s Class A and C Share Prospectus, Class N Share Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated March 1, 2014
____________________________________________________________________
Effective immediately, the purchase of shares of the Epiphany FFV Global Ecologic Fund (the “Fund”) is suspended. This Fund will be liquidated on April 28, 2014. However, shares are eligible for exchange into another Epiphany Fund.
Accordingly, the prospectus has been amended:
References to Epiphany FFV Global Ecologic Fund. All references to the Fund in the prospectus and SAI are deleted effective as of April 28, 2014.
Suspension of Sales. Effective immediately, the Fund will no longer accept orders to buy shares of the Fund from any new investors or existing shareholders.
After March 28, 2014 and prior to April 28, 2014, you may 1) exchange your shares in the Fund for shares of any other Epiphany Fund, at the respective Epiphany Fund’s current asset value per share; or 2) redeem your investment in the Fund, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT EXCHANGED OR REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO APRIL 28, 2014 WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund at 1‐800‐320‐2185.
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated March 1, 2014, which provide information that you should know about the Fund before investing and should be retained for future reference. These documents are available upon request and without charge by calling the Fund at 1‐ 800‐320‐2185.
______________________________________________________________________
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/831114/000110465914023942/a14-9135_1497.htm
497 1 a14-9135_1497.htm 497
The RBB Fund, Inc.
Robeco Investment Funds
Robeco Boston Partners Long/Short Research Fund
Institutional Class
Investor Class
(INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OF THE RBB FUND, INC.)
Supplement dated March 28, 2014
to the Prospectuses dated December 31, 2013, as supplemented
THIS SUPPLEMENT CONTAINS NEW AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEYOND THAT CONTAINED IN THE PROSPECTUSES AND SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROSPECTUSES.
THIS SUPPLEMENT SUPERSEDES AND REPLACES THE SUPPLEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2014.
Effective end-of-day March 31, 2014, the Robeco Boston Partners Long/Short Research Fund (the “Fund”) will be closed due to concerns that a significant increase in the size of the Fund may adversely affect the implementation of the Fund’s strategy. The Fund will still be offered to certain existing shareholders of the Fund and certain other persons (who are generally subject to cumulative, maximum purchase amounts) as follows:
a. Purchases of Shares by discretionary fee-based advisory model programs or financial advisors who manage discretionary fee-based wrap accounts that systematically trade in and out of a Fund based on model portfolio allocations;
b. Persons who already hold Shares of the Fund directly or through accounts maintained by brokers by arrangement with the Company;
c. Existing and future clients of registered investment advisers and planners whose clients already hold Shares of the Fund on transaction fee and non-transaction fee platforms;
d. Existing and future clients of consultants whose clients already hold shares of the Fund;
e. Employees of the investment adviser and their spouses, parents and children;
f. Directors of the Company; and
g. Defined contribution retirement plans of private employers and governed by ERISA or of state and local governments.
Other persons who are shareholders of other Robeco Investment Funds are not permitted to acquire Shares of the Fund by exchange. Distributions to all shareholders of the Fund will continue to be reinvested unless a shareholder elects otherwise.
Robeco Investment Management, Inc. (“Robeco”), however, reserves the right to reopen the Fund to new investments from time to time at its discretion, should the assets of the Fund decline by more than 5% from the date of the last closing of the Fund. In addition, if Robeco reopens the Fund, Robeco has discretion to close the Fund thereafter should the assets of the Fund increase by more than 5% from the date of the last reopening of the Fund.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

Interesting article. There is one error in the article though. The article states:
"In 2005, target date funds held less than $100 million in total assets. After several years of double-digit growth — in some cases as high as nearly 50% annually — target date funds reached more than $500 million in assets as of 2013, according to a report by Morningstar Inc."
The Vanguard Target Retirement 2020 fund alone has 25 billion dollars of assets.

The best you can do is understand what annuities really are and where it works and doesn't and make a recommendation based on it.
Opinions on annuities vary but a lot of them aren't necessarily from a good understanding of them. The sleazy channels through which many of them are sold doesn't help either.
The biggest problem is that people (even some here) don't understand risk and what risk management is and they may not understand the concept of insurance either. All this comes from a lack of intuitive understanding of probabilities.
Annuities are a mixed investment and insurance product. As such, they behave differently from both.
There isn't a mystery to how annuities work. Any individual has two financial risks - market risk and longevity risk. There are ways to manage this but there is always a cost to managing risk. So, it is a trade-off between the potential impact of negative consequences of risk and the cost impact of reducing it. This depends on the individual circumstances.
Annuities work by taking on market risk and longevity risk but for a price. They introduce an insurer stability risk, but I will neglect that for the moment because that is handled differently.
If you knew you were going to live exactly for X years, there is no longevity risk and you can take market risk by investing the money. The problem here is one of cash flow because if the markets enter a bear period, you cannot assume an income flow without risking shortfall. If you had an investment product that guaranteed some X%, then you can take longevity risk by investing and drawing down based on that return. But the problem is one of shortfall if you were to live longer than you expect.
Annuities try to solve that and aren't by themselves evil, only bad fit depending on circumstances.
Annuities are NOT instruments to give you better investment returns or let you come out ahead than investing in your own. Nobody can offer annuities if that was the case.
Hypothetically, imagine if you could invest by yourself based on some assumption of market returns and longevity, AND you could take out an insurance on market downturns or longevity so you got paid only if the market went down or you lived longer. There would be a premium cost to that insurance that would eat into the investment returns. If you never needed that insurance, you have paid a non-refundable cost but you got a guarantee in case that wasn't the case. If you needed that insurance payout, then you MAY come out ahead. That is the way insurance works and this is what annuities basically are.
The way the annuities are priced aren't a mystery. The insurance company calculates present value of cash in reverse with assumptions on market returns and longevity. So, they can calculate a payout schedule for which the present value is the amount you want to put into the annuities. They are also managing risk and they are not nonprofit, so they account for that in two ways - one, with an insurance pool they reduce longevity risk, the same way life insurance works and they give you a payout whose present value is less than the amount needed for the annuity. The cost of doing business is accounted this way. There is nothing inherently evil about this, just an evaluation of whether the insurance premium is worth the insurance.
What are the alternatives? Investing on your own. People who suggest you can do so and prevent cash flow or shortfall problems if you have a long enough period really don't understand risk. Investing gives you return for taking a risk, if the returns were such a no-brainer, why would the markets give you those returns?
The key to understanding this is that there are different kinds of risks and some people have better ability to take on some risks than others and therefore can get a return for them. For example, if you have a time period over which you don't need liquidity, than you can get higher returns over someone that cannot take that illiquidity risk. The longer the time period, the better the returns. You can do this easily in the accumulation phase but not necessarily in the drawdown period and so you cannot assume those guaranteed results if you need liquidity.
The instruments that provide a return without liquidity risk may require you to take on other forms of risk, a common one being inflation risk. Or, it could be interest rate risk. This may create a shortfall risk if in a drawdown period and so some people may be able to take it on better than others and so get returns for it. So, there is no getting around the fact that every option has some risk you are taking on, if you expect a return. No amount of looking at the past is going to change that. Rewards may be commensurate with risk but not guaranteed by it.
So, the decision comes down to evaluating what risks one is able to take and the products that are right for it.
The starting point for this in a drawdown period is an evaluation of the financial requirement, both in terms of the absolute minimum needed (to avoid large consequences such as getting evicted, not getting health care, not having food, etc) that people can survive on if necessary and a desired need that will let them enjoy life as they would like to. The former is where you want to take the least risk.
Ideally, if you have enough capital you can self-insure not because you will be a better investor but you don't have as much of a shortfall risk and you can take on cash flow risk in down markets from the buffer.
Most people don't have that much capital in retirement years, so the calculation becomes difficult.
The next option if the above is not feaaible is a combination of annuities and investments. Ideally again, buying an annuity for that absolute minimum calculated above to take care of minimum cash flow risks and investing the rest taking on shortfall risks for the "discretionary amount" may be an option with lower amount of capital than self insuring all risks. The older the people get, the more feasible this option gets.
If there isn't enough capital to even guarantee the minimum with everything in annuities, then the reality is that one is underfunded and not something that can be fixed easily. The only option might be to take market and longevity risks and hope for the best in the time left.
There may be a partial solution by buying annuities with inflation risk taken by you than annuities that take on inflation risk for you as well and hence more expensive.
The above is a framework for that calculation for each specific person. Annuities may or may not be a good fit depending on personal circumstances and the price of available annuities for the risks outsourced.
In any case, the decision shouldn't be based on uninformed or uncertain (by being unfamiliar) opinions on annuities, they are just another financial product with good and bad applications. Just avoid the sleaze channels through which annuities are often sold and explore the options available in the context of the needs of this couple. That is the best one can do.

Thank you Ted, Old_Skeet and bee!
The Kiplinger article was really helpful and I plan to check out "The Moose."
I have seen the Fund Mojo before and will look it up again. I also sometimes check in to the Maxfunds site. I have used MFO for several years now and many of my current funds were bought after reading and following ideas from the site. I am completely in charge of my own retirement and I am always worried that I might miss something because I have pretty much rejected any outside help such as a financial advisor. What I like about McKee is his attention to risk. I have managed to do fairly well with my retirement planning on my own, but I can't really afford another major drawdown like I had in 2008.