The author disagrees with the often recommended notion of stashing away 3, 5 or 10 years spending in cash or short term treasuries to ride out potential market downturns. It’s a popular notion often recommended here and across the financial press.
His investment portfolio: ”Beyond cash, all a retiree needs is one ‘bucket’ for investments. The portfolio would hold between 50 and 75% in equities for those following the 4% rule or similar retirement spending strategies. The remaining 25 to 50% would be held in intermediate term Treasuries and TIPS.”
I’m pretty much in agreement with @Crash. I generally don’t bother to maintain a bucket at all, but sell / withdraw from investments “across the board” two or three times during the year for basic needs or major expenses. If the markets get a little “crazy” on the upside, I may pull out an entire year’s spending ahead of time to lock in that extra return. During withdrawals I also rebalance, taking a higher percentage from those assets that have appreciated the most. (I am aware that some here refute the notion of rebalancing at all. )
But your position is probably different. My pension (with some limited cola) and SS (inflation adjusted) could probably cover basic necessities (but not infrastructure maintenance, travel, new vehicles). So I can’t put myself in the position of those who live entirely off investments. It’s a huge difference and so “buckets galore” might well be the preferred route for them.
FWIW - I only started keeping accurate year-by-year records in 2007 (but have some generalized averages from before). Beginning with 2007 (the past 17 years) I’ve had three “down” years. Two resulted in single-digit losses. But ‘08 was nasty with a loss of over 20%. That suggests to me, anyway, that a large cash stash isn’t warranted. To wit - this simplistic analysis overlooks both the magnitude and the duration the market downturn that began in 1929. A multi-year downdraft in equities of that magnitude would inflict greater pain. (But there’d be other more serious issues to worry about.) Recent downturns have been much shorter and may have given some of us a false sense of security. Also, the Japanese experience in the 90s and afterwards should sober any who look at it.

The 3 bucket strategy increases complexity and requires too much maintenance.
The author's recommended approach seems prudent:
"Beyond cash, all a retiree needs is one 'bucket' for investments.
The portfolio would hold between 50 and 75% in equities for those
following the 4% rule or similar retirement spending strategies.
The remaining 25 to 50% would be held in intermediate term Treasuries and TIPS."

Harold EVENSKY, the originator of the bucket system, had just 2 buckets - one for short-term money that didn't belong in the market, and another that was in the market for long-term. It just formalized the idea that the money one needed soon didn't belong in the market.
But his followers, especially Christine BENZ at M*, "refined" it into 3 or more buckets. Then elaborate systems followed to fill them up.
So, this 2010 interview of Evensky by Benz is interesting.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/330323/the-bucket-approach-for-retirement-income
Edit/Add. Also found a related MFO thread from 2021, https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/58461/cash-flow-strategy

There are many varying components, regarding the CDs that fit your personal situation, whether you are talking about CDs for taxable assets vs. retirement assets, what kind of termination fee components work for you, etc. etc. I prefer Bank CDs for my taxable assets, where liquidity is not as impacted by early termination fees, and where taxable accounting can easily be spread across multiple bank accounts. With my IRA assets, liquidity and early termination fee components are not as relevant, and it makes my life "simpler" by having all retirement investments in one brokerage--easy end of year accounting with one brokerage, that provides instant RMD and "taxable consequences" for account withdrawals. I am willing to invest in lower yielding CDs in my IRA brokerage account, where I use more of a laddering system of CD selection, and not concerned as much about liquidity and early termination.

@Sven Yes. Current Income Sources: defined benefit pensions = 45%, taxable investment account = 30%, social security = 25%. (Also have two smaller Roths that are not being tapped.) Taxable investment account has grown substantially since retirement. Exhausting it is not a significant concern (wife and I also have good long term care policies taken out during pre-retirement planning phase). Just don't appreciate fluctuations in account balance in years account balance does not end at new high. Restricting annual withdrawals to some or all of the dividend income already sitting in the account at end of year helps keep those fluctuations in perspective. It also simplifies the year end review.

@davfor ...in an ideal world, the dividends/distributions generated in your IRA would sufficiently cover your RMDs as well.

I'll take you word for it. But, I don't face any RMD requirements. So, that's an uncharted world to me. About 90% of my investment $'s are invested in a taxable account. That account is the focus of my annual withdrawal ruminations. During most of my working years, available cash was funneled into a weekend real estate investing hobby. The limited $'s that were set aside in a tax deferred retirement account were withdrawn in annual steps from the age of 55 when I retired until the age of 62 when I began to collect social security.

There are 2 separate issues.
I was commenting on the infeasibility relying only on distributions for meeting RMDs.
But with larger IRA accounts, the RMDs are large, and may be sufficient to meet retirement expenses. Then, there is no worry about SWRs. Or, the RMDs may only need small supplements from the portfolio. So, that becomes a valid retirement withdrawal strategy. However, for many, the RMDs aren't enough for expenses.

@MikeM and @Mark: I'm an adherent of the CG ETFs, also. CGGR, CGGO, and CGDV in three different family accounts. I never owned American MFs, probably because of loads, altho I do have access to Washington Mutual in my retirement account. Capital Group seems to know how to select effective teams.
I like what Harbor Funds has done in the past in choosing outside managers for actively managed funds. With their ETF lineup, a Jennison Associates group runs WINN and a team of Europeans at CWorldWide Asset Management has OSEA. FWIIW, Harbor did not do well with MFs run by a single or star manager (such as Marsico). For ETFs following an index, it may be that a single person can handle the job.

I cringe when people talk about stocks for all times and talk only about good times. People have to deal with markets they are in. So, these historical data are useful for perspectives.
In the charts above, I tried to add SP500 but couldn't. I looked up SP500 index data:
12/1964 84.75
12/1974 68.56
That was -19.10% index return during that 10-yr period. I couldn't find reinvested SP500 TR for that period - I think that it still would be negative. In that time, VWELX was just flat, but DODBX and FPURX were positive. Did the people investing in 1965 know this? If not, what would have been a prudent course, especially if decumulation in retirement was expected.
10-yr periods ending around dot.com bubble, the GFC, the 2020 Pandemic were difficult too. So, that is the lesson - bad stuff happens, and occasionally.

Or ... we can see now (sort of). Using the conventional 30 year horizon and the usual 4%/year (inflation adjusted) assumed spend down amount, a 20 year cash cushion would result in 80% in cash, 20% invested. Setting aside 5 years of cash would result in 20% in cash, 80% invested.
Portfolio Visualizer only goes back to 1985, but that covers the 1987 crash, the dot com bust, and the great financial crisis. Run PV through 30 year periods (or to 2024 when starting after 1994), rebalance annually, withdraw 4% annually, inflation adjusted.
The worst start year, not surprisingly, is 2000. That's starting with a market collapse and going through another one in the same decade. A lost decade for large cap stocks.
Here are the nominal results of three portfolios from Jan 2000 - Dec 2023. The first starting with 20 years of cash, the second with 5 years of cash and the rest in VFINX. The third with 5 years of cash and the rest invested 60/40 VFINX/VBMFX. After the 24 year period ...
20% stock/80% cash - 14% remaining (7.7% inflation adjusted)
80% stock/20% cash - 42% remaining (23% inflation adjusted)
48% stock/32% bond/20% cash - 73% remaining (40% inflation adjusted)
For the remaining six years, you'd like at least 24% (4% x six years) remaining in real dollars. The 80/20 mix almost makes it, and the balanced portfolio makes it with ease.
If you're wondering what would happen to the 80% cash portfolio without rebalancing, it would have come out about the same (a half percent worse). The others would have come out worse than with rebalancing.
Here's the PV run. You can experiment with it yourself.
Many years ago, Suze Orman said she was keeping almost all of her assets in TIPS. Which was fine for her - she didn't need to grow her portfolio and TIPS wouldn't be degraded by inflation. That doesn't work for most people, who need growth even in retirement. (4% withdrawals with no growth lasts only 25 years.)
I think @Crash said something similar, though in a different way.

Just goes to show that the stock market is NOT a utility, doesn't care that you need 7% annual returns to fund your retirement and it is very risky...what have we had like TWO, 50%+ drawdowns in the past 15 years or something and another couple -20%.......it exists to provide capital to fund companies so they theoretically can grow their business.
A lot of this looking backwards is just a bunch of hooey...what if...what if...so much is different...most successful companies now have way less employees, use way less capital...market valuations have trended higher in the past what 20 years or something? Sooo much more private and gov't debt out there....It's like saying "the last time the Yankees played in a World Series 12 years ago where they had home field advantage they won...never mind that only 2 playes were on the team then, they are playing a different team etc etc...(this is a hypothetical example)..like WTF does the recovery time in 1974 etc etc have anything to do with today? Please.
Jared Dillian said it best recently..."a lot of "investing" is just entertainment"...that is why crap like CNBC exists....the largest comedy show on TV these days...
All that being said, as long as we don't go full blown Bolshie in this country and still have a semblence of Capitalism, I would not bet against the USA...but am thinking you might not be able to do better than a Berkshire that owns blue chips stocks, well run relevant businesses, utilities, railroads, insurance companies...AND has what $150B of Tbills...might be the way to go, who knows?

“Hats-off” to Charles Lynn Bolin for his exceptional article: ”Asset Allocation and Withdrawal Strategies in Retirement” in the January issue of The Observer. In early December, returning home from a short trip to Florida, I hastily tossed up a thread - ”New Report: All Stock Portfolio Beats Stock and Bond Mix Over Time (Originally From Bloomberg)” while awaiting a connection at Chicago’s O’Hare. Time was short. I had no idea the thread would garner so many insightful comments from board members - let alone become the genesis for a future article in The Observer.
Charle’s article is so comprehensive and rich in documentation that any attempt to summarize or characterize it by me seems futile. He begins by linking to the thread, followed by a listing of a dozen or so different aspects of the study’s premise as identified by discussion participants. This is followed by literally reams of historical data. In essence, he’s trying to identify the “right balance” among risk, time span, relative asset performance over different time periods, withdrawal strategies, etc.
While stocks have beaten other investments over the past 130 years, Charles notes that most of us have a somewhat shorter investment horizon. And he identifies some potentially more reasonable risk-averse approaches: ”To illustrate the benefits of having a balanced portfolio, from 1999 until 2020, the conservative Vanguard Wellesley (VWINX) and moderate Vanguard Wellington (VWELX) have beaten the S&P 500. This illustrates the importance of starting and ending points – sequence of return risk. A high allocation of stocks in 1999 could have impacted savings for the remainder of retirement.”
Finally, Charles outlines his own investment allocation and approach, which includes modifying his equity exposure (within a set range) from time to time based on his read of market conditions.

Thanks for the comments. For about the first 15 years of retirement, I focused on total returns to help determine the withdrawal amounts from my investment portfolio . This method turned out to be somewhat complicated and stressful due to significant sequence-of-returns variations in the annual returns. The chart above suggests that basing withdrawals from a prudently developed dividend stock portfolio may well be a sustainable way to guide withdrawal decisions that can somewhat reduce annual volatility. And, as @WABAC says, the simplicity of the approach has appeal. My portfolio is 70% invested in stocks. That complicates things a little bit because part of my dividend income comes from investments that are not stocks -- almost all bonds and money market investments in my case. Part of that income should be retained in the portfolio each year to compensate for any CPI increase during the year. In my case, this can easily be done at the end of the year when my once a year distribution is determined and made. The CPI for the year just ending can be multiplied by the 30% non-stock portion of the beginning of the year portfolio balance. That amount can then deducted from the total annual dividend income received to determine a suggested withdrawal amount for the year just ending. That is essentially the procedure I am currently using......

Agreed!
And after a partial rejigger in January, I find myself at 57 stocks 37 bonds and 5 cash. Close enough, I guess. PRNEX is more trouble than it's worth. Gonna exit and redeploy the money in that one. Too volatile, and performance has been yucky.
Still maintaining a hard wall between retirement accounts and taxable stuff. Taxable is up to 14% of portf. total now. Retirement $$$ is all in funds in TRP, except for BRUFX. Taxable (so far) is all in single stocks.

@Crash - Only $5 cash? Been there myself a few times …
:)
Seriously. Just 5

% of portfolio in cash. I guess that’s called “conviction”.
(No reference to any political figure intended.)

Yes, We have money in the bank. We grow it, then it disappears--- for use at school to pay the kids' tuition. Got the car loan down to $2,600.00. So, when that amount is zero, it will help to add some free cash and I'll put it in MM Treasury fund (sweep) PRTXX. That 5% number is all the cash our Fund Managers have decided upon, collectively. All along the way, I've always been "cash-poor" in the portfolio, trying to reach a total amount goal. We're not far away. But opposites attract: wifey creates expenses. She works. I don't. I don't complain. We'll get there, as long as I don't screw the pooch.

Agreed!
And after a partial rejigger in January, I find myself at 57 stocks 37 bonds and 5 cash. Close enough, I guess. PRNEX is more trouble than it's worth. Gonna exit and redeploy the money in that one. Too volatile, and performance has been yucky.
Still maintaining a hard wall between retirement accounts and taxable stuff. Taxable is up to 14% of portf. total now. Retirement $$$ is all in funds in TRP, except for BRUFX. Taxable (so far) is all in single stocks.

@Crash - Only $5 cash? Been there myself a few times …
:)
Seriously. Just 5% of portfolio in cash. I guess that’s called “conviction”.
(No reference to any political figure intended.)

Agreed!
And after a partial rejigger in January, I find myself at 57 stocks 37 bonds and 5 cash. Close enough, I guess. PRNEX is more trouble than it's worth. Gonna exit and redeploy the money in that one. Too volatile, and performance has been yucky.
Still maintaining a hard wall between retirement accounts and taxable stuff. Taxable is up to 14% of portf. total now. Retirement $$$ is all in funds in TRP, except for BRUFX. Taxable (so far) is all in single stocks.

Very straightforward and readable. Thanks, @davfor. Needless to say, no one should try to exactly mimic what someone else has done, but there are lessons to be learned. One thing of note: he expresses that he was forced by health issues to retire early. Regardless of the reason, anyone pushed into retirement early will have to do some re-thinking and re-jiggering of the portfolio. (Unless you're independently wealthy.)
"Any thoughts on this?" For one thing, the stocks I choose all must offer me at least a 3% dividend. I stole that rule from someone on a board I've been banned from. I can use some measurements and statistics to understand more than a novice, but I get lost in the weeds when I try to run with the Big Dogs who can look at complicated charts and very granular statistics and stuff.
So: "KISS" it. "Keep it simple, stupid."
I just discovered a tiny bank out of Richmond, Indiana. I like smid-banks. I won't give a penny to the Behemoth Banksters who all fleece the public. Some might be worse than others, but I just steer clear. If you have a mind to do it, take a look at RMBI. The dividend stands at over 5% right now. And its moneymaking thesis is utterly simple and straightforward. Nothing fancy or convoluted.
Like the writer, I hold REITS. Just a SINGLE REIT, so far, though. I suppose I will forever be growing my stuff, rather than relying on income-production via dividends. One must be ready to flex, but for the time being, my choices are made, and a single adjustment will happen sooner or later. Still keeping an eye on when to make that tactical move.
Midstream oil/gas? Yes, the GIANT one he does NOT own: ET. It's an LP. I suppose taxes will not be an issue if I just never sell it. Wifey will get the step-up basis.

I'm surely glad to have clicked on THIS thread. Thank you, David and David.
Ever since I started out in investing, just beginning my 403b, always self-directed--- I knew I must constantly stay on top of whatever I could get my hands on in terms of information.
THEN, the the job is to draw conclusions which mean something from it all. Yes, I'd bought into the "stocks for the long-run" argument.
But over the years, I saw more and more clearly, that one must be at least a bit fluid and flexible. A refusal to make any changes can indeed spell doom.
Now in retirement, I've got an income stream from both bonds and stocks, but don't need them, so they get reinvested. And EVERYONE'S circumstances are different. Still more stocks than bonds, however. If and when I get into PRCFX from David Giroux, that picture will change over time, but very slowly.

This chart suggests that utilizing the income received from dividend paying stocks may be prudent during retirement for portfolios concentrated in stock investments if a somewhat consistent stream of income is important. Any thoughts on this?

The areas shaded gray show periods when the real value of the dividends from the S&P 500 decreased. Notice that they did not decrease much and decreased far less than the real index value. During those periods, a retirement strategy based on those dividends would have been far more successful than one based on total returns.

Relying On Income From Dividend Paying Stocks