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

Many government retirement plans offer up to 25% in self directed mutual funds at outside firm such as Fidelity. CA state retirement plans are a mess with agenda that have nothing to do with best risk adjusted return. My wife worked several years for state - I need to move over to something like Fidelity balanced.

To clarify: I was referring to *pensions* that employees only pay into but have no control over how it's invested - those are the places witih the fat allocation to expensive hedge funds/PE black boxes. My state (MD) 403(b) also has the brokerage window where I could dump 0-99% of my 403 now into whatever fund I wanted to offered at TIAA or Fido ... but I'm happy with the one LCV fund I'm in now at TIAA, so I haven't used that.
I could probably buy into one or more 'alternative' type funds that way if I wanted to, but why?

@Tarwheel again I agree completely.
It's also why when I joined my state university system I avoided the pension plan and went for the self-directed 403(b). Many state pensions have huge positions in various (and costly) hedge/PE investments that I want no part of ... plus I don't trust the investing savvy of the political appointees overseeing the pension's investment, many of whom live and die by whatever the Wall Street favorite 'thinking' is at the time regarding allocations.
As I said at the time, if I'm going to lose or make money, I want to be the one responsible for it.
ETA: Somewhat off-topic but IIRC the Nevada State Pension is entirely in Vanguard funds. A WSJ article a few years ago talked about how 'boring' the Pension Chief's job was. :)

Many government retirement plans offer up to 25% in self directed mutual funds at outside firm such as Fidelity. CA state retirement plans are a mess with agenda that have nothing to do with best risk adjusted return. My wife worked several years for state - I need to move over to something like Fidelity balanced.

@FD100 @rforno
I have had a similar experience at Schwab with the local FAs who have been very helpful with moving money, checking on accounts and answering the phone almost immediately. They probably would have been happy to give me investment advice, if I asked. (This is in contrast to Vanguard where your local FA is a "team". Not much experience with FIDO in this regard.)
The current proposal concerns a firm outside of Schwab, not a Schwab FA. The fees are similar or lower than most actively managed mutual funds, and the fees for FI are actually lower than most active bond funds.
FD100, if I had a system as reliable and apparently as successful as you do, requiring little time, I would not consider outside advice.
I have had decades of experience and have read many books about "Lazy portfolio's" "Couch Potato Portfolios" " Ivy League Portfolio", but these tend to work best for the "Accumulation" phase of life, where you can "set it up and forget it"
The computer generated portfolios of Fido, Schwab and Vanguard are similar to these "Couch potatoes" but just more complex and rest on assumptions that most people are not aware of ( and may not agree with) , especially referring to their large % of foreign stocks recently. With bond coupons back up, the 60/40 seem more reliable, but 2022 was a disaster for people who suddenly found they had 15 to 20% less money then they thought on retirement.
For a long winded defense of the above read the thread on Bogleheads
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=412507&sid=16550dda64788e8838fa5d7004273d09
Now in retirement, my wife and I need advice on Roth conversions, withdrawal rates estate planning and are trying to avoid large drawdowns early on while maximizing income and return. I have investigated all of this and came up with similar answers, but it takes a lot of time.
While I am in good health, I believe as Lynn does , that my wife needs an honest and reliable firm to deal with the investments if I get hit by a bus, with more expert personalized advice than I think you will get at Vanguard. Fidelity seemed to offer a computer driven portfolio for a higher fee.
I have tried other advisors over the years with fractions of our money, and found them to charge 1.25% to put you in their firm's Bond funds and use a 60/40 portfolio to track the SP500. This is quite different than what I am looking for here.
I am starting small and will see how it goes.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1537140/000158064224000163/rondure-overseas_497.htm
497 1 rondure-overseas_497.htm 497
Rondure Overseas Fund
Investor Class - ROSOX
Institutional Class - ROSIX
(a series of Northern Lights Fund Trust III)
Supplement dated January 9, 2024 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated October 20, 2023
The Board of Trustees of Northern Lights Fund Trust III (the “Board”) has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Rondure Overseas Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or about February 8, 2024 (“Redemption Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments, will no longer pursue its stated investment objective, and will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, 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 REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE 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 1-855-775-3337.
This Supplement, and the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated October 20, 2023, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund at 1-855-775-3337.

Asset Allocation & Withdrawal Strategies in Retirement – Bolin
There is an interesting article by Charles Lynn Bolin ( @lynnbolin2021 ) on withdrawals in the January 2024 MFO issue. In the SUPPLEMENTARY information presented here, portfolio # won’t be used as they can cause confusion.
In Bolin’s Table #1 with 4 portfolios tested with 6% withdrawal rates, be aware that those are 6% withdrawals from the YEAREND balances every year. So, the amounts withdrawn will fluctuate widely with the market. The residual balances are shown in Figure #1 to indicate whether those kept up with inflation.
Interestingly, PV has a parameter PWR (under the Metrics tab) that provides max % withdrawals from YEAREND balances that will also leave inflation-adjusted residual at the end.
A reference is made to “the time-tested 4%”, but that so-called Bengen’s Rule has a different withdrawal regime – 4% of the INITIAL lump-sum that is subsequently adjusted annually for inflation; the PV run settings also allow for this and the related PV metric SWR is the max % withdrawal in this scenario (that will EXHAUST the portfolio).
One can also deduce from the PV run data the max % of the INITIAL lump-sum that is subsequently adjusted annually for inflation AND leaves inflation-adjusted initial lump-sum at the end, and that % is SWRM.
The table below shows PWRs, SWRs, SWRMs.
Portfolio; PWR; SWR; SWRM
50%VFINX + 50%VTRIX; 5.59%; 7.71%; 6.79%
70%VFINX + 25%VBMFX; 5.92%; 7.77%; 6.96%
50%VFINX + 25%VTRIX + 25%VBMFX; 5.40%; 7.46%; 6.50%
VFINX; 7.06%; 8.77%; 8.19%
Bolin’s conclusions about inflation adjusted residual balances are consistent with whether the PWR is less than, or greater than, 6% in the table above. It is also interesting that all could support Bengen-style 4% (w/COLA) and even higher (note SWRs). In fact, all would leave more than inflation-adjusted initial lump-sum even with 6% w/COLA (note SWRMs).
Of course, all the data and conclusions are for the period 01/1987-12/2023.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2024/01/asset-allocation-and-withdrawal-strategies-in-retirement/

FD thinks we’re all 25 years old and should therefore be positioned for the next 50 years.
(Try 25+25+25+3)
Would he tell his great grandma who’s depending on the money to see her through retirement to throw it all into the S&P?

"Simple" question: what do you think will generate better results for Joe average investor during his lifetime...holding up to 5 funds and hardly trading, or using 10+ holdings with more trading?
[snip]

Let's not conflate trading with the number of funds an investor holds.
They're two different topics.
There has been ample research indicating investors who trade frequently often fare poorly.
You may be familiar with the seminal paper titled “Trading is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors” by Brad Barber and Terrance Odean.
Your prior post stated:
"I could never understand why anyone has more than 7-8 funds (they are usually the ones who say, there is no right number). You go over 10 funds and you are over-diversified. What usually happens with over 10 funds? you are not sure and/or you have owned lagging categories for years. You already know that the SP500 beat most funds over 15-20 years so why do you own so many funds? This was my initial start (1995-2000) investing 90+% in VG Total index and the rest in VG growth."
Regardless of your opinion, there isn't an arbitrary number of funds which is optimal for every investor's unique circumstances. A young investor who is risk tolerant and has many years until retirement can reasonably have only a single fund in their portfolio (e.g., Total World Stock Index fund or target-date fund) if they so choose. Many Bogleheads are fond of a three-fund portfolio often comprised of Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX), Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund (VTIAX), and Vanguard Total Bond Market Fund (VBTLX). This is a good strategy but it may not be right for everyone. Investors with multiple accounts should probably consider fund availability, optimum asset location, tax consequences, risk tolerance, and personal preferences when constructing their portfolios. These considerations can lead to having more funds than you prescribe. Bottom line - there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution.
The S&P 500 performed very well over the trailing 10-year and 15-year periods.
It was a very different story during the "Lost Decade" (2000-2009) when the S&P 500 basically went nowhere.
Would the average investor with a large S&P 500 position have the fortitude to stick with this investment
during the "Lost Decade" or would they have sold before the S&P 500 recovery started?
Wouldn't it have been beneficial to also include foreign stocks and/or investment-grade bonds in the portfolio?