Big fan of Roth conversions. Did 3 - all post retirement, Couple nice features: No RMDs + when you need a large amount all at once for a major purchase the $$ is easily accessible w/o having to worry about the tax hit.
As sma3 alludes, the best investments after the Roth is established would appear to be the growthier ones - particularly if you have a very long time horizon. Not a done-deal however. If you felt markets were high in terms of valuations, you might want to keep more conservative investments in the Roth for a while. A dollar’s loss in a Roth actually hurts more than loosing a $ in a taxable Traditional IRA. Another way to look at it: If you gamble with a highly speculative investment inside a Traditional IRA, Uncle Sam is party to any loss. But if you gamble inside a Roth and lose money, it’s 100% your own money.
No rigid rule here. But have tried over many years to position my best and most stable funds inside the Roth (those with low fees, long proven track records, highly reputable firms). Newer funds, smaller balances, and the assets I trade in and out of more have ended up in the Traditional. Also - hardly ever keep cash in the Roth.

Anytime. I am paranoid and have a policy since I got married. As soon as you have any assets ( and anyone with a house qualifies, given most real estate markets now) you could be a target. Doesn't happen very often; I cannot say I have ever heard of an acquaintance loosing their house or retirement plan over a court case (other than divorce) but that is why you buy insurance.

Re: CIF aka CIT:
"CIFs are generally available to the individual only via employer-sponsored retirement plans, pension plans, and insurance companies. Other names for them include common trust funds, common funds, collective trusts, and commingled trusts."
------Investopedia.

Thank you all for the excellent information.
I reside in Washington state which has strong creditor protections for "employee benefit plans."
Here's a snippet from the corresponding state law:
"The right of a person to a pension, annuity, or retirement allowance or disability allowance, or death benefits, or any optional benefit, or any other right accrued or accruing to any citizen of the state of Washington under any employee benefit plan, and any fund created by such a plan or arrangement, shall be exempt from execution, attachment, garnishment, or seizure by or under any legal process whatever."
This law specifically states that employee benefit plans include: IRAs, Roth IRAs, HSAs, 403(b) accounts, etc.
Link

most of the protections carryover from 401k/403b to such Rollover T-IRAs
Unless a debtor files for bankruptcy, rollovers receive no protection under the Bankruptcy Abuse Protection and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA). Seems self-evident.
Outside of bankruptcy, federal protections don't carry over to IRAs, including rollover IRAs:

protection is much different outside of bankruptcy. For example, what happens if you (or your dependents) get into a car accident or cause some other damage and have a large judgment against you? First off, the ERISA protection for assets in a qualified plan would still apply. That means any money in a company retirement plan would be safe from collection. However, unlike bankruptcy proceedings, that protection is lost once the monies are distributed out of the plan. This includes rollovers to IRAs.

https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/creditor-protection-iras
Rollover monies may still receive better protection than contributory funds in IRAs under state law, but that's not "carrying over" the 401k protection. For example:

If you roll over funds from an ERISA account [in California] into an IRA, those funds remain 100% exempt [protected]. This is the case even though the IRA is not fully exempt in California.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/are-my-retirement-accounts-protected-from-judgment-creditors-california.html
There are no similar protections for [rollover] Roth IRAs
My guess as to where this comes from is the fact that many states afford Roth IRAs less protection than T-IRAs. But this difference in the treatment between traditionals and Roths doesn't care where the money comes from - rollover or contribution.
As far as the BAPCPA is concerned, a rollover is a rollover, whether traditional or Roth:

Because of the unlimited exclusion for qualified retirement plan assets transferred into a rollover IRA, CPAs should always ensure that rolled-over retirement wealth is segregated in a rollover IRA that is distinct from other traditional or Roth IRAs that the debtor may own.

https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2006/jan/protectretirementassets.html
See also: https://mgoprivatewealth.com/ideas-insights/now-you-know-the-only-difference-between-a-rollover-ira-and-a-contributory-ira-bankruptcy-limits/
If you want a less wonky source, though I'm not fond of citing it, Investopedia says:

For the purposes of BAPCPA, a rollover IRA is a traditional or Roth IRA account that was originally funded through a transfer from a qualified retirement plan.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/081915/my-ira-protected-bankruptcy.asp

@Staycalm
Useful philosophical musings, but I have rarely seen concern for fairness in any policy making. There are many examples on both the right and the left. Lefties point to the tax structure etc but my favorite still has is the outrageous health insurance benefits (in CT work for the state for ten years, then quit and you still get lifetime health insurance!), retirement funds ( top 3 year average including overtime determines defined benefit) and high salaries a lot of state Government union workers continue to get, just for signing up ( and keeping) a job.
More to your point and what would happen in a default: I expect the reaction worldwide to an actual default would be so extreme that there would be little thought given to prioritizing in the days ahead who got paid with what was left.
After the Dow etc. drops 10000 to 15000 points overnight, ( and Gold goes to $5000 ) the debt ceiling will quickly be passed. Any legislator who votes against it will likely be run out of town.
@fred495
To take maximum advantage of the possibility, I would buy Treasuries and Gold, but be prepared to trade into stocks quickly. Other commodities necessary for survival will probably also skyrocket, although since most are priced in Dollars, hard to tell.
I don't think accumulating a month's worth of expenses in dollar bills is a bad idea either, or stocking up on canned goods and booze. I will certainly fill up my gas tank. ATMs and credit cards will probably not work very well.

Pretty similar portfolio & outlook to what @sma3 described; six years into retirement here with enough to last as long as I don't sustain significant losses. I'm slowly increasing three bond oef positions, expecting at best to get the yields as total returns ... and that would be just fine.
A next level of optimism would prob'ly lead to positions in allocation funds like CTFAX and/or WBALX, a conservative equity fund like PVCMX, and possibly an alt fund (long-short equity?) at least somewhat in synch with whatever the situation turns into.
About middle of the year, roughly half my T bills will have matured and I'll need to have a new allocation plan in place. Not particularly optimistic that there will be safe yields then as high as they are now, and I bought a slug of them in November and December, so won't likely be adding significantly more now.
Good luck out there. AJ

Interesting (arguably nuanced) further elaborations
9mos ago:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/feeling-seasick-these-simple-low-cost-retirement-portfolios-are-holding-up-well-11652387274
https://kritik.com.my/russia-just-made-a-case-for-owning-gold-and-nobody-noticed/
a month later:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/do-you-have-the-right-investments-for-your-retirement-savings-this-idiot-proof-portfolio-might-help/ar-AAXeMtJ
LB, I posted the text because responders here had not actually read through the article (of course it's an article) or said it could not be accessed.

good grief, reading comp
It is NOT an ad.
Brett Arends has been a v smart financial writer for decades
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Arends
The article:
Brett Arends's ROI
This ‘crazy’ retirement portfolio has just beaten Wall Street for 50 years
by Brett Arends
This strategy beats the market with less risk, fewer upsets and no ‘lost’ decades
You could call it crazy.
You could call it genius.
Or maybe you could call it a little of both.
We’re talking about a simple portfolio that absolutely anyone could follow in their own 401(k) or IRA or retirement account. Low cost, no muss, no fuss. And it’s managed to do two powerful things simultaneously.
It’s beaten the standard Wall Street portfolio of 60% U.S. stocks and 40% bonds. Not just last year, when it beat them by an astonishing 7 percentage points, but for half a century.
And it’s done so with way less risk. Fewer upsets. Fewer disasters. And no “lost” decades.
Last year, 2022, marked the 50th year of this unheralded portfolio, which is termed “All Asset No Authority,” and which we’ve written about here before.
It’s the brainchild of Doug Ramsey. He’s the chief investment officer of Leuthold & Co., a long-established fund management company that has sensibly located itself in Minneapolis, a long, long way away from Wall Street.
AANA is amazingly simple, surprisingly complex, and has been astonishingly durable. It consists simply of splitting your investment portfolio into 7 equal amounts, and investing one apiece in U.S. large-company stocks (the S&P 500 SPX, +2.28% ), U.S. small-company stocks (the Russell 2000 RUT, +2.26% ), developed international stocks (the Europe, Australasia and Far East or EAFE index), gold GC00, +0.04%, commodities, U.S. real-estate investment trusts or REITS, and 10 year Treasury bonds TMUBMUSD10Y, 3.562%.
It was Ramsey’s answer to the question: How would you allocate your long-term investments if you wanted to give your money manager no discretion at all, but wanted to maximize diversification?
AANA covers an array of asset classes, including real estate, commodities and gold, so it’s durable in periods of inflation as well as disinflation or deflation. And it’s a fixed allocation. You spread the money equally across the 7 assets, rebalancing once a year to put them back to equal weights. And that’s it. The manager — you, me, or Fredo — doesn’t have to do anything else. They not allowed to do anything else. They have no authority.
AANA did way better than the more usual Wall Street investments during 2022’s veil of tears. While it ended the year down 9.6%, that was far better than the S&P 500 (which plunged 18%), or a balanced portfolio of 60% U.S. stocks and 40% U.S. bonds, which fell 17%.
Crypto? Er, let’s not talk about that.
Last year’s success of AANA is due to two things, and them alone: Its exposure to commodities, which were up by about a fifth, and gold, which was level in dollars (and up 6% in euros, 12% in British pounds, and 14% when measured in Japanese yen).
Ramsey’s AANA portfolio has underperformed the usual U.S. stocks and bonds over the past decade, but that’s mainly because the latter have gone through a massive — and, it seems, unsustainable — boom. The key thing about AANA is that in 50 years it has never had a lost decade. Whether the 1970s or the 2000s, while Wall Street floundered, AANA has earned respectable returns.
Since the start of 1973, according to Ramsey’s calculations, it has earned an average annual return of 9.8% a year. That’s about half a percentage point a year less than the S&P 500, but of course AANA isn’t a high risk portfolio entirely tied to the stock market. The better comparison is against the standard “balanced” benchmark portfolio of 60% U.S. stocks and 40% Treasury bonds.
Since the start of 1973, according to data from New York University’s Stern business school, that 60/40 portfolio has earned an average compound return of 9.1% a year. That’s less than AANA. Oh, and this supposedly “balanced” portfolio fared very badly in the 1970s, and badly again last year.
You can (if you want) build AANA for yourself using just 7 low-cost ETFs: For example, the SPDR S&P 500 SPY, +2.29%, iShares Russell 2000 IWM, +2.25%, Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets VEA, +2.76%, abrdn Physical Gold Shares SGOL, +1.94%, a commodity fund such as the iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust ETF GSG, +0.55%, the iShares 7-10 Year Treasury Bond ETF IEF, +1.29%, and the Vanguard Real Estate ETF VNQ, +2.69%.
The list is illustrative only. There are competing ETFs in each category, and in some — such as with commodities and REITs — they vary quite a lot. GSG happens to follow the particular commodity index that Ramsey uses in his calculations.
There are many worse investment portfolios out there, and it’s a question how many are better. AANA will underperform regular stocks and bonds in a booming bull market, but do better in a lost decade.
For those interested, Ramsey also offers a twist. His calculations also show that over the past 50 years the smart move to make at the start of each year was to invest in the asset class in the portfolio that performed second best in the previous 12 months. He calls that the “bridesmaid” investment. Since 1973 the bridesmaid has earned you on average 13.1% a year — a staggering record that trounces the S&P 500. Last year’s bridesmaid, incidentally, was terrible (it was REITs, which tanked). But most years it wins, and wins big.
If someone wants to take advantage of this simple twist, you could split the portfolio into 8 units, not 7, and use the eighth to double your investment in the bridesmaid asset. For 2023 that would be gold, which trailed commodities last year but broke even.
Crazy? Genius? For anyone creating a longterm portfolio for their retirement there are certainly many worse ideas — including many embraced by highly paid professionals, and marketed to the rest of us.

Doug Ramsey is the Leuthold manager. Dave Ramsey is the arrogant theocratic investment adviser who tells his clients to invest in growth stock mutual funds returning 12% chosen by his Endorsed Local Providers who of course charge their own management fees. Also, if you can't invest for retirement and tithe at the same time, just make sure you don't stop tithing !

Thanks for the chart! Rough year for balanced funds for sure.
Many of my colleagues invested in target date funds and they were surprised by the level of loss they are having. They thought simply everything into one fund would be easier to manage. Some of them are near retirement. Ironically, stable value fund is available in our 401(k) plan.

LINK1
COVER STORY, ”The Best INCOME Ideas for 2023”. (I have arranged the orders as OEFs, ETFs, CEFs, individual securities)
Energy Pipelines: AMLP, NTG, EPD, ET, KMI, WMB
US Dividend Stocks: SCHD, NOBL, VYM, KBWB, C, INTC, JPM, PNC, USB
Foreign Dividend Stocks: IDV, SCHY
Real Estate: VNQ, RQI
Convertibles: MCIFX, CWB, AVK, busted convertibles
HY: HYG, HYT, JQC
Munis: PHMIX, VWITX, NEA
Preferreds: PFF, PFFR, JPM-M, T-C, WFC-Z, REITs-preferreds
Telecom: T, TMUS, VZ
Cash Alternatives: VMFXX, VUBFX, BIL, SHV, 3-mo T-Bills, T-Bill ladders
Treasuries: SHY, TLT, STIP, TIP
Utilities: XLU, UTG, DUK, ED, NEE, SO, XEL
UP AND DOWN WALL STREET. The Fed RATE hikes and yearend tax-loss harvesting (TLH) have depressed bond CEFs including the MUNI CEFs. As there isn’t any systemic problem looming in the muni market, these may be good for trade with small amounts: NEA, NAD, BTT, NVG; unleveraged NUV.
LINK2
CRYPTO ice age or not, FIDELITY is pushing ahead with its crypto initiatives (institutional, retirement, retail). It says that it wants to provide its clients with choices. Its digital assets unit has 500+ people and hiring continues. It will offer Bitcoin within its 401k and more cryptos on its regular platform. Lawmakers, the SEC and DOL have been warning firms and investors. Critics point to FOMO; despite an early start, Fido missed the train on ETFs. Fido is counting on first-mover advantage by lending its reputable name in a devasted, washed-out and scandal-ridden industry. It has urged the SEC to approve “physical” crypto ETFs; its own application was rejected by the SEC (like many others), but Fido is moving ahead with ETFs in crypto-related areas (FDIG, etc). It sees its competitors as HOOD, COIN, PAYPL, SQ, etc. Although financial risks are small for Fido, it risks regulatory risks and reputational damage if things go wrong. Other major brokers (SCHW, IBKR) are watching.
FR/BL funds offer attractive yields (SOFR + 400-500 bps spreads; SOFR is a LIBOR alternative) from lower-quality credits. That is a big risk in recession, especially when many such loans are covenant-lite. Beware of (unmanaged) index funds in specialized and illiquid areas. Hybrid PRWCX manager GIROUX has 15% in FR/BL. Also mentioned are OEFs BFRAX, FFRHX, FRFAX, PRFRX, etc and ETFs BLKN, SRLN, etc. By @LewisBraham
Brian DEMAIN of mid-cap growth JDMAX (ER 1.12%; load 5.75%) watches upside/downside capture ratio (U/D CR); discounted cash flows; sustainable growth; GARP. Fund has low turnover due to its longer-term horizon. In 2023, the cost of capital will be higher due to Fed rate hikes; some growth multiples are still too high; inflation should moderate; the economy will slowdown. His current themes include EVs; semis; renewables; sport franchises.

It is annoying as you are attempting to perform your year-end tax planning and retirement contributions, if you can.
I checked Riverpark's website. I have posted their final numbers as of December 19 in the list above.
Note the significant change in the Riverpark Large Growth Fund estimated amounts from the 17th to the 19th:
Removed wrong chart
As of 12/19/2022:
http://www.riverparkfunds.com/assets/pdfs/news/Year_End_Final_Distribution_Information_2022.pdf

Saw this today:
Congress just approved 401(k) and IRA changes
secure-act-2-0-retirement-changes-401k-roth-ira/
Non-paywall article:
congress-just-approved-401-k

Ty for the comments
No choice but hold til 2035 retirement now
Added more TNA TQQQ tsla today
Slashed down heavily today
Both leaped call
Not sure if fake news
Buffett sold BYD last month and they say loaded Tsla last wk
Tsla
Apple
Growth stocks forward P/E extremely low
Tsla vixx Prob 40 w RSI NEG 5 lol
No big whales adding now
Could be bloody new yr

I found this on LTCI premiums from tax-deferred plans from KPMG summary. However, meaning of "high-quality" LTC plan isn't clear, so we have to wait for clarification.
Section 334, Long-term care contracts purchased with retirement plan distributions. Section 334 permits retirement plans to distribute up to $2,500 per year for the payment of premiums for certain specified long term care insurance contracts. Distributions from plans to pay such premiums are exempt from the additional 10 percent tax on early distributions. Only a policy that provides for high quality coverage is eligible for early distribution and waiver of the 10 percent tax. Section 334 is effective 3 years after date of enactment of this Act.
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2022/12/tnf-secure-act-section-by-section-dec20-2022.pdf

Here's KPMG's description of every section of Secure Act 2.0 that made it into the omnibus bill (19 pages).
https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2022/12/tnf-secure-act-section-by-section-dec20-2022.pdf
Full text of bill: https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/JRQ121922.PDF
Since Forbes offered opinions about some of the sections, I'll try to explain Kiplinger's observation that "other [supporters of the legislation] have expressed concern that some provisions in the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 primarily benefit high-income earners."
https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/bipartisan-retirement-savings-package-in-massive-budget-bill
Section 107: raising retirement age. This is a tax break for high earners; Forbes notes: "This provision mostly impacts people with wealth who don’t need their RMD and can leave the money to grow."
It might have made more sense to treat IRAs and 401(k)s the same - don't require RMDs so long as you are working. Otherwise, you are retired and thus should be drawing from retirement accounts.
Wonder why increasing the age to 75 won't happen for a decade? It's because these laws only have to look ten years out when considering budget impact. This change in RMD age is said to be the most costly provision of the SECURE Act, but most of that cost escapes scrutiny. Accounting gimmick. (See also JCT analysis of SECURE 2.0 Act.)
Sections 108, 109: increasing catch up amounts. According to a current Vanguard study, only 2%-3% of those earning under $100K max out even with the limits already in place. 37% of those earning over $100K max out.
Section 202: raising QLAC limits. Currently $145K (inflation indexed) up to 25% of account balance, will be raised to $200K (inflation indexed), with no percentage cap. QLACs are basically insurance policies against living "too long". There is a strong correlation between income and longevity.
Section 325: No more RMD for Roth 401(k)s. This section comes under Title III - Simplification and Clarification of Retirement Plan Rules. There's a lot of good cleanup in this Title. Section 325 makes the RMD treatment of Roth 401(k)s and Roth IRAs the same. Complete simplification would have made the treatment of RMDs the same for everything - Roths and Traditionals, employer plans and IRAs.
Being able to leave more money in tax-sheltered accounts mostly benefits those who do not need to take money from those accounts. So while this section doesn't add benefits for the better off, it doesn't address this disparity of benefits either.
Sections 603 and 604 come under Title VI - revenue provisions. They are more accounting gimmicks to make it look like tax revenue is being increased. By moving some contributions (high wage earner catch ups and some employer matches) from traditional to Roth, these provisions increase immediate revenue while moving the costs largely outside the 10 year budget window. At best, the present value of those costs is break even; more likely these changes are revenue losers.
Analysis of earlier but similar Senate Bill (EARN):
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-retirement-bill-would-cost-84-billion-without-gimmicks
Section 603: High earner catch up provisions must be Roth. Since this doesn't affect anyone earning $145K (inflation adjusted) or more and rhus constitutes a new restriction on high earners, simple logic says this is not a change that benefits high earners. But it's not the onerous provision that Forbes suggests. Effectively it is a forced Roth conversion.
Higher wage earners rejoiced when they were finally permitted to do Roth conversions starting in 2010. While those conversions were not forced, converting some savings was generally regarded as a positive. Especially since pre-paying taxes enables one to enhance the post-tax value of tax-sheltered accounts.
https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2010/jan/20091743.html
This legislation has much to commend it, including changes that encourage participation and make it easier to participate. Though in terms of dollars and cents, it is skewed toward those who are already contributing and can afford to contribute more.

When it launched, we referred to it as "Mr. Miller's retirement present from Legg Mason."
He's collecting a 0.77% management fee on $1.1 billion in a fund that - per Morningstar - is in the 100th percentile for the past week.
Month.
Quarterly.
Year.
Three years.
Five years.
Fifteen years.
- - - - -
The key is the "alpha or omega" performance that Mark alludes to. The fund trails only 84% of its peers over the past decade buoyed by top tier performance in five of those years and anchored by three dead last years.

Several inflationary scenarios were discussed:

Sequence-of-Returns Risk, Explained
What is sequence-of-returns risk? It’s the risk of running out of money in retirement because of losses in the early retirement years. Early losses increase the probability of portfolio exhaustion for two reasons. First, they forestall the stock and bond gains needed to maintain and enlarge retirement funds over time. Second, they can force retirees to sell assets to support their spending at inopportune times—when stocks and bonds boast more-attractive expected returns.
High inflation has accentuated that risk in 2022, as many retirees naturally increase their spending as consumer prices escalate. While this inflation adjustment helps retirees maintain their standards of living, it further ratchets up the pressure on retirement funds and permanently elevates the base spending amount to which future inflation adjustments will be made. After all, today’s currently torrid inflation rate may moderate, but consumer prices are unlikely to go back to previous levels.

https://morningstar.com/articles/1129750/how-worried-should-new-retirees-be-about-market-losses-and-high-inflation