I bought into the small cap fund in August of last year (it is closed to new investors, but I had an existing position in a retirement account) not realizing that the size of year-end distributions. The fund has never recovered from the 2021 distributions and the downturn in the market.

It appears some case was filed in PA concerning the target date funds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/15/vanguard-created-big-tax-bills-for-target-date-fund-investors-lawsuit-claims.html
or
https://www.barrons.com/advisor/articles/vanguard-target-date-retirement-funds-lawsuit-51647366034
and from a law firm:
https://www.silverlaw.com/blog/did-you-get-hit-with-a-surprise-tax-bill-in-your-vanguard-target-date-retirement-fund/

"Vanguard Group, Inc, has settled with the Massachusetts Secretary of State concerning its popular target-date retirement funds. In December 2020, Vanguard reduced the minimum investments for its institutional investors. This change triggered an outflow from its higher-cost funds, which resulted in the funds selling securities and generating capital gains for investors with taxable accounts. Vanguard did not admit any wrongdoing in the case. The settlement includes $5.5 million to Massachusetts investors holding taxable accounts and $750,000 to the State of Massachusetts."
I was wondering if other states have or will be targeting VG for a settlement ? Does anyone have any info ?

@davidmoran
It appears i-ORP retirement is offline. Have you found a work around to this retirement software planner? I really like the features of this planner.
Related Article on the Planner:
https://mydollarplan.com/optimal-retirement-planner/
i-ORP link (is off line):
i-orp.com/

Bengen has been in the press quite a bit lately, with still other values for the "safe" rate: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-retiring-this-year-could-be-a-worst-case-scenario-11655488295?mod=brett-arends.
If of interest, the Trinity study is another in this vein (they used a broader mix of asset classes, but also found the 1960s to be the most perilous point). The wikipedia article links to some follow on research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_study

"His original paper was based on just two asset classes, intermediate-term Treasury bonds and large-cap stocks. He has since concluded that by adding a third asset class, small-cap stocks, investors could safely withdraw as much as 4.5% annually."
(Jan of last year.)
from
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-originator-of-the-4-retirement-rule-thinks-its-off-the-mark-he-says-it-now-could-be-up-to-4-5-51611410402

"His original paper was based on just two asset classes, intermediate-term Treasury bonds and large-cap stocks. He has since concluded that by adding a third asset class, small-cap stocks, investors could safely withdraw as much as 4.5% annually."
(Jan of last year.)
from
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-originator-of-the-4-retirement-rule-thinks-its-off-the-mark-he-says-it-now-could-be-up-to-4-5-51611410402

How do people manage their income and spending in retirement? How do they adjust their asset allocation as they transition into retirement? Certainly, there is survey data on the subject and much informed speculation. Yet the full picture—based on empirical evidence that shows how people actually behave—has remained elusive.
JPMorgan Chase data for around 62 million households, we studied 31,000 people as they approached and entered retirement between 2013 and 2018.
This data offers the very first holistic financial view of households in transition. From it, we created a rich mosaic showing retirees’ income, spending and wealth. Real data about real behaviors, we believe, can deliver the most useful insights.
The research reaffirmed some of our assumptions and in other ways proved surprising.

retirement-insights/retirement-portfolio-allocation
Study was commented on in this retirement blog:

The study was a rare look into how 31,000 people manage their money in retirement. Not surprisingly, a lot of people seem to be making some mistakes (no Roth conversions come to mind). It’s understandable, given the complexity of the topic and the reality that learning to manage your money in the “decumulation phase” is an entirely different skill set than those used in the “accumulation phase.”

how-real-people-manage-their-money-in-retirement/

@Crash

you guys are correct, but it seems to me that you're simply beating up on a simple maxim: given our system, and given a young-enough starting point, investors will do well, over long periods of time. Don't the "sadistics" bear this out?

All of that depends on whether we are at an inflection point or not. This is why I think it is a serious mistake to compare the social sciences like economics and its uglier cousin finance with the hard sciences like physics. Tomorrow I can be almost certain that the law of gravity will apply if, say, Vladimir Putin stepped out of a window. I can by no means be certain that the belief that "in the long run U.S. stocks will go up" will remain true.
I also think such a fundamentalist faith in markets is an ideology rooted in mistaken ideas about humanity and history, and is, therefore dangerous. If one believes that stocks always go up eventually during one's lifetime, you could support the notion that Social Security should be privatized and linked to stocks. I think that's a terrible idea as stocks may not always go up and it makes regulating the private sector by the government virtually impossible. Imagine trying to break up a monopoly at one of the largest companies in people's Social Security accounts that would send the accounts downward.
But even as an investor I think the ideology is dangerous. Relative to human history, U.S. stock market history is short, a blip. Why should we believe it repeats when if you look at all of human history every great civilization or world super power has ended either via violent implosion/explosion or a gradual slide into decay? Otherwise, we'd all be Egyptians, Sumerians or Romans today.
The long-term U.S. stocks go up philosophy depends on some basic premises which if we're at an inflection point may not be true:
1. The U.S. remains the world global superpower. There is China.
2. Labor in the U.S. remains powerless, and capital remains triumphant. This depends on globalization, technology and government social programs--to placate labor--and government/corporate oppression--laws preventing labor activism--to remain true. There is evidence that we've reached peak globalization so the labor/wage arbitrage game corporations have played since the 1970s may be coming to an end. In other words, there is much talk about "de-globalization" and "on-shoring" today. Whether that's true or not is a vital question to investors because labor will have power again here if jobs can't just be shipped to low wage nations as easily anymore. That is the wage arbitrage of which I speak.
3. Climate change does not pose a material threat to business. It does. It is, no matter what the deniers think, and capital markets by themselves cannot solve it. It could and will beneift and hurt some sectors of the market, but long-term the growth-at-all costs model may have to change, and that may require a steady state growth or even a declining growth model imposed by government.
4. The Fed maintains control over inflation and the dollar remains the world reserve currency. This is kind of linked to the superpower question.
5. There is no violent social unrest internally or war externally that could lead to the destruction of our nation. January 6th, the BLM unrest and Trump's attempt to overthrow a democratically determined election could be viewed as preludes.
6. Technological increases in labor productivity continue. If they don't continue, then it is harder for the private sector to ignore labor's demands for greater wages.
If any of these premises shift and we are at an inflection point, then the buy and hold philosophy may not be true in the future. In other words, the idea that in the long-run stocks go up isn't science. It's history--In the past stocks went up. And it's libertarian ideology and ideology is a polite term for what the belief system is. Markets can solve all problems including labor's problems with retirement is the belief.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418922005090/rockefellerliquidationstic.htm
Rockefeller Equity Allocation Fund, Rockefeller Core Taxable Bond Fund, Rockefeller Intermediate Tax Exempt National Bond Fund and Rockefeller Intermediate Tax Exempt New York Bond Fund
497 1 rockefellerliquidationstic.htm ROCKEFELLER 497E
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 333-62298; 811-10401
Rockefeller Equity Allocation Fund
Rockefeller Core Taxable Bond Fund
Rockefeller Intermediate Tax Exempt National Bond Fund
Rockefeller Intermediate Tax Exempt New York Bond Fund
Each, a series of Trust for Professional Managers (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated July 27, 2022
to the Summary Prospectuses, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
dated March 30, 2022
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Trust, based upon the recommendation of Rockefeller & Co. LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Rockefeller Equity Allocation Fund, Rockefeller Core Taxable Bond Fund, Rockefeller Intermediate Tax Exempt National Bond Fund and Rockefeller Intermediate Tax Exempt New York Bond Fund (each, a “Fund,” and collectively, the “Funds”), has determined to close and liquidate the Funds. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Funds and their shareholders that the Funds be closed to new purchases, except for purchases made through an automatic investment program or the reinvestment of any distributions, as of the close of business on July 27, 2022 (the “Closing Date”) and liquidated as series of the Trust effective as of the close of business on August 26, 2022 (the “Liquidation Date”).
The Board approved a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which the Funds will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Funds’ liquidation, the Funds will be closed to new purchases, except for purchases made through an automatic investment program or a purchase exception that is approved by Trust officers, effective as of the close of business on the Closing Date, after which each Fund’s assets may be entirely invested in money market instruments or held in cash. Accordingly, the Funds will no longer be pursuing their investment objectives. However, any distributions declared to shareholders of the Funds after the Closing Date and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on the Liquidation Date will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the respective Fund unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. Although the Funds will be closed to new purchases as of the Closing Date, you may continue to redeem your shares of the Funds until the Liquidation Date, as described in “How to Redeem Shares” in the Funds’ Prospectus.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Funds have not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of business on the Liquidation Date, your shares will be redeemed and you will receive proceeds representing your proportionate interest in the net assets of the respective Fund as of the Liquidation Date, subject to any required withholdings. As is the case with any redemption of Fund shares, these liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account such as an IRA, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax adviser for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation.
The Adviser will bear all of the expenses incurred in carrying out the Plan.
Shareholder inquiries should be directed to the Funds at 1-855-369-6209.
Please retain this Supplement with your Summary Prospectus, Prospectus
and Statement of Additional Information for reference.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of stable-value funds.
The first type has transparent fees, its underlying assets are owned by participating retirement plans,
and contractural guarantees are diversified across multiple issuers.
The second type is an insurance company general account (ICGA) stable-value fund.
These ICGA products often have murky fees and the underlying assets are owned
by a single insurance company which also provides the contractual guarantee.
According to the Stable Value Investment Association, over 40% of stable-value
assets remain in these products.

There are several fund stories in Barron's this weekend.
https://www.barrons.com/magazine?mod=BOL_TOPNAV
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/317/barron-july-25-2022-2
FUNDS. Recommended are I-Bonds (9.62%; limit $10K/yr/TD account), individual TIPS (at Treasury Direct or brokerages), TIPS funds (short-term – TRBFX, STIP, VTIP; IT/LT – SCHP, VIPSX, TIP). Beware of confusing reporting of 30-day SEC yields for TIPS funds (some simply add current CPI to real 30-day SEC yield).
FUNDS. Co-manager and Westwood CIO Adrian HELFERT of allocation/flexible-income WWIAX (30-50% equities; ER 1.09%) looks for companies with dividends, cash flows, durable competitive advantages, and strong managements. He increased exposure to energy and real estate. Fund does some call-writing. In fixed income, he has reduced duration and watches for default risks (debt/EBITDA, etc). He expects the Fed to flip at some point. Westwood recently acquired the multi-asset fund business of Salient Partners.
FUNDS (online only). STABLE-VALUE (SV) funds within 401k/403b are complex products under insurance company or bank contracts. With high market volatility and rising rates, SVs have become very popular and record 85% of 401k/403b inflows in May went into SVs (that looks strange). But there are risks (lack of transparency; insurance company strength) and plan restrictions (equity-wash rules; flexible to limited redemptions). There was a recent lawsuit against AutoZone/AZO 401k-SV from Prudential/PRU (PRU recently dumped its retirement business including SVs on Empire).
FUNDS. Sammy SIMNEGAR of LC-growth FMAGX and international LC-growth FIVFX (unusual for a manager to run 2 major Fido funds) has soured on big techs (but likes other techs). He thinks that the Fed will be on tightening course until it achieves its +2% inflation target. To prepare for economic slowdown, he is avoiding housing (but owns selected REITs) and low-end retail stocks. He has reduced China exposure; he doesn’t take China-Taiwan risk seriously and owns TSM.
ETFs. Big DIVIDEND ETFs got bigger – SCHD, VYM, HDV, JEPI, SPYD, DVY, DGRO, RDVY, VIG, SDY, NOBL, DHS (listed by $inflows). Most had low exposure to energy except HDV and DHS.

About paying equal amounts quarterly vs one lump sum: In retirement my dad paid estimated taxes in a lump sum before the due date of the *first* quarter. The IRS was not made to wait until the end of the year and they never made a fuss.
Similarly, if one pays unequal amounts during the 4 quarters and the inequality consists of paying *more* than what was expected, I think it likely that the IRS will not complain. That said, their computers may complain. I know a bookkeeper at a law firm who received a notice from the IRS that a heavy fine was about to be imposed because the firm had OVERPAID their taxes. And the amount of discrepancy was less than a dollar. A phone call to a reasonable person at the IRS solved the dilemma in less than a minute.

OCC is a banking regulator. Federal Reserve is another banking regulator.
FDIC is a deposit insurer.
SEC is securities regulator. It regulated publicly listed securities. Unlisted CITs (in retirement accounts) are regulated by OCC.
CFTC is a commodities regulator.
SEC and CFTC are fighting over which will have powers over cryptos.

Our retirement portfolio is currently in 3 funds divided equally.

Thanks for starting this thread. I DO own PRWCX. I had been following traditional advice about a 60/40 portfolio in retirement, reducing equities, and growing my bonds. Then came the party after fed stimulus, when covid struck. Then came the war in Ukraine. Then came supply chain issues. A can of hash here costs $5.00, last time I looked. Then came souped-up inflation and Central Banks raising rates. And the market downturn.
Because I am me, I responded to it all late and inadequately--- as ever.
I bought some funds just as they were turning DOWN, earlier in the year. I'm down to 20% bonds, and my one bond fund is a TRP HY animal, now. TUHYX. I'm up to 73% stocks. PRWCX = 36.73% of total today.. (Hank says he's be adding to it now, in these current circumstances. I just did add a couple of thousand dollars to it, about a month ago. I would not dare to do that with any other fund or stock, letting it get SO big.)
Same goes for my still rather small stake in single stocks. I just started to grow THAT garden as the Market turned south. But as I have been able, I've been adding, given depressed equity prices these days. I keep my eye on a watchlist. But my retirement IRA and my brokerage account are like swimming pools with a very tall wall between them. If I take too much from the former in order to give to the latter, I'll owe taxes I don't want to pay. i live in the ZERO bracket these days. Still have a couple of years before RMDs begin.
The common wisdom is to put a limit of 20% on any single holding. That's what I'd heard. I blew THAT one out of the water. After PRWCX, my other stuff, in order of size is:
PRISX. 14.9% of total.
PRNEX. 11.45%
TUHYX. 10.7%
TRAMX. 7.4%
PRFDX. 5.53%
BRUFX. 5.36%
BHB. 3.54%
ET. 2.94%
RGR. 1.45%
I'm down significantly YTD, but I'm in good company. I don't do shorts, don't invest in inverse, 3X upside-down bear funds. I'm waiting this out. When a recession shows itself, The Fed will cry "uncle," I bet. With 34% of my total in financials around the world, I'll be happier than a pig in shit when rates come down.
That was more than @Bobpa and everyone else needed to know. Sorry. Great question, though.

Ah, the age-old question @Bobpa. I agree whole-heartily with hank. Portfolio diversification is more important than number of funds, at least, imho. Holding 30, 40 or 50 funds can certainly be a diversified portfolio, but likely any 1 holding at 1, 2 or 3% is going to be meaningless to overall return. Being in 1 target date or retirement fund is likely as good or more diversified as that collection of funds. I happen to have more than 1/2 my money in the Schwab Intelligent Portfolio account (I remember you used to be in it also), and I see that account as nothing different than one of those target funds. So, I guess I have about 60% of my money in that "1 fund" :) .
I'll always suggest that everyone run their portfolio to their risk-comfort level. You can do it with 1 fund, 5 funds or 50 as some here do, but keep an eye on how you are diversified, and by all means make sure you measure against a benchmark. I've mentioned before I use TRP fund TBLQX because it matches fairly close for equity % to where I want to be at 68 yo. Playing with your own portfolio is fun and that is why we come to MFO, but is it fun at the expense of maybe falling 10s of thousands behind a benchmark you can just own otherwise?
If you are still at Schwab, I'm sure you know how easy it is to check your portfolio for diversification. FWIW, PRWCX is 25% of my self-managed portfolio.
As always, good luck.

@Anna, sorry to hear about your loss.
First, RMDs are also required for the year of the death. So, a scheduled RMD is OK. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-required-minimum-distributions-rmds#:~:text=For the year of the,identity of the designated beneficiary.
"For the year of the account owner’s death, use the RMD the account owner would have received. For the year following the owner’s death, the RMD will depend on the identity of the designated beneficiary."
Second, there is just NO WAY to contact Vanguard except during weekday hours. I had Vanguard account alert once on late-Friday and my account was locked. I looked for a variety of ways to get hold of Vanguard customer service or its security department but nothing worked. So, I called promptly on Monday 8:01 AM Eastern and got hold of someone at Vanguard. When I complained about not getting through over the weekend, the Rep tried to reassure me that the account was locked for security and there was nothing to worry or be concerned about. I didn't feel reassured but there is really nothing else that can be done at/by Vanguard. Low ERs and poor service are its goals.

It's Friday night, thoughts getting a little weird. Below the image is my Rube Goldberg-ish idea on what Vanguard might have done.

When the institutional investors place exchange orders from retail to institutional class shares, Vanguard redeems their retail shares in-kind (OEFs as well as ETFs can do this).
Institutional shareholders then sit with retail shares of a half dozen Vanguard funds (the underlying funds in the retail target date funds). Vanguard executes tax-free exchanges (not that it matters inside the retirement plans) of these retail shares into institutional shares of the same underlying funds.
These funds now constitute "creation units" that are used to purchase shares of the institutional target date funds
Thus, no sale of underlying funds in the retail funds; no recognized gain. In fact, reduction of unrealized gain - just like ETFs.
Vanguard might have been able to turn the mass migration into a positive rather than a costly negative.
Needless to say there are a lot of details I haven't checked; this is just some end-of-week rambling. But if Vanguard could have made something like this work, it really looks negligent for not doing it.

The Regular TDF did not have its own institutional class. It didn't even have Admiral shares. Below is an excerpt from the 2020 SAI for the funds.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/752177/000168386320000191/f2353d1.htm
That's why Vanguard would had to have created a Regular TDF institutional class.
Edit: As I think about it, creating such a share class would have been problematic. Vanguard charged no management fees or any direct fees at all for these funds. The total ER came from acquired fund expenses. That's likely why Vanguard created a clone fund with lower expenses. The institutional clone cost less because it purchased less expensive shares of the same underlying funds. I don't know how Vanguard could create a share class of the retail series with lower charges than what the underlying funds were charging.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUST
Vanguard Chester Funds (the "Trust") currently offers the following funds and share 
classes (identified by ticker symbol):
Share Classes	 
Fund							Investor Admiral	Institutional
Vanguard PRIMECAP Fund					VPMCX	VPMAX
Vanguard Target Retirement 2015 Fund			VTXVX	—		—		 
Vanguard Target Retirement 2020 Fund			VTWNX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2025 Fund			VTTVX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2030 Fund			VTHRX	—		— 	 
Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund			VTTHX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2040 Fund			VFORX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 Fund			VTIVX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2050 Fund			VFIFX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2055 Fund			VFFVX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement 2060 Fund			VTTSX	—		—	
Vanguard Target Retirement 2065 Fund			VLXVX	—		—
Vanguard Target Retirement Income Fund			VTINX	—		—	
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2015 Fund	—	—		VITVX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2020 Fund	—	—		VITWX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2025 Fund	—	—		VRIVX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2030 Fund	—	—		VTTWX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2035 Fund	—	—		VITFX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2040 Fund	—	—		VIRSX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2045 Fund	—	—		VITLX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2050 Fund	—	—		VTRLX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2055 Fund	—	—		VIVLX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2060 Fund	—	—		VILVX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement 2065 Fund	—	—		VSXFX 	 	 
Vanguard Institutional Target Retirement Income Fund	—	—		VITRX