@Derf,
I have three puddles of retirement income: Roth IRA, T-IRA and HSA. I have pension, but no Social security.
Until 65 I will be contributing to my HSA and managing my income to maximize my ACA (Affordable Care Act) premiums.
From 65 to 72 I plan on managing withdrawals / conversions from my T-IRA to the extent that I can maximize my (15%) tax bracket. At 72 RMDs will start.
RMDs percentages increase each year. Depending on your T-IRA balance, these RMDs could be more than one needs to spend.
Do you find you spend your entire RMD or does some end up puddling in a taxable account?
Here's @yogibearbull's RMD chart:

Christine Benz's withdrawal suggestion (3%, rather than 4%)...3.3% to be precise... has a lot to do with future expectation of portfolio returns during the next 30 years. To me it really has more to do with future expectation over the next five years and next year, it will be about the next five years. In my 60's I am looking at a rolling five year withdrawal strategy when it come to retirement income from my retirement investments.
Retirement Income is more about providing an income floor rather than an income ceiling. If you spend some time prior to retirement determining your income floor (basic expenses) and than determine where you will derive this income from, you find yourself forming a pecking order of income sources.
Full time income will end and will need to be replaced with other sources of income such as - SS, pension, part time work, passive income from rental investments, investment income, etc.
Fine tune your basic expenses. You have the time (in retirement) to shop what things cost...this might help lower your income floor. Shop your monthly expenses (cable, phone, internet, insurances, etc.) for the best service at the best price. Shop those larger one-time purchases (a car, setting up your workshop, taking a vacation, etc.)
it was prudent to keep 3-6 months of emergency cash on hand in case work income got interrupted. In retirement, keep this same cash on hand for market interruptions or emergencies (such as unexpected health care costs).
If part of your income in retirement come from your investments, match the time horizon of your income need with the time horizon of the investment so you have a better chance of achieving your investment objective.
Equities need 5 - 15 years to smooth out the volatility inherit to its asset risk. If, in retirement you need some of your investments for income, you should have "a rolling 5 year income strategy" for some of your retirement money that is less risky... less volatile.
Using Christine's safe withdrawal rate (3.3% of your total investment portfolio) you can approximate what your can afford to spend and how much you should keep safely invested for withdrawal purposes to fund the next 3-5 years of withdrawals.
Would love to hear how others view this topic.

IMO, mistakes with TAA are not disastrous. In retirement, I try to maintain 40-60% effective-equity with TAA. And I have made mistakes in these markets - should have had 60% when had 40%, and vice-versa. But still, I did OK vs pure market-timers (100% or 0% equity). I guess I could just leave it in the middle at 50% but that wouldn't be as much fun.

@msf said, “ I tend not to deal much with financial institutions in their role as fund shops. To the extent that I do, my interactions are typically limited to accessing reports/prospectuses, perhaps a little info about the holdings/management, and important to me, capital gains and dividend estimates. Also muni income breakdown by state.”
Rather than starting a new thread - a related personal question, if I may. I have just one fund outside my IRAs, PRIHX. Having transferred that from TRP to Fido last year “in kind”, I’m curious which will provide tax information? Will a statement come from TRP? Fido? Or both? Thanks.
To the broader issue here, I’m of the opinion that the deterioration of service at businesses and institutions is commonplace - driven by cost constraints and profit motives. As consumers we want the lowest prices. As shareholders we want the greatest profitability. Those sometimes clash or lead to ruin of service we once found reliable. I sometimes find my self shouting angrily at Walgreen’s “robo assistant” when calling in or checking on prescriptions. But it’s a lot easier to move your prescriptions elsewhere than to transfer all your retirement money.

MyMoneyBlog, citing Bogleheads, has a good explanation of what happened.
https://www.mymoneyblog.com/vanguard-target-retirement-funds-nav-drop-cap-gains-distribution.html
In brief, in early 2021 Vanguard enabled lots of employer plans move money from the retail TDFs to the institutional TDF, by lowering the mins from $100M to $5M. Companies responded. There was a mass movement of dollars out of the retail TDFs, creating large cap gains for those remaining.
As pointed out in the blog, had Vanguard merged the funds first, then none of these plans would have moved money around and there would have been no large gains distributed.
So the gains were not because of the merger, but in spite of the merger.

This is trial post here.
Pg L4: COVER STORY, “The Commodities Boom/Why It’s Time to Invest in COMMODITIES, and How to Do It”. Factors driving commodities include inflation, China and energy transitions. Bloomberg commodity index rose +27% in 2021 and more gains are ahead, especially for oil and ag-commodities. INFLATION is driven by pent-up demand and constrained supplies due to supply-chain disruptions. Greenflation is also contributing as the ESG movement has costs. CHINA is a huge consumer of commodities, and it is slowing. Its property sector is in trouble. Yet, commodities need China. ENERGY TRANSITIONS and ESG are driving the demand for several commodities. Rising energy and other prices feed into higher AG-COMMODITY prices. Plant substitutes for meats are boosting demand for several ag-commodities. WEATHER has been difficult in many areas. Most commodities are in BACKWARDATION (i.e., the prices of near-futures are higher than those for far-futures); futures-based commodity funds benefit from backwardation during their periodic future rolls. It is hard to find active commodity funds but an article in FundQ mentions 3.
Pg L7: COMMODITY indexes vary widely. The S&P GSCI commodity index has 60% in energy; the Bloomberg commodity index has 33% in energy, 33% in metals. Yet neither has lithium, copper, tin, metals essential for electrification. So, use active commodity funds such as PCRAX, CCSAX, BCSAX; indexed/passive funds are more common. Beware that commodity funds are volatile.
Pg L8: Be aware of several changes coming for 401k: More ESG options including the default options; guaranteed-income option (immediate or deferred/QLAC) at retirement included within the target-date funds (TDFs); pooled employer plan (PEP) 401k for small businesses. On the other hand, the Backdoor Roth IRA loophole will be closed. (This long piece is by @LewisBraham)
Pg L10: Amy DOMINI of Domini Impact Investments (AUM $3 billion in 5 funds) was an early ESG pioneer (Domini 400 Social Index/MSCI KLD 400 Social Index, KLD Research & Analytics that was bought by MSCI, books, etc). PERFORMANCE of ESG funds doesn’t lag general funds; in fact, they have better risk-adjusted performance. There is now appreciation that ESG is everybody’s business. There is work still to be done on ESG STANDARDIZATION and Europe is ahead on this. The SEC needs to get into this; the DOL is cleaning up the mess that it has created. Her funds use a combination of exclusions and inclusions based on ESG criteria (featured fund is DSEPX). They also use industry specific ESG standards. She notes that although Larry FINK of BlackRock/BLK makes lots of noises on ESG, BLK has a record of mostly voting with managements (Larry Fink/BLK declined comment). Her recent book, People, Planet, & Profit, November 2021.
Pg L36: In 2021/Q4 (SP500 +10.90%): Among general equity funds, the best was LC-core +9.80% and the worst was SC-growth +1.84%; NO category beat SP500. Among other equity funds, the best was real estate +14.42% and the worst was Japan -4.25%. Among fixed-income funds, LT -0.01%, world income -1.19% (not very refined in Lipper mutual fund categories listed in Barron’s).
LINK

Own it, like it. Love PRBLX but have large chunk of wife's retirement money tied up in that one. Endeavor has outperformed core over time, but with more volatility.

@wxman123 -- Bank MM funds yield around 0.4 to 0.5%. FDIC insured so 100% risk free. Are you expecting your near cash holdings to provide a higher return?

Yes, that would be the objective but doesn't always work out. Over the longer term, these "near cash" vehicles should outperform high yield FDIC insured bank accounts, but that's not generally how I use them. I mainly use them in retirement accounts where the only viable, comparable option is near zero MM funds. Over the last 3 years VNLA has earned a total return of 2.39% with very little heartburn. I don't think you could have gotten that even in the highest yielding fully liquid bank accounts.

But since I use MERFX as a cash substitute, 2%-3% per year is fine with me

The problem is for me a cash substitute fund cannot have sustained a loss greater than 2% in a year, and preferably no loss ever. Why take the risk with such meager returns? My cash subs include, SNGVX (1 off year in 31, so it gets a pass on my 2% rule); BBBMX; GILPX, VNLA (ETF) and even good old BSV (ETF). You can buy with confidence that any loss will be small and temporary. Not so clear with MERFX, which suffered a 5.67% loss in 2002 and 2.26% loss in 2008.

Not picking on anyone here, just remembering the statement that SNGVX had only one losing year out of 31. It's now 2 losing years out of 34, with nearly a 1% loss last year. Not much, but something one hopes not to see with a fund used in lieu of cash.
FWIW, BBBMX stayed in the green, gaining 0.01%.
GILPX did not, losing 0.07%. Likewise, MERFX lost 0.19%, VNLA lost 0.18% and BSV lost 0.12%.
These five funds, win or lose, came so close to zero that one might as well think of them all as having broken even. SNGVX was a different story.
Meanwhile, RPHYX kept chugging away, gaining 1.8% last year. Only 11 calendar years so far, but not a single loss.
I'm also taking a closer look at VMLTX. Only 1 losing year out of 34; that was just a loss of 0.16% in 2016. It normally maintains a higher than average duration to get higher returns. But it has shortened its duration to bring it in line with its peers, showing that it can be managed conservatively if conditions warrant.
My parents used this fund in retirement. Yes,

this is still your father's VMLTX.

It was a tough year in this space, but your numbers seem off based on my personal data and MS. BSV was down 1.09 but BBBMX was up 1.18%. For the year as a whole in 2021, my "near cash" holdings were down .04%. Not great but I can live with it. Wish there were better options but I've yet to find one's I'm comfortable with. Hard to argue about RPHYX, which I hold, but would be reluctant to put big dollars into (or most of these vehicles). While things like SNGVX had a bad year I'm OK with that (based on rising rates) rather then risking a serious loss on defaults as is a bit more likely with most of the others. It happened with ZEOIX, which recovered, but stung when it happened.

I didn't quote anything/anybody. But I think that is the general policy of through-TDFs (Fido, Vanguard, some Price, etc), but not for to-TDFs*.
Price is trying different ideas - it has 2 TDF series (older riskier, newer more conservative). In older series, it has made the income funds distinct, even sort of unlinked it from the TDF. I suppose, it may keep old names like TDF 2010, etc for a long time.
*To-TDFs become most conservative at the target retirement date and don't change any further.

Which fund family are you quoting? Do you mean merge into the Target Date Retirement Income fund? A few of these past date funds have good performance.

Through-TDFs have approx 50-50 allocation at the designated retirement date and their equity % keeps declining for about 7 yrs. At that point, they may merge into the income fund of the TDF series.

Happy New Years,
I just posted an article on Seeking Alpha regarding using the business cycle to evaluate funds. While the title is for Retirement Portfolios, the focus is on the business cycle including funds that do well or not during normalization of monetary policy. It includes a model portfolio for Vanguard and Fidelity.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4477697-positioning-retirement-portfolios-2022
Regards,

But since I use MERFX as a cash substitute, 2%-3% per year is fine with me

The problem is for me a cash substitute fund cannot have sustained a loss greater than 2% in a year, and preferably no loss ever. Why take the risk with such meager returns? My cash subs include, SNGVX (1 off year in 31, so it gets a pass on my 2% rule); BBBMX; GILPX, VNLA (ETF) and even good old BSV (ETF). You can buy with confidence that any loss will be small and temporary. Not so clear with MERFX, which suffered a 5.67% loss in 2002 and 2.26% loss in 2008.

Not picking on anyone here, just remembering the statement that SNGVX had only one losing year out of 31. It's now 2 losing years out of 34, with nearly a 1% loss last year. Not much, but something one hopes not to see with a fund used in lieu of cash.
FWIW, BBBMX stayed in the green, gaining 0.01%.
GILPX did not, losing 0.07%. Likewise, MERFX lost 0.19%, VNLA lost 0.18% and BSV lost 0.12%.
These five funds, win or lose, came so close to zero that one might as well think of them all as having broken even. SNGVX was a different story.
Meanwhile, RPHYX kept chugging away, gaining 1.8% last year. Only 11 calendar years so far, but not a single loss.
I'm also taking a closer look at VMLTX. Only 1 losing year out of 34; that was just a loss of 0.16% in 2016. It normally maintains a higher than average duration to get higher returns. But it has shortened its duration to bring it in line with its peers, showing that it can be managed conservatively if conditions warrant.
My parents used this fund in retirement. Yes, this is still your father's VMLTX.

See my concluding sentence in the thread Seeking Suggestions for Vanguard Asset Allocation Funds: "Or even push it to a 30/70 fund (VTINX)."
This vanilla Vanguard fund of funds returned more than AOK over one day (YTD), one year (5.03% vs 4.37%), three years (9.46% vs. 9.20%), five years ( 6.78% to 6.66%), and 10 years (5.81% to 5.41%).
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=VTINX (compare with AOK)
Its volatility (std dev) was lower over three years (5.87% vs. 6.34%), five years (5.02% vs. 5.25%), and ten years (4.42% vs. 4.62%).
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/ratings-risk.action?t=VTINX
The main area in which VTINX (or more generally, retirement income funds) falls short is tax efficiency. These funds are designed to generate income, and are thus not great in taxable accounts.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=VTINX

Thanks for the contribution to this thread. I tried to retrieve/search the T Rowe Price Report Fall 2004 article referenced without luck. Behind a wall. Wish I could find it. The article would give us more clarity and specific allocation holdings. However, I did notice the column headings from the 4/2021 article 1949-2013 study is using 20% equities 50% bonds and 30% cash producing the 6.8% annual number referenced. The Nov 2014 article used column headings of 30% Short (assume to be in error?) also producing 6.8% annual return. (not the 20/80 allocations we have been discussing).
As far as what is held within the bond holdings of the 80% (or 50%)...... references are made to Fidelity Asset Manager series and RPSIX for comparisons but as you said we do not know what TRP used in the study.
Interesting subject matter.
References are also made to M* Conservative Retirement Saver Portfolio using the Lifetime Allocation Indexes. Christine Benz wrote an article providing suggested funds with allocation %'s which I plan to analyze for metrics.

fyi.. ...
since inception VASIX vs SPY runs 56% of CAGR and 29% of SD. 10/1994. Lo as 16% Equity.
since inception FASIX vs SPY runs 55% of CAGR and 31% of SD. 2/1993. Hi as 25% Equity.
since inception VBMFX/SPY vs SPY runs 60% of CAGR and 28% of SD. 2/1993.
The 60/20 may also be a good trade off depending on market valuations, business cycle and future perceptions of return (or loss). 100% equity portfolio in retirement normally not used.

@stillers, @sma3,
Couple questions for you...
@stillers...I need to read your post carefully as it resonates with me...question if you are ok answering...by chance did you move to a lower tax state when you retired? I'm in a very high tax state but also own a home in a much lower tax state...wife and I are thinking of making the move in the next year or so.
....
Best,
Baseball Fan

No, we did not relocate. We've paid zero FIT/SIT post-retirement due to the structuring of our portfolio (detailed in prior post) since we started investing in 1980. Large part of our investment strategy, thanks to my first boss and investment mentor, has always been that tired, old axiom, "It's not how much you make, it's how much you get to keep." We do however live in a state with highly favorable tax treatment for retirees.

I enjoy reading the MFO articles. Anybody have thoughts regarding the article mentioning .....a 20% equity portfolio translates into receiving 60% of the returns of an all equity portfolio with about 25% of the volatility? Just a Thinking Fast and Slow type observation....volatility (SD) is a annualized metric that would remain in this case relatively consistent over time around 25% but the 60% yearly returns vs SPY compounded over a 30 year retirement horizon would not be 60% after 30 years. A significant difference in return. IOW's the value one receives from low SD does not compound over time. Although there is value inherent.

@stillers, @sma3,
Couple questions for you...
@stillers...I need to read your post carefully as it resonates with me...question if you are ok answering...by chance did you move to a lower tax state when you retired? I'm in a very high tax state but also own a home in a much lower tax state...wife and I are thinking of making the move in the next year or so. Question for all: Has anyone else moved to lower taxes in retirement? Did it work as planned? Happy with decision?
@sma3...agreed floating rate funds scare me...usually not highest rated bonds....took a real flush in the down draft in 2020.
I too am concerned about the rattling, swift elevator down in the markets...who knows...
Another fund I am dabbling with (and have owned in the past before it stalled out) is PMEFX, Penn Mutual 1847 Income fund. Really like the mgr who used to run Berwyn Income...seems like a fund you might be able to hang onto in "rough waters". I like the fund mgr's poise and thought process in the interviews I've seen him on.
Best,
Baseball Fan