Morningstar’s @JPtak reports that the S.O.R risks are quite high in the first 5 years of 30-yr retirement period. So, one should use more conservative allocations & withdrawals in those first 5 years. Also, the portfolio balances must be monitored closely during those 5 years & corrective actions should be taken if the portfolio drops precipitously.
https://www.morningstar.com/retirement/how-avoid-outliving-your-retirement-savings-its-all-sequence

Watching the Muskrats at SSA and reading YBB's post above, it almost reassures me that for many, many years I've not planned on SSA being a significant part of my retirement income that I would depend on ... if it's even around then. ;/

Not to pile on the article above. The concluding statement is generalized with the aim at a broad audience. Everyone on this board is in different phases of investing. Some are working while other are retiring or in-retirement already. Thus, we have a diverse response to the conclusion above. For many retirees, their investment horizon is much shorter and there is little room for a 10 year recovery period as in 2008 GRC. I have been reducing stock allocation in order to reduce risk as I approach retirement. There are pockets of opportunities like @hank stated. Personally, actively managed bonds work for us. I am also okay with money market, stable value, and T bills as they yield over 4%.
It is unknown risk caused by this trade war which we are about to embark upon, and their consequences on the market is most concerning.
I may be wrong but I am learning fast.

@larryB - Yes, my younger self also responded differently from the current me. I was w*rking in 2000 and 2008 then and socking money into my retirement funds while they were cheaper. My equity position was approx 75% at the time. As I entered retirement 7 years ago, I reduced to 35% and then during the 2020 recession I timidly added to stocks.
I agree, this time may be completely different as noted by previous posters and threads. I have kept a significant (for me) cash stash, to aid my wife and me through this *downturn.* Enough to cover 2-3 years even if social security is impacted.
So my head isn’t in the sand regarding our nation, economy, and stock market; and I’m not looking to be *right* in this post. I am looking for direction just like everyone here, and find evaluating the data that the stock market is giving, even if it becomes stale immediately, that’s what I’ve got.
I may be looking at the wrong data and would always appreciate additional information.

At Level5. Speaking for myself,,,, how I responded to significant market events 18 or ten years before retirement has little in common with my response in 2025. Younger me was out to grow my nest egg and old me is out to preserve it. The fear factor is real and that doesn’t even factor in that this time really is different. The rule of law no longer applies. Maybe in six months the fog of war will lift but maybe in 20 months a national emergency will be declared and the mid terms will be called off. Nobody knows.

The author opened with this: “ President Donald Trump is attempting the most sweeping transformation of government and policy in decades. The White House is moving furiously to slash spending, expand tariffs, repeal regulations and rewrite tax rules. A lot of people are wondering what it all means for the economy, jobs, housing, inflation and the stock market.
The truth is no one knows. But the best guess lies in the collective wisdom of markets — the countless independent buy and sell decisions manifested in stock and bond prices.”
I found the quantitative argument by the author had merit. He listed his reasoning by looking at how slow downs to recessions show-up through treasury, credit, and stock earnings price, and inflation expectations.
Still, I wish I had moved more of my (now) 35% equity in retirement funds to cash instruments. But I had not. My urge to sell was/is tempered by the previous recoveries from 2000, 2008, and 2020.
The fear-factor in the current climate is real for me, so I’m looking for data that I can understand to offset any emotional high-jacking.

The redoubtable Mr. Rekenthaler peered in from his retirement villa today, and shared his take on market volatility. He notes that some assets have appreciated in value (BRK.B, Treasury notes) and some have declined (tech stocks, bitcoin). Many attribute this is tariff jitters. He scoffs.
At base, he claims, if it were tariffs, then BRK.B and tech would have declined, Treasury notes and bitcoin would have risen because the value of the former is impaired by tariffs, the value of the latter is not.
Alternately, he argues, we're seeing a short term panic reaction from speculators who know that it's always safest to be the first out the door when the price of an overvalued asset breaks:

Speculative assets have been sliding not because investors have determined the true cost of tariffs, but instead because the marketplace has suffered one of its periodic bouts of risk on, risk off.

The real reckoning, for good or ill, will come when the impact of tariffs becomes clearer and the decisions are more driven by investors than speculators.
JR does not overtly factor-in the unpredictability of Mr. Trump's tariff policy, where the rules change frequently, unpredictably and by whim. That, as much as the tariffs themselves, might be a factor at play. We'd need to think about whether it impacts his underlying thesis. I haven't, yet.

Bloomberg News has a succinct summary of the disaster unfolding at the NIH and Biomedical Research around the country.
"The Trump administration’s attacks on science and funding at the National Institutes of Health will set research and training for future scientists back a generation.
This might sound melodramatic to anyone not intimately familiar with the world of academic training and research. But in just two months the administration has cut off opportunities at every phase in a scientist’s career. Unless funding and the freedom to pursue science without political bias are restored, biomedical research in the US will become less ambitious, less competitive and result in fewer breakthroughs.
To recap: In his first days in office, President Donald Trump targeted the NIH, which spends more than 80% of its $48 billion budget on grants and other funding to universities and hospitals around the country. That funding ground to a halt, and damage was amplified two weeks later when the administration excised $4 billion in overhead costs from NIH grants — money that institutions rely on to run their facilities and pay support staff. That was followed by job cuts at the agency — reportedly nearly 1,200 of them, in areas spanning Alzheimer’s research to cancer. (Some of these moves have been halted, at least temporarily, by the courts.)
More recently, scores of NIH grants were terminated because they didn’t align with the administration’s political ideology. Flagged topics include research on LGBT+ health, gender identity, diversity, equity and inclusion; vaccine hesitancy; and mRNA vaccines. Now, Trump seems to be using the NIH to punish universities that he feels have defied him. On Monday, the agency said it was terminating $250 million in grants to Columbia University, a move that will have a seismic impact on study and researchers there.
Summer research programs at NIH and in university labs — experiences that help pull undergraduates into science careers — have been canceled. Graduate school admissions are being paused or cut back. Widespread hiring freezes are leaving postdoctoral researchers, on the cusp of launching their careers, in limbo.
Assistant professors awaiting the NIH’s final approval on their first major grant, known as an R01, a critical step toward securing tenure, are worried their once promising careers are being snuffed out. Even well-established scientists tell me they’ve made lists of people in their labs to cut if the money doesn’t flow soon. I’m told some in the twilight of their careers are cutting back hours to preserve funding or are considering retirement.
The entire pipeline of biomedical scientists, supported in one way or the other by the funding at NIH, is being culled.
Unsurprisingly, morale — both at NIH and at the long list of institutions the agency funds — is in the basement. One researcher at a prominent New York-based cancer hospital told me he hasn’t been sleeping. A health equity researcher at Northwestern University, whose work hits on all of the buzzwords that Trump wants eradicated from federal government, teared up when describing what the situation means for the students she mentors. Making a career in science has always been exceptionally hard, she says, “and in this environment, it’s just making it impossible. I’m afraid we’re going to lose some of the best minds.” (Many researchers asked not to be named out of fear about the status of funding under review at NIH.)
Ashley de Marchena, an autism expert at Drexel University, said the funding uncertainty led one of her trainees to look for a job rather than pursue a doctoral degree. Not only is the time and taxpayer investment in building their research skills lost, but the student, who is neurodivergent, is someone whose unique perspective should be nurtured, not pushed into another career path.
“So many entry points [to research] are gone now,” says Julianne Meisner, an epidemiologist in the University of Washington’s Department of Global Health. She recently advised a student finishing her master’s degree to consider applying to PhD programs abroad. They might offer less money, but they bring more certainty. And those institutes clearly see an opportunity to siphon some of America’s brightest: at least one French university is advertising itself to US students as a “safe place for science.”
Meanwhile, those who persist are shrinking their ambitions to fit a more hostile environment. A theme I heard over and over again is that researchers will do less bold science, ask fewer questions, make fewer discoveries.
There’s little sign that the damage will be repaired once new leadership is in place at NIH. During his Senate confirmation hearing last week, Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s pick to lead the agency, seemed unruffled by the turmoil. If anything, his equivocation about the upheaval suggests he’s on board with whatever changes those above him demand next.
Bhattacharya dodged questions about restoring funding and instead emphasized the need to restore trust in public health, a project he believes requires “freedom” and “transparency.”
It's hard to imagine a less trustworthy or transparent process, or one less attuned to academic freedom than what’s unfolding. Sidelining and muzzling a generation of scientists, dismantling the nation’s research apparatus and ultimately ceding scientific supremacy to China and Europe does not seem like the right way to restore trust.
For the public, all of this might seem hard to grasp — or even care about. But eventually we will all be affected. It’ll show up as the hit to the local economy when scientists and staff lose their jobs. It’ll take the form of a widening gap in access to equitable health care. It’ll be the Alzheimer’s treatment or cancer vaccine that never quite makes it over the finish line."
Oh BTW Bhattacharya recieved an MD degree but has never practiced medicine ( not even an internship ), has never seen a patient independently and has never done any biological research. He is a health economist. Great choice to lead the world's most formidable biomedical research institution. All because he co-authored "The Great Barrington Declaration"
Not mentioned above, almost 100 senior level NIH investigators have had their salaries suspended and their lab budgets frozen and government credit cards canceled. These are people specifically recruited to the NIH to run cutting edge research, done no where else in the world. There are 16,000 grant proposals waiting for study sections that have been canceled and legally mandatory notice in the Federal Register that has been shut down.
Student internships for thousands of the brightest STEM college kids to work in labs all around the country this summer have been cancelled.
This will have a generational, decades and decades negative impact on the US as a Research mecca and biotech innovator. For what? The Chinese are ecstatic.
Far more significant than the shutdown of the NOAA .

brookfield's mark carney is leaving to become Canada's next PM and deal with trump. carney also has experience as Bank Governor for 2 nations ; this is bringing a bazooka to a pillow fight.
on top of that, the Canadian people seem pretty tired of all MAGA\musk agendas. they seem willing to take the pain of keeping their tariffs in place for some time until flops stop and someone (else) is leading serious negotiations and not pimping propaganda.
but hey, at least there is trumpcoin for american retirement. , and~40 fewer lbs of northern fentanyl, which has suddenly become bessent's expertise.

I had been lamenting not reducing our retirement equity positions from 38% to 33%, but after these last few market drops, I held my nose and made a minor contribution to VTI and VIG. Falling knife? Probably.

I do not want to get into OT but
IMO, there can be more than one goal here. I would not be surprised if one of the goals is regime change. The other could be to announce to the world how mean our government can be - by slapping around a dearest friend. I think @WABAC said well in one of his recent posts - no point trying to figure out “why.”

Well, that's just me, and my retirement.
I don't blame the Canadians for taking him, and his minions, at their words, and regarding the threat as existential. Trudeau and Joly have been quite specific about that. We'll see if that changes after the party conference tomorrow. I doubt it.
I couldn't help but notice their recent action against our largest pork processor, that just happens to be owned by the ChiComs. No doubt the paper work will be straightened out eventually.

There is greed and then there is fear (fear of not having enough for retirement) and both seem to motivate people to take similar risks.
You know how defined benefit plans were phased out by companies (encouraging employees to get into 401(k) which helped the stock market) and now the last DB plan like is social security. If private equity and private credit wants to gain more market share, they really need to work on the US government phasing out social security, which should really motivate more people to get into private equity and private credit. Pure demand and supply.
I would watch the Bigs (APO, KKR, BX, BLK (new), etc.)' for how and to what extent they bifurcate burdens from benefits using public markets which would give us an indication of the systemic risks they would create while the Fed and US government is focused on the last war culprits (banks).

Hard-pass.
But they can't resist getting their grubby paws on the trillions in pensions/retirement accounts...

Private-equity wants a slice of your 401k and it’s counting on some help from Trump Administration. The wrappers being considered are OEFs, CITs, interval-funds (IFs; buy anytime, but redemptions are limited). The TDFs can invest 5-10% in alternatives including private-equity/credit, but most plans don’t even do that fearing possible troubles with ERISA. High fees are another problem that may attract class action lawsuits. To address illiquidity, some firms have partnered with liquidity-providers. The 401k plans with brokerage windows shift all risks to the plan participants, but then why not just buy private-equity/credit giants APO, KKR, BX, BLK, etc.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/retirement-401k-private-equity-62be9228?refsec=mutual-funds&mod=topics_mutual-funds

Today my wife mentioned the following AP story to me: If you're thinking about selling your stocks, you might want to think twice
I explained to her that we are only selling the winners in our IRA. We aren't locking in losses. We remain in widow and orphan funds so long as they do well. We remain invested in our taxables, with healthy cash cushions besides. So if everything goes right, we won't be missing out on much.
What these anodyne articles aren't mentioning is the potential impact of an international trade war. The tariffs under discussion aren't just on steel and aluminum. And they aren't just on one country. We aren't talking 2018 tariffs, we're talking 1929 tariffs.
In addition to considering the usual, and varied, factors and data points surrounding market valuations and business cycles, we must now take into account the announced intentions of politicians and technocrats to remake entire markets according to their desired outcome.
And what I see out there is considerable uncertainty discerning the intentions of the guy in charge. While some people see the uncertainty as the sign of an unparalleled negotiator, others say maybe it's time we start paying attention to what the guy says he wants to do.
Be that as it may, my wife and I must ask ourselves if we trust the politicians and technocrats to steer the markets to their desired outcome without piling up on the rocks, grounding on the shoals, or going to anchorage to await further directions. Then we must ask whether this exercise will be of any near-term benefit to our retirement accounts given the precarious status of Social Security.
The following is a cartoon from our last trade war with Canada:

Elbows up.

Mag 7 stocks are behaving differently these days. Tesla stock is trailing badly from its peak. Sale in China grew only 1% while the local Chinese brands are growing in double digits.
Otherwise, we are increasing cash position via our treasury ladder and USFR, just in case. Our retirement is in sight, now we are a cash bucket to cover several years of living expenses. The rest are invested conservatively in case of severe drawdown and/or recession this year.

There is currently a lot of uncertainty in the markets.
I surely don't know what will transpire in the near-term.
I may increase my bond/cash holdings slightly since I'm approaching retirement.
Otherwise, it's business as usual...

Barron's has also raised concerns, https://www.barrons.com/articles/social-security-checks-doge-cuts-musk-0862aa39?mod=past_editions
My summary for those who cannot access Barron's article (LINK):
"RETIREMENT. DOGE is now going after the SSA. The charges of massive fraud have been discredited by accounting for dependent and survivor benefits that are tracked under the original Social Security recipient who may have passed away. The SSA expenses are only about 1% of the benefits the SSA pays out (It would be lower on the so-called SSA assets that are really Treasury IOUs; moreover, all of the Medicare application processing is also through the SSA, while states process the Medicaid applications). The SSA Inspector General found that between 2015-2022, only 1% of the SSA payments were improper. Those who have gone through the process of getting SSA benefits realize how difficult it’s to cheat the system.
There are problems with the SSA, but those don’t include fraud. There is a mismatch of the FICA revenues and benefits paid out that the Congress must address within 10 years. Take Administration’s promise to protect Social Security with a grain of salt – just look at how its promises to protect Medicare and Medicaid went in its recent budget. If your SSA check suddenly stops, DOGE probably ate it. So, keep an eye on your SSA direct deposits, signup or login to My Social Security and print your work earnings history and information on benefits. Fraudsters are already exploiting the situation by sending fake emails or making fraudulent calls – beware that the SSA doesn’t do that unless it has sent you a formal notification via the USPS."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/22370/000119312525042403/d652018d497.htm
497 1 d652018d497.htm JOHN HANCOCK INVESTMENT TRUST
 
Prospectus Supplement
John Hancock Investment Trust
John Hancock ESG International Equity Fund
Supplement dated March 1, 2025 to the current Prospectus, as may be supplemented (the Prospectus)
At its meeting held on December 10-12, 2024, the Board of Trustees (the Board) of John Hancock Investment Trust, of which John Hancock ESG International Equity Fund (ESG International Equity) is a series, voted to recommend that the shareholders of ESG International Equity approve a reorganization, that is expected to be tax-free, of ESG International Equity into John Hancock Global Environmental Opportunities Fund (Global Environmental Opportunities, and together with ESG International Equity, the funds), also a series of John Hancock Investment Trust, as described below (the Reorganization). Shareholders of record as of February 5, 2025, are entitled to vote on the Reorganization.
Under the terms of the Reorganization, subject to shareholder approval at a shareholder meeting scheduled to be held on or about April 3, 2025, ESG International Equity would transfer all of its assets to Global Environmental Opportunities in exchange for corresponding shares of Global Environmental Opportunities. Global Environmental Opportunities would assume substantially all of ESG International Equity’s liabilities. The corresponding shares of Global Environmental Opportunities would then be distributed to ESG International Equity’s shareholders, and ESG International Equity would be terminated. If approved by ESG International Equity’s shareholders, the Reorganization is expected to occur as of the close of business on or about April 25, 2025 (the Closing Date). Further information regarding the proposed Reorganization is contained in a proxy statement and prospectus, which became available February 14, 2025.
ESG International Equity will remain open to purchases and redemptions from existing shareholders until the Closing Date. ESG International Equity no longer accepts orders from new investors to purchase shares of ESG International Equity. However, discretionary fee-based advisory programs, certain retirement accounts and/or model portfolios that include ESG International Equity as an investment option as of the close of business January 13, 2025, may continue to make ESG International Equity shares available to new and existing accounts.
Prior to the Reorganization, any dividends paid will be paid in accordance with the current dividend option of an account; accounts in which the dividend reinvestment option has been chosen will receive any dividends in the form of additional shares of ESG International Equity.
To satisfy an Internal Revenue Service requirement, ESG International Equity hereby designates the maximum amount of the net long-term gains earned, if any, as a capital gain dividend, with respect to ESG International Equity’s final taxable year. Please refer to Form 1099-DIV for tax reporting purposes.
The foregoing is not an offer to sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy, any shares in connection with the Reorganization, nor is it a solicitation of any proxy. For important information regarding ESG International Equity or Global Environmental Opportunities, or to receive a free copy of the proxy statement/prospectus relating to the proposed merger, once it is available, please call the funds’ toll-free telephone number: 800-225-5291 (Class A) or 888-972-8696 (Class I and Class R6). The proxy statement/prospectus contains important information about fund objectives, strategies, fees, expenses, risks, and the Board’s considerations in approving the Reorganization. The proxy statement/prospectus also will be available for free on the SEC’s website (www.sec.gov). Please read the proxy statement/prospectus carefully before making any decision to invest in any shares in connection with the Reorganization or when considering whether to vote for the Reorganization.
You should read this supplement in conjunction with the Prospectus and retain it for your future reference.

Mike Piper discusses Social Security benefit calculations in the following article.
Piper's Prose