@Mark, Thanks for the Jim Sloan's articles. We invested in FMSDX in our tax-deferred accounts several years ago. It appeared that I bonds cannot be purchased through brokerages and they can purchase only through TreasuryDirect site and the tax refund. I checked my brokerages and only treasury (not I bonds) can be purchased directly.
With that said, we are inclined to use them in our taxable account, but we are unsure how I bond being used in future retirement. So there is much learning to be done.

(This is a 403b, so hey, I wonder if you can sue TIAA for not automatically moving the RMD each year into some nonretirement cash account ... assuming they did not.)
Assuming the relative tried to sue, "failure to mitigate" comes to mind. (Not advice, just a random thought.)
As the IRS notes, "Although the IRA custodian or retirement plan administrator may calculate the RMD, the IRA or retirement plan account owner is ultimately responsible for calculating the amount of the RMD."
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-required-minimum-distributions#6
Everything in SP500 ETF, I am told.
An S&P 500 ETF investment would have grown at roughly the same rate in a taxable account (since it's extremely tax efficient). So the growth hardly softens the blow, especially since the heirs would have gotten that growth tax-free (up to the estate tax exemption limit, currently about $11.7M). But by leaving the money in the TSA, irrespective of penalties, the growth became taxable as ordinary income.
The calculus would be different had that money been invested in something spinning off tons of ordinary income.

This article has little to do or say about medicare. It certainly doesn't say medicare is going to eat the SS increase you are getting. This is more about the affect all inflation has on low income people, specifically low income retired people and suggests how to best handle your savings to cope with the problem.

I didn't post the article, but Agreed.
What is says about Medicare is:
...What's more, rising Medicare premiums -- which are deducted from one's Social Security check -- will reduce the amount left over to pay for other essentials, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
Johnson notes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have estimated that prescription drug plan premiums will increase by nearly 5% in 2022. And the Part D out-of-pocket threshold before reaching the catastrophic phase of coverage will grow by 7.6%...

M* classifies TIAA-CREF Lifestyle Income Fund as a 15%-30% allocation fund. In the summary prospectus, TIAA benchmarks the fund against M*'s Conservative Target Risk Index, which is a static 20/80 index.
https://www.tiaa.org/public/investment-performance/investment/profile?ticker=93570885
It's a fund of funds targeting a 20% allocation to underlying equity funds. Its current portfolio holds 19.86% in equities (per M*).
Its performance (raw or risk-adjusted) doesn't compare favorably to a target date retirement income fund like VTINX, let alone a 30%-50% fund like VWINX.
The fact that you're looking at the advisor class of shares rather than the retail class of shares (TSILX) suggests that this is being proposed for (or is already in) a managed portfolio. For that purpose, it's a serviceable fund, but nothing I'd get excited about.

A different topic, not related to the Vanguard Target Retirement funds (such as VTINX). You might start a new thread to get a variety of opinions.
FWIW, Windor was mediocre through Neff's last decade, barely pacing its peers and falling significantly behind the LCV portion of the market. Not a fund where the successor faced a high bar.

Each metric has different meaning and value to each investor
Yes, though my question was what the metrics mean to you. Certainly the approach you described (for the maximum acceptable pain, maximize return) makes sense. That's essentially what the efficient frontier is designed to do.
However, the fact remains that you're focusing on just a few metrics. This matters because you said that "MARMX has better metrics across the board than VTINX."
For example, you have focused on maximum drawdown. A typical definition is: "The peak to trough decline during a specific record period".
The SEC recognized the danger in funds selecting their own periods for comparison. It issued a rule for fund advertising designed specifically to preclude cherry picking. Performance figures given must span the preceding one, five, and ten year periods current to the most recent calendar quarter (here, Sept 30th). 17 CFR §230.482(d)(3).
Using these SEC-sanctioned metrics, one sees that MARMX has worse annualized returns over all standardized periods, one year (-1.97%), five years (-0.65%), and ten years (-0.15%).
This shows that MARMX does not have better metrics across the board. Though perhaps it does for every metric you care about (as you wrote, each metric matters differently for different people).
As to why I didn't mention the spike on 12/28/07 - you gave the answer. With or without it, the story doesn't change. There was an even larger one in the 2007-2009 period. That didn't matter either.
Finally, what's the big deal about a fund of just four funds and cash with static allocations? Given that there are just a few underlying funds, this is something easily reproduced on your own. It would be different if you were talking about a target date retirement fund (the subject of this thread), where a glide path were being followed.
For example one could substitute VFIAX (or VOO) for the more expensive MAEIX, and IJH (iShares S&P 400) for the more expensive MAMEX. Then one would just need to find a couple of solid bond funds to sub for the fairly vanilla Mutual of America bond funds in MARMX and then rebalance annually.
I tried BIMIX and MWTRX. Since they're slightly more volatile than the Mutual of America funds they're replacing, I took 2% off the S&P 400 index fund.
Works fine as a replacement. Slightly lower std dev (4.80 vs 4.88) and a slightly higher max drawdown (13.88% vs. 12.88%) all while returning a tad more (5.51% annualized vs 5.34%). All figures are monthly (so take drawdowns with a grain of salt) and this only spans 12/07 through 9/21. Looks even better over SEC standard periods. Data from PortfolioVisualizer.

I'd be inclined to pass on MARMX. If you really want to purchase it, it's available through some annuities, e.g. Mutual of America's individual retirement annuity (IRA).
More completely:

The Investment Company offers shares in the Funds to the Insurance Companies, without sales charge, for allocation to their Separate Accounts. See your variable annuity or variable life insurance prospectus ... Shares of the Funds are also offered through retirement plans. See your Summary Plan Description or consult with your plan sponsor for information on how to purchase shares of the Funds through your retirement plan

https://connect.rightprospectus.com/MutualofAmerica/TADF/62824C842/FS?site=NAV#
(click on statutory prospectus)
Here's MARMX's legacy risk/reward page. One can enter VTINX to compare the funds on these metrics.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/ratings-risk.action?t=MARMX
Over the past three years, VTINX has produced better returns (Average vs. Below Average) albeit with higher risk (Average vs. Below Average), leading to a three year 4 star rating (vs. 2 stars for MARMX).
VTINX has superior 3 year returns (7.53% vs. 6.27%) albeit with more volatility (6.25 vs 5.18) leading to nearly identical Sharpe and Sortino ratios.
All of which is about what one would expect when comparing a fund with a 30% target equity allocation (VTINX) to a a fund with a target 25% equity allocation (MARMX).

In my TIAA retirement account, VTHRX, for example, costs me .14%.

In preparation for retirement, most people spend 90% of their planning time on the financial issues and 10% on the non-financial issues. After retirement, the ratio reverses, and most retirees spend the vast majority of their time focusing on the non-financial issues of life

Seems like a article worth sharing. Lots of links to other topics for both young (Pre-retirees) and Old (In-retirees).
introducing-the-90-10-rule-of-retirement

Succession planning is always tricky, but especially so at boutique firms where the manager's name is on the door. But more disclosure well in advance of retirement generally helps.

Mr. Walthausen has retired. Investors received a new proxy agreement concerning investment advisory agreements:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418191/000141304221000838/walthdef14a.htm
Excerpt:
The enclosed Proxy Statement contains information about a proposal to approve new investment advisory agreements between Walthausen Funds and Walthausen & Co., LLC on behalf of the Walthausen Small Cap Value Fund and Walthausen Focused Small Cap Value Fund. The new advisory agreements are required because John Walthausen, the founder of Walthausen & Co., LLC, has retired and along with that retirement comes a planned internal change in ownership of the firm. We are pleased that the current management team will assume the responsibilities of Mr. Walthausen and carry forward the traditions and values established by Mr. Walthausen. His dedication to the firm and its clients, his unwavering commitment to independent research, and his insistence on excellence are ingrained in the culture of the firm and will serve the firm well into the future.
...Presently, 56% of the voting interests of the Adviser are held by John B. Walthausen, 12% by Paul T. Nichols, 10% by DeForest R. Hinman, 8% by Stanley M. Westhoff, 7% by Mark L. Hodge, 3% by Gerard S.E. Heffernan, and 3% by Curtis J. Lasek. Mr. Walthausen intends to withdraw as a member of the Adviser, and upon withdrawal his membership interests will convert to non-voting financial interests in the Adviser (the "Transaction").
From Walthausen's website:
http://www.walthausenfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/20180214_Walthausen_PM_Announcement_FINAL.pdf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081400/000108140021001242/namedatechange.htm
497 1 namedatechange.htm
SUPPLEMENT TO THE
PROSPECTUSES, SUMMARY PROSPECTUSES AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OF
WELLS FARGO ALTERNATIVE FUNDS
WELLS FARGO COREBUILDER SHARES
WELLS FARGO FIXED INCOME FUNDS
WELLS FARGO INTERNATIONAL AND GLOBAL EQUITY FUNDS
WELLS FARGO MONEY MARKET FUNDS
WELLS FARGO MULTI-ASSET FUNDS
WELLS FARGO MUNICIPAL FIXED INCOME FUNDS
WELLS FARGO SPECIALTY FUNDS
WELLS FARGO TARGET DATE RETIREMENT FUNDS
WELLS FARGO U.S. EQUITY FUNDS
WELLS FARGO VARIABLE TRUST FUNDS
(Each a “Fund”, together the “Funds”)
Wells Fargo Asset Management today announced that the Funds’ names will be changing from “Wells Fargo” to “Allspring” on December 6, 2021. This date for the name change replaces the previously announced date of October 11, 2021.
September 30, 2021
091MMR/P1201SP

For most investors, the main news of significance is the merger and lowering of ERs for the retail Target Retirement Funds. The Institutional Target Retirement Funds really are for institutions only. And the Target Retirement Income and Growth Trust is structured as a collective investment trust (CIT) "available to eligible defined contribution plans."
Here's the Vanguard page for VITRX (including the glide path for the institutional series). The Vanguard page for the corresponding acquiring fund, VTINX, can be found here.
A recent M* writeup of the Vanguard retail series TDFs.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1027981/vanguards-fine-target-date-retirement-series
Generally speaking, the institutional series use institutional (or admiral) class shares of underlying funds, while the retail series use the investor class^* shares of funds.
[* Though Vanguard closed investor class shares of index funds to retail investors when it lowered the admiral class min to $3K, it continues using the more expensive investor class shares in its funds of funds.]
By switching investor share classes of some of the retail series' underlying funds to institutional/admiral shares, retail investors will see a reduction in cost. But that won't have any effect on the 0.09% ER of the institutional series. I don't know what magic Vanguard has in mind to reduce this down to 0.08%.

The merger is expected to reduce the overall expense ratio to 8 basis points. The investor share-priced expense ratio has been 12 basis points, while the institutional expense ratio has been 9 basis points, [a Vanguard spokeswoman] wrote.

https://www.pionline.com/defined-contribution/vanguard-merges-target-date-series-lowers-fees

A different and more readable Section 138311 in the House document @msf cited says:
"this section prohibits all employee after-tax contributions in qualified plans and prohibits after-tax IRA contributions from being converted to Roth regardless of income level, effective for distributions, transfers, and contributions made after December 31, 2021." [Emphasis mine.]
https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/SubtitleISxS.pdf
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/congress-is-about-to-kill-this-popular-retirement-tax-move-11632861718

We work, we earn, we save. We invest simply and sensibly. Perhaps we’ve accepted the challenge to live on half. Eventually, we have reached our magic number.
We’ve got 25, 30, or 33.33 years’ worth of anticipated annual expenses for a 4%, 3.33%, or 3% withdrawal rate spread across various tax-deferred, tax-advantaged, and taxable accounts.
We are experts in adding to them. But how do we best subtract from them? Today, I’d like to share our drawdown plan in early retirement.

physicianonfire.com/drawdown
Second Article:

5-steps-for-defining-your-retirement-drawdown-strategy

@BaluBalu : I hope you don't mind that I started this discussion for you as I thought you might get more responses .
Are you looking for investors in retirement , middle aged , or just starting out ?
The last time I sold a fund , when I realize I was holding to much LC. The sell came out of tax-free account
so no taxes at this time.
Retiree, Derf

TIAA Funds (updated; Retail):
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/2020_estimated_annual_taxable_distribution-retail_share_class.pdf
TIAA Funds (updated;Institutional):
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/Estimated_Annual_Taxable_Distribution-Institutional_Share_Class.pdf
TIAA Funds (updated; class W):
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/2021_estimated-annual-taxable-distributions-w-class.PDF
TIAA Funds (updated; Premier):
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/2021_estimated_annual_taxable_distribution-premier_share_class.PDF
TIAA Funds (updated; Advisor):
https://documents.nuveen.com/documents/Nuveen/Default.aspx?uniqueId=8e0484b8-cb12-4a4d-9d73-86967f57b5f9
TIAA Funds (updated; retirement):
https://www.tiaa.org/public/pdf/2021_estimated_annual_taxable_distribution-retirement_share_class.PDF
Tocqueville Funds:
https://www.tocquevillefunds.com/sites/default/files/Distributions_2021_prelim_111621.pdf
Touchstone Funds (Westernsouthern):
https://www.westernsouthern.com/-/media/files/touchstone/tax-planning/capital-gains.pdf
Transamerica Funds:
https://www.transamerica.com/sites/default/files/files/e070d/2021 Capital Gain Distribution Estimates 09.30.21 Approved.pdf
Tweedy, Browne:
https://www.tweedy.com/resources/library_docs/general/2021 Estimated Distributions 8-31-21.pdf
UBS Funds (new):
https://www.ubs.com/us/en/asset-management/individual-investors-and-financial-advisors/products/mutual-fund/_jcr_content/mainpar/toplevelgrid/col1/accordionbox_1691868404/linklist_279282322/link_168507298.0576113708.file/PS9jb250ZW50L2RhbS9hc3NldHMvYW0vdXMvdXMtZmluYW5jaWFsLWFkdmlzb3IvcHJvZHVjdHMvdWJzLW11dHVhbC1mdW5kcy9jYXAtZ2FpbnMucGRm/cap-gains.pdf
USAA Funds:
https://advisor.vcm.com/assets/resources-mutualfunddoc/USAA Mutual Funds Estimated Capital Gains and Income.pdf
ValueLine Funds:
https://vlfunds.com/gains
Van Eck Funds:
https://www.vaneck.com/us/en/vaneck-funds-2021-estimated-yearend-dividends-distributions.pdf
Vanguard Funds (updated 12/10/21 with ETFs):
https://advisors.vanguard.com//iwe/pdf/taxcenter/FAFYEEST_122021.pdf
Versus Capital Funds:
https://versuscapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2021-Versus-Capital-Estimated-Capital-Gains.pdf
Victory Funds:
https://advisor.vcm.com/assets/resources-mutualfunddoc/Victory Funds Estimated Capital Gains.pdf
Victory Integrity & Munder Funds:
https://advisor.vcm.com/assets/resources-mutualfunddoc/Victory Munder and VPII Mutual Funds Estimated Capital Gains.pdf
Victory RS Funds:
https://advisor.vcm.com/assets/resources-mutualfunddoc/Victory RS and VVI Funds Estimated Capital Gains.pdf
Virtus Funds (incl Westchester Funds-Merger Fund):
https://www.virtus.com/assets/files/2gs/virtus-mutual-funds-year-end-distribution-est-7065.pdf
Voya Funds:
https://individuals.voya.com/document/product/2021-estimated-capital-gains.pdf
Vulcan Value Partners Funds (updated):
https://www.vulcanvaluepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021-Distributions-Estimates-10.31.21.pdf
Walthausen Funds (check WSCVX-ouch):
http://www.walthausenfunds.com/fund-documents/
Wasatch Global Funds:
https://wasatchglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/2021_Yr_End_Dist_Estimates_v1w1.pdf
Weitz Funds:
https://weitzinvestments.com/funds/distributions.fs
Wells Fargo Asset Management:
https://www.wellsfargoassetmanagement.com/assets/public/pdf/product-alerts/20211020-productalert.pdf
Westwood Funds:
https://westwoodgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Capital-Gains-Distribution-Estimate-11.12.21.pdf
William Blair Funds:
I & N classes
https://www.williamblairfunds.com/resources/docs/William Blair Funds - Estimated Distributions 2021 - Class I and N.pdf
R6 class:
https://www.williamblairfunds.com/resources/docs/William Blair Funds - Estimated Distributions 2021 - Class R6.pdf
WisdomTree ETFs:
https://www.wisdomtree.com/-/media/us-media-files/capital-gains-estimates-schedule/2021-us-preliminary-estimated-capital-gains-distributions.pdf

If, in fact, the proposed legislation aims to levy CG taxes on the big traders and big financial firms that benefit from the tax loophole, I might favor it. OTOH, if the individual shareholder, “the little guy,” were to bear the burden of yearly CG taxes on fund distributions, I’d tend to think it was just another effort to shelter the truly wealthy to the disadvantage of the middle class. The recent changes in IRA distribution rules do not really affect the wealthy, who don’t rely on IRA investments to save for retirement. The rules do, however, shift a tax burden to the heirs of taxpayers who, in all likelihood, are of relatively modest means. The wealthy can pass on vast sums practically tax-free to their heirs. I’m old enough to remember the new tax rules governing IRAs the Reagan administration promulgated. Individual shareholders had to cough up big bucks for tax year, 1986, IIRC. Relative to my wealth, my two cents represent a lot, in case you were wondering…

@davfor - If I understand what you are trying to say then I disagree with your statement above "Passage of this bill would force taxable account investors to buy and hold onto individual stocks to continue to receive some of the advantages available through tax-deferred retirement accounts. That would uncomfortably alter the investing landscape for many taxable account ETF investors."
Those taxable account ETF investors can sell shares of their ETF's and receive cash on which they'd pay their fair share of taxes 'rather' than receiving (from the article) "A proposal has been drafted to change the law eliminating exchange traded funds’ chief tax advantage in the US by levying taxes on in-kind redemptions."
The average Joe ends up paying the taxes either way because few, if any, are "authorized participants" while those who are already exceedingly rich can game the system.
"Only “authorized participants” – a form of institutional investor – may redeem shares directly from an ETF. These investors are also able to contribute securities to a fund in exchange for newly issued ETF shares. Retail investors, on the other hand, can only buy and sell ETF shares through a broker."
From this article: What is an in-Kind Redemption