https://www.barrons.com/articles/higher-rmd-age-higher-catch-up-limits-highlight-lawmakers-retirement-proposals-51622831293?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo
Remember to read the comments.
Stay Kool, Derf

Call me dense, but I have been trained/educated over the years, to shift from accumulation investing, to preservation of principal investing. That relates to the "age in bonds" principal, the older you get. What I was not trained/educated over the years about, is that not all bonds are the same. Some bonds are traditional safe harbor, low total return, and low income producing funds. Other bond funds are much more "equity-like" in total return, that can be invaluable in preventing erosion of principal.
Now that I have been in retirement for the past 8 years, my objective is to develop a system of harvesting RMDs, that is tax friendly, but not necessarily tax avoidance. My system is devoted to shifting my principal from tax deferred, retirement accounts, to taxable accounts that I can more easily use for all kinds of age related expenses, and expenses I can address from a taxable account. My system is devoted to having a preservation of principal investing strategy, in which I use more aggressive bond oefs to produce sufficient total return to "recoup" RMD amounts that were harvested, so that my principal in tax deferred accounts can stay neutral, while my taxable account grows in principal each year. I don't want/need the extreme volatility of equities, where my principal can drop 25% to 35% over night, forcing me to have "patience" in an advanced age, to recoup major principal losses over time, which leads to age related stress in my golden retirement years. More aggressive bond oefs (nontraditional, multisector, HY Munis, FR/BL, etc. bond oefs) have great "total return" value for me, to preserve principal, with modest total return, in my tax deferred accounts, while I can use some more conservative bond oefs in my taxable account, to minimize taxes and prevent any major drops in principal.
I have become more and more a trader of bond oefs (both aggressive and conservative) to prevent major losses in recessions and black swan events, and to prevent major erosion of principal I have accumulated in over 40 years of working and investing for retirement.

Another read:
Optimal Retirement Asset Decumulation Strategies: The Impact of Housing Wealth

A considerable literature examines the optimal decumulation of financial wealth in retirement. We extend this line of research to incorporate housing, which comprises the majority of most households' non-pension wealth.
We estimate the relationship between the returns on housing, stocks, and bonds, and simulate a variety of decumulation strategies incorporating reverse mortgages. We show that homeowner's reversionary interest, the amount that can be borrowed through a reverse mortgage, is a surprisingly risky asset. Under our baseline assumptions we find that the average household would be as much as 24 percent better off taking a reverse mortgage as a lifetime income relative to what appears to be the most common strategy: delaying tapping housing wealth until financial wealth is exhausted and then taking a line of credit. In addition, the results show that housing wealth displaces bonds in optimal portfolios, making the low rate of participation in the stock market even more of a puzzle.

Link to Full Text:
optimal-retirement-asset-decumulation-strategies-the-impact-of-housing-wealth

Thanks for the thoughts @dtconroe
You are correct that I currently tend to view bonds as ballast. Years ago I sold all my PRHYX after Price did a soft close (their 2nd in recent years). I assumed that (1) They knew something I didn’t about valuations and (2) Even if I sold 100%, the fund would reopen again eventually. Not sure about the first - but the second did not occur.
That probably had a lot to do with my current lack of interest in bonds for generating return. Like the poem - “Two roads diverged in a wood”.
Your thinking is spot-on about retirement investing. Hope your plan / methods work out for you.

hank: "I hope that better quality, longer duration bonds continue to suck air. Because if they begin to perform well in a meaningful way it means that other, riskier, markets (including junk bonds) are in a heap of trouble."
Depends on what kind of investor you are. Equity oriented investors, tend to only think of bonds as "ballast" instruments, focusing on treasuries and investment grade options. Bond oriented investors, are aware that there are a wide variety of bond oefs, that perform differently in different environments. Funds like PIMIX and DBLTX were birthed in the ashes of the 2008 crash, purchased nonagency mortgages that were out of favor, and over the following decade of equity bull market performance, those junky bond oefs became hugely popular, replacing CDs for income flow, and making great total return, without the volatility of equities.
I am not a great trader, but I have found that bond oefs move slowly enough that I can establish sell points for bond oefs, and easily switch to other bond oefs, in other categories, and still make a nice, lower stress, total return result. I did that in March 2020, when I sold my junkier bond oefs (with a small loss after hitting my sell point criteria), replaced them with some safe harbor bond oefs like GIBLX and BIMIX, and then when those junky bond oefs were once again performing well, I was able to switch back into funds like DHEAX and SEMMX, and make a nice total return. I am beyond my youthful days of heavy equity oriented investing, but have found my bond oef stage in retirement, provides a very nice total return result, allowing me to preserve what I have accumulated, and still grow the principal each year, even with the required RMD harvesting.
I am 73 years old, in retirement, with no company pensions to provide me a safety net. My preservation of principal objectives, with modest total return, fits my current investing objectives and needs. I am quite content making 4% to 6% annual total return, with minimal volatility and stress, using bond oefs.

I’m very interested in more discussion on the advantages of ETF’s vs MF and not just in taxable accounts but in retirement accounts + in retirement accounts where the investor has no interest in being an active trader.

Ben Johnson, director of global ETF research for M*, wrote a recent article discussing the benefits and drawbacks of active ETFs.
Link

I’m very interested in more discussion on the advantages of ETF’s vs MF and not just in taxable accounts but in retirement accounts + in retirement accounts where the investor has no interest in being an active trader. Perhaps that deserves its own thread? Or is this what was intended here? Fido has a limited number of etf to choose from plus some iShare options. Their offering seems very limited to me. Fido that is.

Seemed to fit this thread (From T. Rowe Price):
how-to-get-more-out-your-retirement-account-withdrawals.pdf

I am thinking of utilizing RPHYX for some cash in a taxable brokerage account. I used this fund in retirement account so I did not care much about tax efficiency and cost base accounting. But in a taxable account one needs to be more careful not to be surprised.
Any tips on using RPHYX in a taxable account?

I think Mutual Funds will continue to be the main mechanism in retirement accounts where once a day trade is just enough. ETFs will be increasingly dominant in taxable accounts. Not all ETFs are now cost and some hide the acquired funds' underlying ER and ETFs in low liquidity assets tend to diverge from underlying asset values. So, they many reasons to continue to invest through mutual funds.

Aside from Vanguard funds, there are funds from other fund families where Vanguard sells a cheaper share class than you can get at Fidelity/Schwab/TDA. For example, Columbia Thermostat is easy to buy anywhere, but Vanguard sells the cheaper COTZX class I shares. They're even NTF with a low ($2K/$3K) min.
(About 1/3 of the funds returned from a M* search I ran were Columbia funds, so if you care about getting a cheaper share class of Vanguard or Columbia funds, you might want to seriously consider VBS.)
Then there are other funds that Vanguard sells but retail investors can't get (any share class) at the other brokerages. For example, GEQIX and TSYNX/TSYIX
M* lists of brokers:
COTZX: http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/purchase-info.html?t=COTZX
GEQIX: http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/purchase-info.html?t=GEQIX
TSYNX: http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/purchase-info.html?t=TSYNX
TSYIX: http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/purchase-info.html?t=TSYIX
M*'s brokerage data is not the most reliable part of its database, so I checked each of the sample funds above.
I ran the following screen on M*. It returned 258 share classes, at least some of which were wrong (e.g. CGM funds are no longer available at Vanguard. The screen returned all three surviving CGM funds.)
(Brokerage Availability = Vanguard TF
or Brokerage Availability = Vanguard NTF)
and (Brokerage Availability not = Schwab All (Retail, Instl, Retirement))
and (Brokerage Availability not = Schwab OneSource & NTF (No Load & No Transaction Fee))
and (Brokerage Availability not = Fidelity Retail FundsNetwork)
and (Brokerage Availability not = Fidelity Retail FundsNetwork-NTF)
and (Minimum Initial Purchase <= 50000)

@Crash, yes and no. Someone can do pretty well with minimal changes. I held PIMIX about 7-8 years. I held one HY Muni for 3 years. In the last several years I invested mostly in HY Munis + special securitized bond within Multi/NonTrad.
So, I babysit it because I love it and it works pretty well but someone can make 1-2 changes annually and still do well. Many have no problem trading stocks/ETF/CEFs many times annually but somehow it can't be done with bonds or believe that bonds have only one category.
Bonds are the true simple mainstream ballast to stocks and when you go deeper into several bond categories you will find they can do even more and have different correlation too.
Sure, I used to be many years in stock funds at 85-100% but as I got older and especially in retirement I learned a lot more about bonds.

@FD1000. Rookies do need to learn the ins and outs. And even some folks who have learned quite a bit about how this all happens and about all the different menu items, so to speak, just don't care to babysit their stuff all the time. For me, it's my hobby in retirement. A nice problem to have.

Despite the fact that one research paper recently found Americans are more afraid of outliving their money during retirement than death itself, and economics research has long since shown that leveraging mortality credits through annuitization is an “efficient” way to buy retirement income that can’t be outlived, the adoption of guaranteed lifetime income vehicles like a single premium immediate annuity purchased at retirement remains extremely low.
In a recent new book entitled “King William’s Tontine: Why The Retirement Annuity Of The Future Should Resemble Its Past”, retirement researcher Moshe Milevsky makes the case that perhaps the primary blocking point of immediate annuitization really is its cost, and that guaranteeing mortality credits takes an unnecessary toll on available retirement income payouts (not to mention creating systemic risk for insurance companies if there’s a medical breakthrough!).
As an alternative, Milevsky advocates for an alternative retirement income vehicle, called a tontine.

kitces.com/blog/tontine-agreement-instead-of-annuity-lifetime-income-mortality-credits

I don;'t own PONAX or PIMIX but I do own their CEF counter partners PCI, PDI and PTY. Why do I still own them? Because on the first of each month they politely drop $1K+ of distributions into my retirement account. To carry my lunacy even further I also hold IOFIX. Equities at current levels aren't compelling enough to me to make any switches.

Great tread on retirement withdrawal. Where does target date funds fit into the strategies discussed here?

Just wanted to get this learned community’s input on our situation.
A couple years ago, due to a number of fortuitous events, Mrs. Ruffles acquired a significant amount of cash that she parked at Fido for convenience’s sake. Due to the overheated markets, she’s been reluctant to invest it for fear of incurring a substantial loss. A much more significant amount of funds is fully invested in her retirement accounts here and elsewhere. Her salary more than covers her annual expenses.
When she first acquired her cash, she was in touch with her Fido advisor but decided it was better to do nothing than rush into something. The advisor recently reached out to her so we had a teleconference with him. We thought he might have some ideas but he kept expecting us to drive the conversation.
I mentioned that it wasn’t imperative to invest all the cash right away due to her other investments and that, if she were to invest, our concerns included downside protection and tax minimization. He mentioned dollar cost averaging, Fido’s wealth management service and separately managed accounts, outside advisors Fido works with, and tax-loss harvesting.
It was all very generic so I asked that he forward us more details on some of the strategies he mentioned. In response, he emailed us links to the website pages on wealth management services, managed accounts, and planning services - nothing I hadn’t seen before. To say the least, we were both underwhelmed.
I responded asking for more details (performance, risk, costs, etc.) on the strategies he mentioned so that we could make some informed decisions. After two days, crickets - not even a simple acknowledgement.
Am I expecting too much or should this be in the advisor’s wheelhouse? What have others experienced in working with advisors at Fido and other brokers?

*************
Somehow, over the years, I'd already half-way expected the kind of "service" you've received. A ONE-TIME in-person visit to a brick-and-mortar office with a BofA-Merrill Lynch guy was very helpful to me in evaluating my holdings at the time, many yeas ago. Since my friend was this guy's client, my friend asked if the fellow couldn't find time to see me for an hour. He did it for me at no charge. He was attentive, sharp, listened a good deal. But my pot was not very big. He offered to take on the job of managing my investments via one of his associates in the office. But only if I could get it up to $100k. I was not far away from that figure, back then. He offered to follow up with fund recommendations, and he did, via email. He wanted to run them past me, and I could see that they would have been fitting, but not my choices..... I guess I just needed to keep the control. I use some personal filters that others just would never bother with. So, the meeting was valuable, confirming that I had not already run my money off a cliff into oblivion, and so staying the course was in order. I was very grateful to him for his time, and told him so. .....I DO think that not rushing to do something, anything--- is a GREAT idea. And yes, I'd have expected more. But then, always and immediately, I must remind myself these days that wherever I turn, substantive communication is never the goal. Otherwise, we'd not always hear a RECORDING telling us our call is important. And people who are supposed to be of service to us would actually be able to think and communicate, not just send hyperlinks to webpages. .....Just this morning, I played my part, attempting to get in touch with those for whom actual communication is not a priority. But of course, what can you expect from their end? They've shown their hand already. I don't really matter to them. No one does, unless you happen to get lucky and catch the call at THEIR convenience.

This is such a tough question to answer given the gracious but limited info provided. There are so many variables to consider. It's interesting that Mrs. acquired a significant amount recently but is afraid to "risk" this even though a more significant amount is already invested in retirement accounts. One would think that if it was a large amount but an amount much less than already invested - one would be less fearful on the risk part. The bigger question IMHO is what is happening in the next 5-10 years. Is there an expectation to draw from the retirement accounts? When you say "parked" - do you mean in a money market or an S&P 500 Index account? If you explained that tax minimization and downside protection was most important to you (curious) - then it makes sense that tax loss harvesting and dca would be entertained.
All that said, your advisor should consider your entire portfolio and make recommendations on this new $ given the whole strategy/plan. They should provide you with an in depth "education" of WHY... so that you may make an informed decision. They should educate you so that you are well informed to decide. They should not tell you what you should do. I have had very positive experiences with Fid advisors over the years. But, like Dentists and Doctors, all have a different manner... you just have to find the right one that is a partner and explains and is patient. If someone sends you web links without a thoughtful conversation/explanation etc. - then you must move on to another advisor. IMHO. Hope this is helpful.

The Retirement Manifesto has a number of good articles...here's one:
10-steps-to-make-sure-you-have-enough-money-to-retire-2/

Just wanted to get this learned community’s input on our situation.
A couple years ago, due to a number of fortuitous events, Mrs. Ruffles acquired a significant amount of cash that she parked at Fido for convenience’s sake. Due to the overheated markets, she’s been reluctant to invest it for fear of incurring a substantial loss. A much more significant amount of funds is fully invested in her retirement accounts here and elsewhere. Her salary more than covers her annual expenses.
When she first acquired her cash, she was in touch with her Fido advisor but decided it was better to do nothing than rush into something. The advisor recently reached out to her so we had a teleconference with him. We thought he might have some ideas but he kept expecting us to drive the conversation.
I mentioned that it wasn’t imperative to invest all the cash right away due to her other investments and that, if she were to invest, our concerns included downside protection and tax minimization. He mentioned dollar cost averaging, Fido’s wealth management service and separately managed accounts, outside advisors Fido works with, and tax-loss harvesting.
It was all very generic so I asked that he forward us more details on some of the strategies he mentioned. In response, he emailed us links to the website pages on wealth management services, managed accounts, and planning services - nothing I hadn’t seen before. To say the least, we were both underwhelmed.
I responded asking for more details (performance, risk, costs, etc.) on the strategies he mentioned so that we could make some informed decisions. After two days, crickets - not even a simple acknowledgement.
Am I expecting too much or should this be in the advisor’s wheelhouse? What have others experienced in working with advisors at Fido and other brokers?