My plan is to take Social Security @FRA and use it to pay taxes when converting Regular IRA to Roth since 100% of my retirement (no pension) investment is in tax differed IRA+401K. SS will pay my home maker spouse after I clock out.

"Second point. what if your ss is banked for 3+ years & market takes a very heavy hit. Recovery takes 3-4 years to recover"
If the worst three years happen early in the accumulation phase (ages 62-70) you come out better, because you've banked only three years of SS checks. If the worst years are closer to age 70 ("retirement"), you take the worst hit.
To see what happens if the worst three years are just after you "retire" at age 70 (age 70-73), try out the PV Age 70+ simulation above, and set "Sequence of Returns Risk" to "worst 3 years first". You're virtually guaranteed of losing if you live to age 83, and a 50/50 chance of losing if you just live to age 80.

@Crash, Thanks, but actually I can't collect SS. Even with a SS record I am impacted by WEP:
https://ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/wep.html
But for those thinking that waiting until 70 is some how the holy grail of SS strategies this seems at least worth considering.

There has been an ongoing debate as to when to start taking Social Security, as early as age 62, as late as age 70 or sometime in between.
Here's an article from The Retirement Manifesto that details the debate:
https://theretirementmanifesto.com/should-you-take-social-security-at-age-62-or-70/
I use the author's SS numbers to create a strategy that take SS at 62, but not for income. The SS benefit is instead invested over the next 8 years (until age 70). I create (4) investment options (investment allocations) that attempts to achieve a 3%, 6%, or 10% or an all cash return.
My strategy takes Social Security at age 62 and letting those payments accumulate for eight years...the time frame between age 62 and 70. This allows eight years of accumulated Social Security payments creating a "SS nest egg" . At age 70, this accumulated "SS nest egg" then can provide a withdrawal strategy that would equal the differential of the higher SS payout. If one were to die early this SS nest egg acts like a life an insurance policy for a spouse or other beneficiary.
The main reason this strategy seems optimal to me is that Social Security has no cash value upon death. By collecting SS at age 62.... as early as possible.... one secures at least those payments while waiting to start SS at age 70. I would rather start accumulating payments while waiting to reach age 70 and invest rather than purely waiting until age 70.
Achieving a average return above 5% would be optimal for this strategy. Here a look at the numbers:

Whoa. Even dead chickens are dear. Jayzuz. I count myself very lucky here. Wifey and I have certainly downsized to come here, but I prefer that. Ironically, we are able to help out in ways I'd not anticipated. I guess life is like that. It's satisfying. Retirement. No silly hoops to jump through, again and again and again and again. And no deadlines--- apart from taxes. I could eat apple pie for dinner, if I want. Giggle. But I'll have to pay much more than expected for it. ..... But when it comes to home building or improvements or cars or gas or a REAL grocery bill, I am sure that @rono is correct. The picture is more negative than the gov't will ever admit.

“Only 25% of U.S. equities are owned by U.S. taxable investors, with the remaining 75% held by people and entities not subject to capital gains levies, such as pension plans and other retirement accounts, endowments, and foreign investors ... (according to UBS).”
From Randall W. Forsyth - Barron’s April 26, 2021

I haven’t read everything above but I say cash is form of bonds. When I started investing in 1982 cash reserve funds were the high flyers. Of course conditions then were much different than they are now but still, cash reserves are ultra short bonds. Johnathan Clements discussed his thoughts on cash in a recent article in his Humble Dollar blog
At this point, half my bonds are termed “cash”. Another 25% are in a Stable value fund - neither true bonds or cash. Maybe I should advocate that we call all these bond like instruments “fixed income”.

I did and what I have done since I started investing and now at retirement. I'm fully invested at 99+%, only several thousands in cash at the bank. All my brokerage accounts have zero or close to zero in MM. I only go to cash since 2010-11 when I started planning my retirement, when I see very high risk, that happened about 2%. Since 2010-11 I started to change my asset allocation gradually from a very high % in stocks funds to mainly bond fund today.

Quite right, @hank. Except for a very few stocks I've been monitoring for YEARS. At this point, in retirement, there is NO single-stock that's good enough to compel me to invest at the WRONG time. Like right now, with valuations through the roof. But when the time comes, I'd love to reap the benefit of my homework. I would like for the effort not to be theoretical anymore.

What a mess. Totally. A good friend likes to ride his bike for LONG distance day-trips. So I "hear" that. These days, if doing X or Y or Z is too difficult or complex or I have to wait too long for it, I just pass it by. I can do that in retirement. I can eat pecan pie for dinner, if I choose. The only deadline I worry about is making sure that my prescriptions don't run out. Simple is good. If you want to make me work too hard or pay too much to get your product or service, then I just don't need your product or service. Yesterday, we went out for lunch for the first time in ages. Ate outdoors, under their roof. Greek food. Delicious. Great service, good food. No hassle. Masks required everywhere, still. But you can't eat wearing a mask, so we were free of the mask for THAT enjoyable task. No rush, no reservation needed, no effort. Beautiful. UNCOMPLICATED.

The usual boring statement, KISS for most: know your goals and risk tolerance, select asset allocation accordingly, make minimal changes, stay the course, stay invested.
Emergency fund: after your savings pass a certain amount (for us $50K+) we no longer have cash or emergency for over 2 decades and now in retirement.
Do I really need an emergency fund? not really, first I use credit cards, if I can't, I have several thousands in the bank. Beyond that I can sell my mutual funds and get the money within 2 days. Unless you buy illegal drugs or a ransom why would you have an emergency fund.
CASH: Do you really need cash, even a retiree? IMO, a retiree maybe need 3-6 months at most. Most/all retirees have a cash flow (from SS + distribution + pension + can sell something, what is so difficult to sell 3-4 times per year), in good time they can sell stocks and in bad times they can sell some bonds. Some of these bonds should be a ballast for stocks which means in market meltdown they will go up or have minimal losses.
CASH for trading: I never understood this concept and I'm a trader and not a typical investor. A typical investor have stocks+bonds. If stock go down and you want to buy more stocks, it's pretty east to sell some bonds and buy stocks, so why be in cash making almost nothing.
As a trader in the last 20+ years. When I was younger I just switched from lagging funds to better performing funds. The big change came around 2010 and planning for retirement when I added max loss allowed rule to protect my portfolio. Since then, I'm in the market about 98% and invested at 99+%(never cash). Only at extreme risk I'm out.
So, what % I do have now in cash? The usual, less than 1%, after all, I don't see extreme risk for months.

@Baseball_Fan This is not an endorsement, but:
"Never have missed a payment." The same line used by TIAA in their ads.
https://www.israelbonds.com/Home.aspx
This is not a rebuttal, don't want to start an argument. ;) But as a serious bondholder, with more than half of my stuff now in bonds, in retirement, I expect better than the current returns offered by the US Treasury or Ginnie Maes or Freddie Macs and the like. (Although my bond funds include some of that stuff in their mix. My bond "Picture" is truly global.)
I've looked at (very stable) Canada gov't bonds, too. Well, at least FEDERAL bonds. And "investing" in that stuff at the current rates is a contradiction in terms. Through banks, the gov't offers a "tax-free" account, too. But the interest rate offered is less than 1%. (As of 2018.) Well, "no, thanks" I said to the friendly bank employee.
...On the other hand, you simply, and very clearly, prefer the security of the domestically-branded animal. :)

Sorry if this is a repeat. I don't remember posting/seeing this filing.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/836487/000110465921032581/a21-8652_3497.htm
497 1 a21-8652_3497.htm 497
Prospectus and Summary
Prospectus Supplement
March 5, 2021
Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund, Inc.
Supplement dated March 5, 2021 to the Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund, Inc. Prospectus and Summary Prospectus dated April 30, 2020
Inception Portfolio (the "Fund")
Effective at the close of business on April 5, 2021, the Fund will suspend offering Class I, Class A, Class C and Class IS shares of the Fund to new investors, except as follows. The Fund will continue to offer Class I, Class A, Class C and Class IS shares of the Fund:
(1) through certain retirement plan accounts,
(2) to clients of certain registered investment advisers who currently offer shares of the Fund in their asset allocation programs,
(3) to directors and trustees of the Morgan Stanley Funds,
(4) to Morgan Stanley affiliates and their employees,
(5) to benefit plans sponsored by Morgan Stanley and its affiliates and
(6) omnibus accounts sponsored or serviced by a financial intermediary that currently hold shares of the Fund in such accounts.
Retirement plan accounts (including new retirement plan accounts) investing through platforms that trade omnibus by plan for Fund shares as of April 5, 2021, fall under the exception for "certain retirement plan accounts" set forth above.
Existing omnibus accounts (accounts offered on platforms that aggregate all underlying client-level transactions into one account) that are shareholders of record are considered one type of existing shareholder. Therefore, shares of the Fund will continue to be offered to underlying clients (including new clients) through such existing omnibus accounts.
The Fund will continue to offer Class I, Class A, Class C and Class IS shares of the Fund to existing shareholders. In addition, the Adviser, in its discretion, may make certain exceptions to the suspended offering of Class I, Class A, Class C and Class IS shares of the Fund.
The Fund may recommence offering Class I, Class A, Class C and Class IS shares of the Fund to new investors in the future. Any such offerings of the Fund's Class I, Class A, Class C and Class IS shares may be limited in amount and may commence and terminate without any prior notice.
The Fund has suspended offering Class L shares to all investors. Class L shareholders of the Fund do not have the option of purchasing additional Class L shares. However, existing Class L shareholders may invest in additional Class L shares through reinvestment of dividends and distributions.
Please retain this supplement for future reference.
IFIINCEPTPROSPSPT 3/21

I found this very interesting and worth sharing.
...
https://theretirementmanifesto.com/your-bucket-strategy-questions-answered/

A good, common sense piece with a bit of substance to it. A few items there worth highlighting:
- Asset allocation. Rather than work with fixed percentages, the allocation is done by time: so many years in cash, so many years in bonds, and the remainder in equities. In his case, he came up with 63% (not 60%) in equities. He's actually got a pretty conservative cash (3 year) / bond (8 year) allocation. The cash/bond allocation lets you invest the remainder (however much that is) in equities without worrying about sequence of return risk, volatility "risk", etc.
- Annuities. He avoids the question of what bucket this income stream (or pensions, or SS) falls into. If one were targeting a particular asset allocation, then this question would matter. But because he's basing cash and bond allocations on how much extra income he needs, this question never arises.
He touches on annuity strategies, which seems beyond the scope of bucket strategies. But since he went there, it's worth reiterating that for many people, using retirement assets to defer SS until age 70 is the optimal strategy.
In a new paper summarized here, 401(k) assets would be used to automatically provide an income stream until age 70. A temporary life annuity can provide the same income stream while enhancing value with mortality credits. (The downside is that if you die before age 70, you don't get the full value of the temporary annuity.)
https://www.kitces.com/blog/understanding-the-role-of-mortality-credits-why-immediate-annuities-beat-bond-ladders-for-retirement-income/
- HSAs. He keeps his in cash, presumably to spend as expenses are incurred. For investing, he recommends bucket 3 (equities). My take is different - I suggest bucket 2.
HSAs are like Roth IRAs - withdrawals are tax-free - so long as one can pair them with past medical expenses. I would put my slower growing Roth-ish assets into HSAs to limit the risk that the HSAs grow too fast. You don't want more money in the HSAs than you can withdraw tax-free (not enough medical expenses). Keep the faster growing assets in the genuine Roth IRAs.

My response that @davidmoran article (above link) posted here:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/58025/q-a-bucket-strategies-in-retirement#latest

shoulda posted this here instead perhaps
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/think-you-can-rely-on-the-4-rule-in-retirement-think-again-11617913126

Some cold water --- a longer and broader historical view:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/think-you-can-rely-on-the-4-rule-in-retirement-think-again-11617913126

It makes a lot of sense. Just not for me. I can handle retirement better by keeping things simpler even than that: I check my investment total against last year's, at the New Year. As long as the total has grown, I know I have at least that much leeway to withdraw money from my accounts, using whichever mutual funds seem best to me. The difference between last year's New Year's total and this year's New Year's total gives me a measure of progress (or caution, if the portfolio had a down-year.) If the portfolio did not rise, or lost money, I don't tap the portfolio. And in the meantime, there are monthly dividends that will come in. If they don't, then it's time for a revamp. If need be, those dividends could be used. And in a future year, the portfolio might be expected to do better.

As the article points out, a younger investor might comfortably remain invested 100% of the time (10 of more years away from retirement).
Using Portfolio Visualizer one can back test balance funds such as VBINX or FBALX and analyze their 3 & 5 year rolling returns back to 1994. Their 3-year rolling returns went negative twice (June 2002 - Oct 2003) and (Sept 2008 - Dec 2010). It appears a balance portfolio in retirement might want to avoid withdrawals during these types of time frames. The longest of these time frames being about 2 years. It would seem appropriate to keep two years worth of spending out of the market so that it could be spent during these negative draw down periods. Maybe more if you are strategically trying to use cash to "buy" when the market swoons.
PV link (click on the rolling return tab)

Unfortunately people have a tendency to bail at the worst times. One will do better by making a plan, any plan, whether it is self-managed retirement, an annuity, target date funds, or anything else and just unemotionally sticking with it.

Excellent observation.
That's why if you treat a fund as an annuity, stick to it. You can't run and dump an annuity once you're under contract (or not easily/quickly/without penality) so you should treat that 'annuity' fund the same way. Don't look at it more than 4x a year and set the automatic withdrawls/sales to take place automatically if you can -- but otherwise, leave it alone unless it's imploding for real reasons (firm goes bust, fund changes mandate drastically, etc) not just market volatility.