Let's say you are planning to take 4% out of your bond funds every year. Is it advantageous to reinvest the dividends and then take the 4% or, take the dividends in cash and take out the balance to meet the 4%?

As of 10/31/2020, my Challenge "Retirement Portfolio" has total value of $1,073,493, for a YTD total return of 7.35%:
PIMIX----- $212,055-----19.7%
TMSRX-----212,985-----19.8
TSIIX-----218,534-----20.4
VLAIX-----429,919-----40.1
Total----- $1,073,493-----100.0%
Fred

Yes. Your home is not an investment. I will even go further. It is not part of your "net worth". I think this idea was brought out by people who decided either getting a home equity loan is part of investment strategy and/or getting a reverse mortgage is part of retirement strategy.
If you think your home is an asset, sell and move.

At a glance, this booklet appears to be a valuable resource for many retirement investors (in easy to read PDF format). Might be too elementary, however, for this sophisticated crowd. Possibly something one might pass on to a younger investor.
- Detracting from its value is the 2018 publication date. Dollar amounts and other regs relevant to IRAs and other plans can vary from year to year.
- There’s a section on 100 best mutual funds that looks very subjective. Many would disagree with the picks.
- There’s a comprehensive list of best target date funds by year. Again, that’s probably somewhat contentious. But, if it focuses on the lower cost funds, may be of value.
Critiques welcome.
Here

Volatility has been a big part of my style since 2000. Since retirement in 2018 it's a huge part of style.
Volatility/Risk isn't that important for young accumulators but retirees who have enough money to sustain their lifestyle to death have the ability to select lower volatility portfolio to suite their sleep well at night goal.
I can't find a combo of funds that meet my goals of making 6+% average annually, SD < 3, be positive every year, never lose 3% from any last top and why I will continue to use my style.

First, I’m not trying to tout any fund. Most of my “wealth” rests with TRP for better or worse. And, heaven knows their fixed income funds don’t always shine. With munis, I didn’t see any great options to tell the truth. I do think PRIHX has potential. At this juncture, I like shorter duration bonds (lower potential gain but less interest rate risk).
“ ... its below average returns. This in turn is likely because it has one of the shortest durations of any high yield muni fund.” -
Yes - (using Yahoo) PRIHX has a duration of 4.34 years vs 7.07 years for the category average. What I want. Of course, it’s being measured against more aggressive competitors. I suspect this is a major problem in most bond rating efforts.
I don’t follow M*, but watching the Lipper scorecard, bond funds’ fortunes tend to wax and wane depending on the climate. ER - ISTM is the greatest predictor of success, all other factors being roughly equal.
“I don't see anything unwanted about Roth distributions.” -
Ahh ... Mine were all converted during retirement. There was a price paid in paying the tax as well as the hassle. To me the Roth is “the gift that keeps on giving”. All your gains remain tax free. Convert at the right time (ie: early ‘09) or goose the returns with a few good speculative plays and those untaxed gains can be considerable. Meanwhile, with a traditional IRA, not just your original (untaxed) contributions, but also all your gains - even those you’re compiling today - stand to be taxed as ordinary income at withdrawal.
Not against pulling from the Roth. But considering the trouble expended in doing the conversions and the nice tax treatment, would rather save for a rainy day.

Roth IRA. As long as you meet the income limits , you can also contribute up to $6,000 (or $7,000 if you're turning 50 or older this year) to a Roth IRA. (If you exceed the income limits, you can still use a "backdoor " approach to contribute.) As with the Roth 401(k), all withdrawals from the Roth IRA become tax-free after you've had the account for at least 5 years and you're over age 59 ½. FROM FORBES

I don't look at M* ratings by category (Medal ratings) as a significant criteria for determining "Best" Bond funds. I think "Best" is only relevant to each individual investors portfolio criteria for what purpose/role an individual investor is attempting to fill in their portfolio. Portfolio criteria can vary widely, based on age, risk metrics, total return metrics, etc. and you may reach a different conclusion if you are a trader, a buy and holder, and how important longer term total return performance is likely to repeat itself going forward. I am a preservation of principal investor in my retirement years, but I do look for enough total return to offset RMDs annually, and to hopefully increase my overall principal amount each year. I am on the sidelines right now, with a nominal positive year in total return, but I choose to wait and see how this election is going to play out, how this Covid 19 pandemic will be addressed, and then sort through total return and risk information in the latter part of 2020, and early part of 2021, and build back my portfolio going forward. M* medal ratings will have minimal importance to me in my investing decisions.

@catch22 ...A 3 or 4 year plan to rebuild a house on the cheap, in the Philippines, on the lot my wife's family owns. Her cousin and brothers will get it done. The lion's share of everything we have invested has always been in T-IRA. The allocation and location of the money (taxable or tax-sheltered accounts) has never been ideal. The initial amounts were dropped in my lap, unscheduled, at the passing of family members, while I was still working. So, I dumped the money in T-IRA and grabbed the deduction, at the time. So, the plan is to take only profit, not bite into the balance in the T-IRA, and redeploy it in a taxable account, in order to grow it, over that 3 or 4-year time period. We are in the 10% bracket and don't have to worry about taxes on cap gains/dividends, as long as we are not stupid with the money. Wife still works, under the table. I get decent retirement income. Spacing the withdrawals seems the way to go. We won't have to face the taxes this way, and the $$$ will grow in the new account, hopefully. Right now, the Fed is backstopping everything. I appreciate your interest. :)

By happy coincidence, John Rekenthaler had a column a couple of weeks ago in which he provides similar year-by-year calculations for the same reason as I did above, viz. that seeing all the details year by year helps to understand what is going on.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1004651/the-retirement-income-puzzle
Here's his table of a million dollar portfolio over five years where the nominal growth rate is 4.1% (I used -10%), and inflation rate of 2% (I used 0%). Note that even though he says that the withdrawal "rate" is 4%, what he is actually doing is what Bengen described: starting with 4% ($40K on $1M), he adjusts this fixed amount for 2% inflation annually. He is not withdrawing 4% of the balance annually. Or worse, 4% of the balance plus an additional 2% of the balance purportedly to "adjust" for inflation.He also cites a recent interview with Bengen that answers @davidrmoran's question:

Michael [Kitces]: And so, what do you think about as the number in the environment today?
Bill [Bengen]: I think somewhere in 4.75%, 5% is probably going to be okay. We won’t know for 30 years, so I can safely say that in an interview.

Contribution limits are generally the same for T-IRAs and for Roths: $6K (or $7K for those age 50 and above), not to exceed your compensation. That's a combined limit, i.e. you can split the amount allowed between Roth and Traditional.
There is also an income cap on Roth contributions. Here's the IRS table:
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/amount-of-roth-ira-contributions-that-you-can-make-for-2020
Should your Roth contribution be capped, you are still free to contribute the remainder of the allowable amount into a traditional IRA, albeit without taking a deduction. For example, if you are allowed to make $7K in contributions, but your Roth contribution is capped at $3K, you could make a nondeductible contribution of $4K to your traditional IRA.
It doesn't matter whether you create a separate T-IRA for nondeductible contributions. They are all aggregated for tax purposes. You are making a commitment to keep track of your nondeductible contributions for life, or until you deplete all your traditional IRAs. The form is easy, but you're still stuck with it for life.

>> You're writing about, to use @davidrmoran's term, what you "feel". I'm writing about numbers.
That is Bengen's word, only about inflation. (From your above quote from his nice article [p3], entire thing starting here:
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/choosing-the-highest--safe--withdrawal-rate-at-retirement-57731.html?section=308&page=1)
I was wondering only whether his conclusion from the 2008 article might be different in such a high-CAPE era, whether he would so conjecture even though as you note he does not do conjecture.

We don't know what will be in the next 30 years but I like to make predictions NOW since we are talking about retirement now.
My assumptions of 2.5% and why I used 7% are close to yours of 4.5% withdrawal and then using adjusted for inflation. Both are close...Mine=$876K...yours=$847K.
I ONLY CARE about numbers adjusted for inflation.
Basically in the last 22 years this portfolio lost a purchasing power at about 0.5% annually.
In the next 30 years, I think it will get even worse. There is a good chance to lose at least 1.5-2% annually after inflation. I used Savings Withdrawal Calculator, starting with 1million, taking out $15K annually for 30 years left me with $550K.
Still OK according to Bengen.

>> showing that 4.5% works for 1979-2008.
of course; whoever has said otherwise?
>> the mid 80s were a good time to start
of course, the best ! Thank goodness.
My curiosity, as I said, is about what the scenario might look like ...
>> [4.5%] can be increased if the ratio at the start of retirement is under 20.
... when ratios are ~25%-50% and more above 20. So I will monitor PV going forward to get a sense. Are you thinking Kitces et alia would maintain their 4.5% SWR view starting now?
Obviously anyone who thought otherwise in March has been shown the wisdom of staying the course and the foolishness of doing the opposite.

>> never less than 4.5%, and can be increased if the ratio at the start of retirement is under 20.
I wonder if he still feels this way. I could check. The link is from spring of 2008, a wonderful time to be writing about anything financial, and the p/e he cites has not been <20 since like ~1993 except for that sharp 08-09 dip, and much if not most of the time it's been way >25 if not >30.
So like most (esp those of us out of equities) I am hoping this time, meaning since the 1980s, it's different.
https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe

Just keeps getting better!!
Fidelity® Q2 2020 Retirement Analysis: Steady Contributions Combined With Market Performance Lead to Double-Digit Rebound Across Retirement Account Balances
Retirement account balances rebound in Q2. The average IRA balance was $111,500, a 13% increase from last quarter and slightly higher than the average balance of $110,400 a year ago. The average 401(k) balance increased to $104,400 in Q2, a 14% increase from Q1 but down 2% from a year ago. The average 403(b) account balance increased to $91,100, an increase of 17% from last quarter and up 3% from a year ago.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200811005276/en/Fidelity®-Q2-2020-Retirement-Analysis-Steady-Contributions#:N^P]™\˜YÙILŒ™]\™[Y[LŒXØÛÝ[LŒ˜[[˜Ù\ÉLŒLŒLŒLŒLÍÉLÍŒLŒLŒLŒLLÍŒLŒLŒLŒLÉLÌLŒ

Michael Kitces is my favorite writer: a better choice is to start with lower % in stocks in early retirement years and increase the % with age.
As I've posted before, this work by Pfau and Kitces work breaks down when rates are low. Dr. Pfau acknowledged this, writing that

It does indeed seem that retiring at times with particularly low bond yields, which can be expected to increase over time, may not favor rising equity glidepaths during retirement. It essentially causes the retiree to lock in low bond returns and even capital losses on a bond fund as bond yields gradually increase (on average) over time.

Kitces, incorporating CAPE P/E 10 data, concluded that the safe withdrawal rate is never less than 4.5%, and can be increased if the ratio at the start of retirement is under 20.
The only enhancement that Bengen made to Kitces' work was to incorporate inflation, i.e. part of what you are concerned about.

Inflation directly affects the periodic withdrawals, as it is assumed that dollar withdrawals are increased annually by CPI. If inflation is high, it results in rapidly increasing withdrawals. ... the inflation trend hints at a reliable cause-and-effect relationship. As inflation (defined as the trailing 12-month Consumer Price Index at retirement) increases from top to bottom, SAFEMAX correspondingly declines.

Now he says SP500 performance will be around 7%.
You may have misread Marketwatch's writing: "Historically, he says, the average safe withdrawal rate has turned out to be about 7%." Bengen doesn't make market predictions.

I should also issue the usual cheerful disclaimer that this research is based on the analysis of historical data, and its application to future situations involves risk, as the future may differ significantly from the past. The term “safe” is meaningful only in its historical context, and does not imply a guarantee of future applicability.

Also on point regarding predictions, he writes: "if you have strong feelings that the inflation regime will change in the near future, you can choose another [presumably more conservative] chart".
Thanks to @bee for having posted Bengen's article yesterday, so that one could read what he actually wrote.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/57156/william-bengen-revisits-the-safe-withdrawal-rate-at-retirement

Bengen doesn't make sense and why the rule should definitely be under 4% and not 5%.
From 1992 to 2005-6 inflation(link) was around 2.5-3%. In the last several years it's about 2%. When the long term performance of the SP500 was about 10%, Bengen used 4%. Now he says SP500 performance will be around 7% and inflation is lower (at 2%), the rule should be under 4%.
In the past it was 10-3 = 7% performance(after inflation) and now it's lower 7 - 2 = only 5%. Lower performance means lower withdrawal rate.
Our portfolio withdrawal rate would be under 2% long term. This will keep our current standard of living and our portfolio for the next 4-5 decades similar to today.
Michael Kitces is my favorite writer: a better choice is to start with lower % in stocks in early retirement years and increase the % with age.
BTW, The withdrawal rule has nothing to do with distributions. Higher distributions isn't a guarantee for better performance or volatility but it's being promoted for years as the best solution.

Average balances are 2-2.5 times higher than they were in Q1 2009 thru Q1 2019. Many own primarily Target Date Funds
FIDELITY® Q1 2019 RETIREMENT ANALYSIS: ACCOUNT BALANCES REBOUND

Bengen says based on the current environment he thinks a new retiree should be safe if they start with a withdrawal rate of…no more than 5%.

https://fa-mag.com/news/choosing-the-highest-safe-withdrawal-rate-at-retirement