Hi @kings53man,
Just wondering what your overall asset allocation might be? Cash 10% ... Fixed (income) ? ... Equity (stocks) ?
I have been retired now for more than five years. My basic asset allocation is 20/40/40 which I can overweight the income area and equity area by 5% each should I feel warranted. Currently, I'm at 15% cash, 40% income and 45% equity. Since, the yield on cash is in the 1% range (or less) I'm thinking of raising my income allocation to 45% and reducing cash to 10% as my CD's mature. The last CD I had mature, a week or so ago, I rolled into three good generating income funds with a package yield of a little better than 4%. The three fund package consisted of BLADX, FLAAX & PFANX.
Here is more on how I roll now in retirement.
Old_Skeet's All Weather Asset Allocation.
My all weather asset allocation of 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity affords me everything necessary to meet my needs now being in the distribution phase of investing. The benefit of this asset allocation is that it provides sufficient income, maximizes diversification, minimizes volatility, and provides long-term returns.
The 20% held in cash area provides me ample cash should I need a cash draw over and above what my portfolio generates plus it can provide the capital necessary to fund a special investment position (spiff) should I choose to open one during a stock market pullback. In addition, cash helps stabilize a portfolio during stock market volatility. Example of investments held in this area are cash, money market mutual funds and CD's.
The 40% held in the income area provides me ample income generation to meet my income needs in retirement. It is a well diversified area that incorporates a good number of income generating type funds. Some examples of investments held in this area are BAICX, FLAAX & PONAX.
The 40% held in the equity area provides me some dividend income along with some growth, that equities generally provide, that offsets the effects of inflation, over time. Some examples of investments held in this area are IDIVX, NEWFX & SPECX
Generally, for my income distributions, I take no more than a sum equal to what one half of my five year average total return has been. In this way, principal grows over time. And, as principal grows the amount available for distribution does as well.

As I am getting close to retirement, I plan to build my cash allocation to 10% as market recovers.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/making-sense-of-the-turmoil-in-the-muni-market-2020-05-22
Opinion: Making sense of the turmoil in the muni market
Are municipal bonds now more attractive than comparable corporates or Treasurys in your retirement portfolio?
After the beat down in feb/March, muni bonds also recovered past few wks, making one of most attractive vehicles to consider own out there

Hi @_rforno, how is your total accumulative return do over past 20 yrs, upwards of >350% totals?...thx kind regards

I've not calculated it, nor am I interested in comparing my performance to any industry benchmark, because I don't care about benchmark comparisons or beating them. However, according to my own measures -- namely, seeing acceptable levels of wealth growth/accumulation in a relatively stress-free way that lets me sleep well at night -- I am doing quite well and am *more* than set up and/or well-on track for a comfortable retirement in practically all but the worst-case scenarios. In other words, I am thankful for where I am.

https://www.thestreet.com/retirement-daily/news-commentary/how-to-build-a-sleep-at-night-retirement-portfolio
How to Build a Sleep-at-Night Retirement Portfolio
/Are there asset classes that can adequately protect a portfolio and help an investor sleep well at night? There is no easy or right answer. Many of us are like Ponce de León, who, according to legend, searched in vain for the fountain of youth. Many investors are forever searching for the fountain of diversification that fully protects when volatility strikes and outperforms when markets take off./
enjoy

@JohnN recently started this thread that seems worth including here:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/56127/low-risk-vanguard-retirement-portfolio#latest

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4348188-low-risk-vanguard-retirement-portfolio
Low Risk Vanguard Retirement Portfolio
May 16, 2020 12:35 AM ETVBMFX, VEXPX, VFICX.
Investment portfolios with low volatility, low drawdowns and high returns can be constructed with Vanguard mutual funds.
From January 2003, a dual momentum strategy applied to a five-fund Vanguard portfolio would have produced a safe 5% annual withdrawal rate while achieving a 6.76% annual balance increase.
The strategy described in this article is suitable for conservative investors. It requires quarterly reallocation of funds and is robust with respect to its two parameter selections.

@hank said,

My only suggestion would be that in the overall picture I think it more prudent to look at what a more diversified portfolio (focusing more on underlying assets) might generate long term than to focus on one or a handful of funds.

When I play with the PV website I am impressed with most Healthcare funds. Also Utilities sector funds have historically have offered higher perpetual rates. Both VGHCX (VHT) and VUIAX (VPU) look like great funds to own for retirement income.
As I mentioned, VWINX historically seemed offered a better perpetual rate than sister fund VWELX.
I would like to hear from others who have back tested their favorite funds. Obviously, all of this is historical data and needs to be naively appreciated for that.

Sorta. Won’t need as much as normally pull out due to not being able to travel anywhere this summer (and who knows for how long?) - plus being gifted a $1200 check from Uncle Donald. Will pull partial RMD however to meet budget needs. And it’s always nice to leave the Roth untouched in any given year. I always move the anticipated budget needs into TRBUX (ultra short) far in advance and leave it under the tax-sheltered umbrella until actually needed. Made deferring some of the anticipated RMD super easy in this case. Good suggestion from @BenWP for those who might need to reclaim their RMD.

“... Let the money grow through the entire year.”

Catch did qualify that comment with “If one doesn't have a need for a RMD for current needs”. Otherwise I’d caution against leaving $$ you expect to need any time soon in the markets. They don’t always “grow”.
A thought: Fortunate are those “average” retirees who can subside beyond age 70.5 without having to tap even a small portion of their tax-sheltered investments. Having substantial non-deferred savings would be one reason not to need to rely on tax-deferred accounts. I searched for the % of Americans in retirement who subside w/o tapping tax-deferred assets, but couldn’t find an answer. Putting aside the substantial number who have no tax-shelter at all, I’d guess the number to be perhaps 10-15% who have one but don’t rely on it to fund living expenses - at least to some degree.

what's interesting is to not use longest time frame but to set the start date to 2007, so you're going into retirement at a very bad time. i did it w PRWCX. started with 1 mil and at the end of 2019 you had 780k with a max drawdown of 55%, at the 10th percentile. scary. but at least you still had money. oh -- did retirement of 20 years. thanks for posting this!

I could not figure out where to set a custom start date. I'm pretty sure I clicked all the options. What am I missing?

There is a tendency to use this tool as black box oracle. I'm not faulting the use of a simulator to run models per se. Rather I'm suggesting that people may not fully appreciate what is being modeled.
The Monte Carlo simulation engine of PV does not appear to allow a user to pick the starting date for the simulated runs. When one specifies a range of dates (which one does by setting "Use Full History" to "No"), one is specifying the data set (annual returns) from which the simulator randomly selects returns. It doesn't mean that the simulated runs start with the 2007 performance.
By selecting 2007 to 2019, you're telling the simulator to use one of 13 annual returns for each year in each run. Which means, among other things, that a run of 20 years must duplicate the returns from some years, since it needs 20 1 year returns and it's got only 13 years to choose from.
See "Historical Returns" in the "Methodology" section of PV's FAQs.
The simulator does have an option where you can tell it to start with the worst year (or worst two, or worst three, or ...). So if a simulated run of 20 years has returns r1, r2, ..., r20, and r5 is the worst, the simulator reorders the returns as r5, r1, r2, r3, r4, r6, ....
Better, but not perfect, because the worst run in your data set may not be in the simulated run. Still, this is much better than nothing.
---------
Numbers:
If you use this option with QQQ over 30 years with an initial withdrawal amount equal to 4% of the portfolio (subsequently inflation adjusted), then the simulations say that about 5% of the time your portfolio doesn't survive 30 years.
2007 was not the worst time to start retirement. The S&P 500 returned 3.53% that year, and QQQ returned 18.7%. See graph. If one is looking for a poorly performing data set, one would be better off excluding 2007 and starting with 2008.
Running the model with data from 2008 through 2019, 5% of the time the portfolio doesn't survive. Add in the requirement that the first year in any simulated run is the worst, and 6% or so of runs don't survive. Not a big difference.
For kicks, I ran QQQ, 4% starting withdrawal (inflation adjusted) for the lost decade (2000-2009). Less than 1 in 5 survive for 20 years, barely 5% survive 30. Expand the data set to the past 20 years (2000-2019), and about 7 in 10 survive 20 years; a bit over half survive 30. That doesn't include starting each run with the worst year which would make things worse.
Not comforting figures. Forget about getting the original investment back (perpetual withdrawal rate). According to the model, assuming returns over the next 20 years are like the past 20, there's a good chance that the money won't even last at all.
OTOH, with PRWCX, based on returns over the past 20 years, starting with a 4% initial withdrawal amount (inflation adjusted), and requiring the worst year to come first, one may have a 98% chance of surviving 30 years.

what's interesting is to not use longest time frame but to set the start date to 2007, so you're going into retirement at a very bad time. i did it w PRWCX. started with 1 mil and at the end of 2019 you had 780k with a max drawdown of 55%, at the 10th percentile. scary. but at least you still had money. oh -- did retirement of 20 years. thanks for posting this!

I could not figure out where to set a custom start date. I'm pretty sure I clicked all the options. What am I missing?

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/831114/000139834420010669/fp0053971_497.htm
497 1 fp0053971_497.htm
THE RBB FUND, INC.
Schneider Small Cap Value Fund
(the “Fund”)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Supplement dated May 15, 2020
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information,
each dated December 31, 2019
_____________________________________________________________________________________
At a meeting held on May 13-14, 2020, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of The RBB Fund, Inc. (the “Company”), based upon the recommendation of Schneider Capital Management Company, the investment adviser to the Fund (the “Adviser”), approved a Plan of Liquidation and Termination for the Fund (the “Plan”). The Board concluded that it is in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be closed and liquidated as a series of the Company effective as of the close of business on July 15, 2020.
The Adviser has determined to waive any applicable redemption fees for shares of the Fund redeemed on or after May 15, 2020.
Effective as of the close of business on May 25, 2020, in anticipation of the liquidation, the Fund will no longer accept purchases into the Fund. In addition, the Adviser is in the process of transitioning the Fund’s portfolio securities to cash and/or cash equivalents and the Fund will no longer be pursuing its stated investment objective.
Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their investments as described in the Fund’s Prospectus. The redemption of shares will generally be considered a taxable event.
If you hold shares of the Fund in an IRA account, you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds from the liquidation of the Fund (the “Proceeds”) to reinvest or “rollover” your Proceeds into another IRA and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund’s transfer agent by telephone at 1-888-520-3277 (toll free) prior to July 15, 2020, of your intent to rollover your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your Proceeds.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to July 15, 2020, your shares will be automatically redeemed on July 15, 2020 at the closing net asset value per share, and you will receive your Proceeds from the Fund, subject to any required withholding. These Proceeds will generally be subject to federal and possibly state and local income taxes if the redeemed Fund shares are held in a taxable account, and the Proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the Fund shares redeemed.
If the redeemed Fund shares are held in a qualified retirement account, such as an IRA, the redemption Proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation. You should consult with your tax advisor on the consequences of this redemption to you.
Shareholder inquiries should be directed to the Fund at 1-888-520-3277 (toll free).
* * * * *
Please retain this supplement for your reference.
(Disclosure: I have small positions in the this fund)

what's interesting is to not use longest time frame but to set the start date to 2007, so you're going into retirement at a very bad time. i did it w PRWCX. started with 1 mil and at the end of 2019 you had 780k with a max drawdown of 55%, at the 10th percentile. scary. but at least you still had money. oh -- did retirement of 20 years. thanks for posting this!

Great point...thanks. Wonder if starting in the year 2000 (tech bubble) had more dire results. The perpetual Withdrawal Rate would surely be lower (for both starting years) and maybe a better data points to use for this 2020 start year scenario.

what's interesting is to not use longest time frame but to set the start date to 2007, so you're going into retirement at a very bad time. i did it w PRWCX. started with 1 mil and at the end of 2019 you had 780k with a max drawdown of 55%, at the 10th percentile. scary. but at least you still had money. oh -- did retirement of 20 years. thanks for posting this!

This Reminds me of PRPFX to a degree:

Matching the high return of the Total Stock Market with the low volatility of the Permanent Portfolio, the Golden Butterfly is a home-grown Portfolio Charts sample portfolio that combines some of the best features of other asset allocations into a stable and efficient investment strategy for accumulation and retirement alike.

https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolio/golden-butterfly/
Here are a few more notable Portfolios:
https://portfoliocharts.com/portfolios/

Here is an article on Perpetual Withdrawal Rates and why it is a better data point than "SWR" (Safe Withdrawal Rate):

So what is a perpetual withdrawal rate, anyway?
By definition, safe withdrawal rates plan for failure. They are explicitly defined to cause you to just barely not run out of money under certain historic conditions. In contrast, perpetual withdrawal rates follow the first rule of investing — don’t lose money! These are the withdrawal rates that preserved the original inflation-adjusted principal even at the end of the single worst investing timeframe of a given duration. By weathering the storm and leaving you with the same amount of money you started with, you’re prepared not to quietly pass away with a few dollars remaining but to start all over again. Even if you’re unlucky and the worst-case scenario repeats, your portfolio is still protected. Perpetual withdrawal rates are designed to last forever, which is why they are popular among college endowments and other institutional investors.

https://portfoliocharts.com/2016/12/09/perpetual-withdrawal-rates-are-the-runway-to-a-long-retirement/

If I was sitting on 25M like her I'd probably have 5-10M in 'safe' bonds earning piddling amounts as my cash 'bucket' for emergencies and/or my retirement piggy bank. Remember, the more you have sitting "earning next to nothing" the more "something" you will earn from that position ... you don't *need* to have 4% payouts from them to get a comfortable return if there's enough mass there to begin with.
The rest would be mostly in equities and perhaps a few direct investments within my area of expertise.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-05-14/ubs-sees-muni-bond-market-facing-biggest-storm-in-modern-history
UBS Sees Muni-Bond Market Facing Biggest Storm in Modern History
By Amanda Albright and Danielle Moran
May 14, 2020, 9:30 AM EDT
States still seen as a haven, despite vast budget gaps
But once-booming high-yield niche may see ‘surge of defaults’
Caution tape block off a lakefront bike path in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., on Friday, April 3, 2020. The world's workers are reeling from the initial shock of the coronavirus recession, with job losses and welfare claims around the globe already running into the millions this week.
Caution tape block off a lakefront bike path in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., on Friday, April 3, 2020. The world's workers are reeling from the initial shock of the coronavirus recession, with job losses and welfare claims around the globe already running into the millions this week. Photographer: Christopher Dilts/Bloomberg
To the analysts at UBS Global Wealth Management, the $3.9 trillion municipal-bond market is heading into the biggest financial storm anyone has ever seen.
dropped about 9% this year, on track for their worst yearly loss since 2008, according to Bloomberg Barclays indexes.
High-yield munis have yet to rebound as much as safer assets
UBS had warned clients about the risks of investing in high-yield before the sell-off began in March and said that such debt issued for student housing projects, shopping malls and recycling factories may not recover anytime soon.
“The unprecedented monetary and fiscal support for the economy will allow most municipal bond issuers to recover, but the high yield sector is particularly exposed,” UBS said in the report.
UBS said higher education and health-care bonds pose particularly high risks. For private colleges, the economic crisis may exacerbate long-standing concerns around enrollment declines and affordability, causing default risk to rise “appreciably,” the firm said.
“We expect the severity of the current recession to result in a surge of defaults among high-yield bonds,” they wrote. “There are simply too many bonds secured by nursing homes, continuing care retirement communities, and economic development projects to reach a more benign conclusion.”
To read more: Gimme-Tax-Shelter Mentality Ignores Threatening Credit Storm
—

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trump-asks-board-of-federal-retirement-plan-to-15264929.php
Trump asks board of federal retirement plan to not invest in China, setting up showdown
Eric Yoder, The Washington Post Published 11:05 am PDT, Tuesday, May 12, 2020
/the Trump administration has asked the board that runs the retirement savings program for federal employees and military personnel to not invest in Chinese businesses, ratcheting up the dispute into a potential showdown over who ultimately runs the program./
Not sure if trump correct, likely not long term imho
We are still 20-25s% invest w EM and China. I Dont trust Trump China nor Russians. I do believe EEM and Russian markets are cheap now and maybe heading much higher 3 - 5 yrs from now regardless of whom will be next POTUS...Wonder why trump did not boycott Russians
Any thoughts?

If I understand you correctly, there were a couple of years in which you had compensation allowing you to contribute to an IRA. But on your tax form, after taking deductions, exemptions, etc., you had little or no taxable income left against which to deduct the IRA contributions.
This doesn't help you now, but at the time you discovered that a contribution was non-deductible you might have recharacterized the contribution as a Roth contribution. At least if this happened after 1996 (Roths started in 1997). That way, the earnings on these contributions would be tax-free.
Still, because you didn't deduct the contributions when you made them, the amounts you contributed (but not their earnings) will be tax-free when you withdraw them.