The first time I invested in gold and silver (CEF, IAU, and SIVR -- all in my retirement portfolios) was because I followed Rono on this Board. I've stuck with those investments for 15+years and I'm glad I did.
THANK YOU, Rono -- for sharing your wisdom and perspective here. I'm glad to see you posting again.

I try to remind myself of these fees each time I am offered a "free" steak dinner from these wealth management companies.
In my world, management fees would only be allowed on positive performance (the gains), not the initial investment amount (the principal).
For example, If I give you $10K to invest and that investment becomes $11K in a year, I am willing to pay you 1% on the gain (1% of $1K or $10), not 1% on the entire $11K.
You helped me make $1K... I brought you $10K.
Conversely, If you lost money for me that year, you get $0 fee.
Or even better, how about you pay me 1% of AUM in the years when my portfolio had negative returns. We are a team, right? If "we do better when you do better" is true, than how about "we both do worse when you suffer a loss (do worse)".
In terms of retirement Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) of say 4%, a typical 1% management fee equates to 25% of that SWR (1% of the 4%). That a significant reduction in retirement income.
I'll take that steak dinner to go please!

Yeah, well said!
Maybe I am just a cheapskate, but I am not paying for anything that I can do myself, that doesn't involve a septic tank.
A free steak is not worth hours of my time and enduring a sales pitch.

I try to remind myself of these fees each time I am offered a "free" steak dinner from these wealth management companies.
In my world, management fees would only be allowed on positive performance (the gains), not the initial investment amount (the principal).
For example, If I give you $10K to invest and that investment becomes $11K in a year, I am willing to pay you 1% on the gain (1% of $1K or $10), not 1% on the entire $11K.
You helped me make $1K... I brought you $10K.
Conversely, If you lost money for me that year, you get $0 fee.
Or even better, how about you pay me 1% of AUM in the years when my portfolio had negative returns. We are a team, right? If "we do better when you do better" is true, than how about "we both do worse when you suffer a loss (do worse)".
In terms of retirement Safe Withdrawal Rate (SWR) of say 4%, a typical 1% management fee equates to 25% of that SWR (1% of the 4%). That a significant reduction in retirement income.
I'll take that steak dinner to go please!

@bee Thanks. Timely for me, as I contemplate Roth conversions starting possibly 2026 or 2027.
My goal is to stay below the 24% tax bracket at RMD time. The calculator forces some assumptions, of course. And I previously determined that a Roth conversion adds to your income for that tax year. So, I may delay conversions an additional year to try and use the 0% LTCG rate and sell some highly appreciated stock.
What complicates things is that my state does not tax retirement income, but does tax LTCG at ordinary income tax rates. So, one strategy sort of offsets the other. I definitely need to study this more.
Between the assumptions and unknown variables (age, tax rates, mortality, income levels) I think that one needs to make, at best, an educated guess.
I like this calculator too: https://www.irscalculators.com/tax-calculator

These calculators were shared this week by Rob Berger. Seemed worth sharing.

This Tax Return and Refund Estimator is for tax year 2025 and currently based on 2024/2025 tax year tax tables. As soon as new 2025 relevant tax year data has been released, the tool will the updated accordingly.

efile.com/tax-return-calculator-for-2025-refund-estimator
Here's Vanguard Roth Conversion Calculator:

Conventional wisdom states that if you expect your client’s future tax rate to be lower than their current tax rate, it would not make sense to do a Roth conversion. However, Vanguard research shows that you should consider additional factors to determine a “break-even tax rate” which will help you decide whether or not to convert your client’s traditional IRA to a Roth IRA or traditional 401(k) to a Roth 401(k).

vanguard.com/tax-center/tools/roth-betr-calculator
2025 Tax & Retirement Contribution Guide:
https://advisors.vanguard.com/content/dam/fas/pdfs/FATXGD10.pdf
*Vanguard's link seems to be missing the saver's credit...here's info is:
savers-tax-credit-2025.pdf

For decades now, I don't look at one sleeve of my portfolio but the whole portfolio.
This allows me to use all categories.
I came to the conclusion to only hold leading categories/funds and look for the portfolio's total risk-adjusted performance and limited number of funds.
In retirement it's a lot more important for me to have much lower volatility. I pay less attention to performance because I have enough.
Simple example:
Instead of holding stocks + bond fund I may use QLEIX instead in the last 5 years.
Suppose I want just 30% in stocks. Instead of 30/70 VOO/BND, I select VOO/RCTIX. See 10 years (https://testfol.io/?s=18uGeuEjL0F)

@JD_co. Big fan of PRPFX here. Have it in both taxable and retirement accounts. My question is on what data are you placing ALLW in taxable accounts? Seems like turnover might be part of the plan. Lots of gains that would be taxable?

We shall see, thanks for pointing this out. ALLW distributes annually with 12-31 ex-date.
Per their website:
"Despite investing in commodity-linked derivatives, the fund does not issue a Schedule
K-1 as the fund holds the commodity-linked derivatives through a wholly-owned Cayman
Islands subsidiary to minimize non-qualifying income."

@JD_co. Big fan of PRPFX here. Have it in both taxable and retirement accounts. My question is on what data are you placing ALLW in taxable accounts? Seems like turnover might be part of the plan. Lots of gains that would be taxable?

And private credit will try and lure in investors via 401k exposure, shifting the risk to retirement savers, for good or for ill.

Barron’s Funds Quarterly+ (2025/Q3–October 6, 2025)
https://www.barrons.com/topics/mutual-funds-quarterly
(Performance data quoted in this Supplement are for 2025/Q3 and YTD to 9/30/25)
Stocks of FUND ASSET MANAGERs have languished: BlackRock (BLK; yield 1.8%; fwd P/E 23.6; #1 by AUM), Invesco (IVZ; yield 3.7%; fwd P/E 10.9), T Rowe Price (TROW; yield 5.0%; fwd P/E 10.6); Franklin/BEN is mentioned; private Vanguard is also mentioned and it now has 50% of the fund industry assets (excluding money-market funds). The fund industry is changing and growing overall. The most problematic are active mutual funds/OEFs but the mutual fund category (passive and active) hasn’t been growing. Mutual funds flourished during the baby-boomers era but now they are in retirement-decumulation phase.
New growth is in ETFs/ETPs, ETF classes of funds, retirement TDFs (soon to include alternatives), interval-funds (IFs), alternatives (cryptos, private-equity/credit) (other developments have been in CITs and guaranteed-income options within 401k that involve partnerships between fund firms and insurers). These listed asset managers are also adjusting to this new environment and should do well long-term. Goldman Sachs/GS is investing $1 billion in TROW to develop Price TDFs with some GS alternatives.
QUARTERLY REVIEW. WINNER – gold-miners. High gold prices finally kicked into the bottom lines of gold-miners and they have rallied furiously. Mentioned are gold-miners GDX, GDXJ, SGGDX, OPGSX; gold-bullion GLD; silver-miners SLV (gold:silver ratio recently peaked at 105 in 04/2025 and is currently around 82).
RUNNER-Ups – China region funds and digital assets (cryptos). In a boost to cryptos, stablecoins became mainstream through GENIUS Act.
Ironically, many mainstream investors stayed away from these highflying categories. Among the traditional fund categories, the best was large-cap-growth. LC-blend SP500 easily outperformed bonds. Inflows into ETFs (passive, active) were strong. Outflows from OEFs continued. But some unusual observations: (i) strong inflows into money-market funds despite the expectations of lower rates (maybe the investors were derisking a bit), (ii) outflows from small-caps despite strong performance (investors getting out after years of frustration?), and (iii) weak inflows into foreign funds despite their strong outperformance vs US funds (weak dollar added to the performance of foreign funds). So, there was euphoria, but not extreme euphoria. (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
MFOP data for Q3 pending.
Top 5 Categories, Q3

Bottom 5 Categories, Q3

LINKs: Quarterly Digest1 Digest2
Accessible from Mutual Fund Observer (MFO).

IVA chart indicates a single\familiar event of variable duration is meaningless.
as long as employment is high, there is a massive base flow into retirement american index stocks, and it will take a confluence of durable events to change sentiment.
but economics eventually does change it.

Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 10/1/25
TIAA Traditional Annuity (Accumulation) Rates
No changes.
Restricted RC 5.00%, RA 4.75%
Flexible RCP 4.25%, SRA 4.00%, IRA-101110+ 4.00%
(TIAA Declaration Year 3/1 - 2/28)
TSP G Fund pending (previous 4.250%).
Options outside of workplace retirement plans include m-mkt funds, bank m-mkt accounts (FDIC insured), T-Bills, short-term brokered CDs.
#StableValue #401k #403b #TIAA #TSP
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/2233/thread

I don't think we think outside the box at all in retirement. We worked hard to prepare for retirement. We built up a significant amount in our bank accounts, maximized our company retirement accounts into a significant amount, paid off all major debt, researched and selected a good Medicare Advantage Medical Plan. We have no annuitized income except for a very small monthly check my wife receives from the state of Texas, plus our Social Security payments. We live comfortably, but not extravagantly, in retirement, traveling frequently, with family and friends. We have more money in our banking accounts and IRAs now, than we did when we retired. In the last few years, we have transitioned to a preservation of principal approach, hopefully to cover future expenses. One of the things we are discussing is the possibility of selling our relatively large house and downsize to a smaller, newer and more manageable house for persons of our age, however that is tough for emotional reasons as we have a lot of fond feelings for our home.

Excerpt from Barrons article,

One last caution from the committee related to retirement assets. Nearly a third of accredited investors today count their retirement funds toward the wealth test. Less wealthy investors might be less able to endure the loss of retirement money, so the SEC should examine whether retirement funds should be excluded from counting toward retail investors’ qualifying for private investing.

PE, if pass, are for accredited investors, i.e. high net worth individuals.

Just a thought, but maybe some momentum to beat tariffs/inflation is still driving high-income spending? Either way, a big market drop might put an abrupt end to that spending.
My spending has been rather high for over 5 years as I address home maintenance/upgrades prior to retirement. The threat of tariffs accelerated that somewhat. Much of that comes to an end this year for us. Basically running out of things that need to be done/bought.

I am always suspicious of people that tell me we have to spend down our portfolios. Seems to me that is what the IRA is for. And if we can hang onto some of that, by golly . . .
The house is paid for. We're enjoying security we never enjoyed before. And now we're supposed to change our lifestyles to what end? Consume more stuff? Wander around? Geez we did a heck a lot of that on the cheap while we younger and spryer and child free.
Maybe we would have more to not spend if we had buckled down to the grindstone suggested by those folks that sneer at work-life balance. But we have our memories.

they’re just not spending what they should, and they’re not living the life and retirement that they should afford.

I always wonder what sort of relationship such people have with their parents. We wouldn't be where we are now without a little help from our parents. If we can help our kids a little, that would make us happy. Seems to me that happy is the point.

Barron's RETIREMENT & WELL BEING (online). The SEC panel on including private-equity/credit (p-e/c) within retail funds and retirement 401k/403b has made several recommendation (28-page report): avoid self-standing p-e/c offerings; include p-e/c within allocation/hybrid funds and TDFs; different restrictions in retirement and nonretirement accounts; any redemption restrictions may be similar to interval-funds but with monthly redemptions at higher %AUM; revision of the definition of “accredited investors”; more disclosures and investor education.
(Subscription) https://www.barrons.com/articles/sec-private-assets-retail-investors-1d83d3cd
SEC, 28-pg Report https://www.sec.gov/files/iac-private-markets-091125.pdf

There's a fair amount hidden under the covers here. Not that the conclusions aren't sound, but some of the reasoning bears scrutiny.
Thinking in terms of COLA annuities, I agree with the conclusion that "buying" more SS by delaying benefits is better than buying a commercial annuity with COLAs. Though looking at the reasoning ...
In saying that 10% should be allocated to delaying SS, the paper seems to be saying that this 10% represents the cost of that delay. It calculates that cost for the typical investor to be $108K. Does that mean that the paper is assuming that a typical investor has a $1M portfolio at age 66? Mixing dollars and percentages is confusing at best.
Commercial annuities with fixed COLAs (e.g. 2% of 4% adjustment per year), are dismissed as having higher risk, citing Blanchett.
Blanchett's analysis shows that for these annuities

The expected benefit of including the COLA is negative. This is primarily because the retiree has to deplete the portfolio faster earlier in retirement for the annuity with the COLA due to the lower initial payment. The portfolio has a relatively higher return, which benefits the retiree as well. The COLA does the best only when inflation is relatively low and life expectancies are notably longer.

This analysis would seem to also apply to delaying SS benefits. With a commercial COLA annuity, the investor is accepting lower monthly payments at the start in exchange for higher (adjusted) payments later. With delayed SS, the investor is accepting even lower zero monthly payments for four years in exchange for higher payments once SS starts.
There are differences between commercial COLA annuities and SS but this question of possibly increasing inflation risk by delaying SS is not discussed or dismissed.
People's propensity to spend income but not principal, even as that principal appreciates faster than inflation is not exactly ignored. It's finessed rather than addressed directly.
The suggestion is made that because some companies use what would be dividend money to buy back shares (and boost their prices) you're not really selling off principal when you sell shares. You're just capturing these "dividends". As opposed to companies that plow profits back into their businesses, thus raising their value?
I don't have significant disagreements with the conclusions. And it's hard to clearly articulate reasoning in a limited space.

This has also been pointed out by others - Wade Pfau, rtc.
That is, adding guaranteed-income to the fixed-income portion makes retirement income portfolios more stable and less worrisome.
Just don't overdo it (so, partial annuitization to cover basic expenses) and use low-cost SPIAs (not fancy annuities with lots of bells-and-whistles).

Don't know if the new Congress bill would help,
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/26/social-security-retirement-age-wording-change.html