My first SS interview (phone) lasted 20 min., I asked if they need income verification for years,62-66 they said no they will check it (I guess W2s) I get my checks on the exact Date each month they told me, with raises every year...... NO Complaints....
ONE GOV. agency (SS) that did their JOB..
( but don't get me started on the IRS)

FYI: U.S. stocks are near record highs. But what if there's another market meltdown like the one from October 2007 to March 2009? Such a catastrophe can be tough if you're ready to retire or early in your retirement years. A severe bear market right before or after your paychecks cease can make mincemeat of your carefully constructed retirement planning.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTkzMjMxMTE=
NY Times Slant: New Math for Retirees and the 4% Withdrawal Rule
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/your-money/some-new-math-for-the-4-percent-retirement-rule.html?ref=business

Hi Shostakovich, it wasn't quite clear to me whether you were looking for an investment for the next 30-35 years or whether you're just looking for something for some portion of that time while growth is "low".
In the very long-term I think emerging and frontier markets are the place to be. They have favorable demographics, they're growing faster than the rest of the world, they're implementing necessary reforms that will make their markets more and more attractive, and some of them are gaining more and more importance and will most likely end up being dominant economies of the world. I'd rather not focus on the commodity dependent markets so I own funds like WAFMX, MEASX and GPEOX that are more interested in the rising middle class and consumer oriented investments.
In the shorter term I'd focus more on the places where central banks are aggressively easing monetary policy because I think it will lead to multiple expansion even if it doesn't drive fantastic growth. So far my choices for new investments have been HEDJ and DXJ because I believe there's value in hedging the currency exposure, but the un-hedged international funds I own are still outperforming their US counterparts. That doesn't mean to say I've given up on the US, but I've been shifting more assets towards Europe and Japan than I had previously. China is also easing monetary policy pretty aggressively and I like China long-term but I'm not making shorter-term China specific bets because I feel like the volatility is a lot higher than elsewhere.

Hi all -- soliciting your thoughts on what the best mutual funds might be for a low-growth economy, for an investor about 30-35 years from retirement.
Cheers.
D.S.

I have not done the work (sorry) but think the equal weight outperformance is mostly due to the bias of smaller average caps outperformance . I suggest that a 50% S+P 500 50% extended market index would mostly outperform the equal weight at lower cost. I am also surprised that the equal weight Nasdaq outperformed in 2014 when aapl and msft had good years though the article doesn't exactly say it did (multi year performance could be influenced by bad year for aapl

>> I dispute the assertion that a retire with a 15-year time horizon would not want to own some equities.
I think he was implying individual stocks and all equities, not bonds only.
I myself dispute it even if that is what he was implying.
15y is long in my book and practice. But I may be more firmly equity-oriented than many retirees.
>> Kitces' reference to "superior risk-adjusted returns" have not been documented.
Good grief, how much documentation do you need?
>> He has not analyzed for us the risks of owning different types of equities,
Everyone else has, in spades.
>> or different types of bonds,
He is talking equities only, as the very next clause made clear.
>> or tried to quantify for us the risks of potential drastic changes in either tax policy or SS structure
How could anyone quantify such risks? Quite apart from the potential drastic changes never happening, he is dealing with things as they are now. Not so delicate and cart.
>. somewhat incidental to the referenced article ... but part of the consideration is whom you would rather have in control of that sum of money, yourself or the government?
You do not have control of that sum of money, and never will. Missing/ignoring the point.
Who ever woulda thought anyone would object to this bland and entirely self-evident pointing out of fact?
>> ultimately, delaying Social Security benefits provides superior risk-adjusted returns to equities and portfolio investing in the long run. ... Obviously, this is not true in the short run – as noted earlier, it takes more than 15 years to break even at all.

The chief counterarguments arise either from the hard reality of needing it earlier without question, or from fantasies involving profound government distrust and crippling future anxiety. That's cool, whatever floats your paranoia, but it's not a prudent way to plan and make thoughtful money decisions.

There is nothing wrong with early retirement and having to live off or saving SS funds. In that time period of 8 Years you will gain about $110K in retirement payments. If that is what you feel you need to do. A lot of people have no other choice as they need it. But as long as my health is good, my game plan was to collect an additional $1.1 myn. pay check in that same 8 yr. time frame.

----- "Delaying Social Security As The Best Long-Term Return Money Can Buy" -----
The above phrase which Michael Kitces highlights in bold-face near the end of his article would appear better suited for selling cars than providing serious financial advice. ... However, based on that proposition (and assuming I just fell off the turnip-truck), is there any way by which I might mail some additional money to the government for them to invest for me in this wonderful opportunity?
-
Kitices writes: "... ultimately, delaying Social Security benefits provides superior risk-adjusted returns to equities and portfolio investing in the long run. ... Obviously, this is not true in the short run – as noted earlier, it takes more than 15 years to breakeven at all. Yet if the retiree’s time horizon was that short, the proper investment would not likely be equities anyway."
1. I dispute the assertion that a retire with a 15-year time horizon would not want to own some equities. I don't think the smart folks at T. Rowe Price view it that way. Their Balanced Retirement Fund, designed for people already in retirement, carries about 40% equities. Even their conservative Spectrum Income Fund includes a 10-15% allocation to income-producing equities. If we include even a modest allocation to equities and corporate bonds in the investments of older people, I suspect many of his assumptions fail to hold water.
2. Kitices' reference to "superior risk-adjusted returns" have not been documented. He has not analyzed for us the risks of owning different types of equities, or different types of bonds, or tried to quantify for us the risks of potential drastic changes in either tax policy or SS structure - any of which could upset his delicate apple cart.
3. Kitices "proves" that deferring Social Security is a better investment than buying an annuity.
OK - I'll give him that one. What investment isn't?
4, It's somewhat incidental to the referenced article ... but part of the consideration is whom you would rather have in control of that sum of money, yourself or the government?
-
I detest the pop-ups that have begun appearing asking me to send Mr. Kitices some $$ to subscribe to his newsletter. :)

FYI: As soon as the program becomes available for free, early tomorrow, I will link it.
Regards,
Ted
May 7, 2015
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen caused a bit of a stir in an interview Wednesday when she commented that “equity market valuations at this point generally are quite high.”
It wasn’t exactly an “irrational exuberance” speech, a la Alan Greenspan in 1996, but pundits were quick to point out that his observation was about four years early, as the markets continued to rally until the March 2000 peak.
The market is expensive historically, based on several longer term measures including one of our favorites, the CAPE ratio, or Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings ratio, created by frequent WEALTHTRACK guest, Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Shiller.
The CAPE, which is figured by taking the current price for the S&P 500, divided by the average of S&P earnings over the last ten years, adjusted for inflation, is currently around 27. That is well above its 20th century average of about 15.
Fed Chairman Yellen isn’t the only one concerned about stock market levels, professional investors are too.
According to a recent survey from State Street Global Advisors, of over 400 institutional investors worldwide, 63% of them increased their stock exposure over the last six months, but 53% wish they could decrease it and would if they had a more attractive alternative. Talk about conflicted!
Plus, 57% expect a market correction of between 10 and 20% in the next 12 months!
Normally investors could turn to bonds for income and protection, but with bond yields near record lows, they are no longer a viable option.
According to this week’s guest, Clifford Asness, both stocks and bonds are more expensive now than they have been in 90% of market history. Asness is Founder, Managing Principal and Chief Investment Officer at AQR Capital Management.
AQR stands for Applied Quantitative Research, which they use in a number of strategies.
Founded in 1998, AQR, now a global investment management firm, oversees more than 130 billion dollars in hedge funds, mutual funds and a diversified collection of investment strategies, from traditional long-only ones to multiple alternative approaches. I asked Asness how unusual it was for both stocks and bonds to be this expensive at the same time and what investors should be doing in response.
If you’d like to see the show before it airs, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Asness, about his new venture with London Business School, available exclusively on our website.
If you have comments or questions, please connect with us via Facebook or Twitter.
Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo

Take a look at HYS. Duration 1.91 years. 4.54% distribution yield.

I was reading the fund "Fact Sheet" tonight and it says it invests primarily in higher-quality high-yield bonds and maintains a duration of less than three years. So, it doesn't sound unconstrained based on that. Currently, the duration is about 1.49 years as of March 31.

My game plan!
I don't care about taking SS at this time. My parents lived into their 90's and out lived their means of support, this is part of my fears. If you do this then other people make decisions for you. I'm 3 years from 70 and drawing a decent paycheck. Game plan is to work 3 years. Then draw SS and still make a decent paycheck if my health is good. Life is good and living the dream Just like Warren!
Gary

I like Tampa Bay's advice. The key thing is not to blow that early money. It needs to start working for you. Came in handy for us (at age 62) to pay taxes on a Roth conversion near market bottom in '09. I get killed by taxes both state and federal. So a Roth is golden. Also allowed us to defer taking any IRA distributions for many more years, pay off the balance on an auto loan, etc. etc.
If you'd rather not have to put that $$ to good work for you ... than by all means hold off on taking it early. Deferring to the future is generally not a bad idea. And, those stats from Schwab are probably right - but they don't take into account what you might earn had you invested the early proceeds.

http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security
The amounts are so much higher when you wait, seems like a no-brainer if you can swing it from other resources and are unlikely to die soon.

Check out Junkster's post above about his friend.
Also, when computing when do take SS it isn't only what is mentioned in their article.
When you delay taking SS; you have to take into consideration the opportunity cost of using your $ for expenses.
So, using the schwab example, if a single person could get $2,000/mo or $24K/year from SS but use their money the interest or capital appreciation would have to be added to the years to break even.
e.g. 10% interest = 2,400 x 5 year delay = 12,000
Divide the 12,000 by the SS they would get per month at 67 for the number of months. Let's say 2,600. Then you have to add 4.6 months to the break even point.
Other factors you have to take into account:
-Opportunity cost above - compounding of int/cap gains, add more time for that? .
-401K mandatory withdrawals, if you take SS later + you have 401K withdrawals you may pay more taxes than taking SS early + the 401K because your tax base would be lower- add more time for that?
e.g. 600/month x 12 = 7,200 higher base x tax rate 20% =1,400/2600 = .5 month every year 15? = 7.5 months.
4.6 opportunity cost
.4 compounding interest
7.5 extra taxes
12.5 months.
So deferring may not be financially advisable. In the Schwab example the break even is between 15-16 years - Between 77 and 78
If you want to do the calculations I'd help in reviewing them for you.

Joe Bradley, Towle's head of client relationships and my contact with the adviser, writes: "Thanks for asking. We take pride in having a true team effort, meaning all five guys are viewed as portfolio managers rather than having an analyst/PM hierarchy you see elsewhere. We work together to build consensus around all decisions and all members of the team have input. The young guys have been there less that five years, but Peter’s been managing the portfolio with Woody for 14+ and Chris has been doing it for 20+. We believe we have refined the Towle “process” and are not dependent on any one individual."
On the question of benches, Towle has one strategy and five guys. Huber has three strategies and six guys (four PMs, two analysts), according to the Hubercap website.
For what interest that holds,
David

It takes 12 years to break even if you don't take SS early, figure it out...I did....
I have made very good use of my Gov. Checks for last 4 years 62 to 66yo, the money is well invested to make much more money (income) in the future, While late collectors 66/70 are still trying to get even.....go figure

I was told not to wait. Take SS at 62. That source told me that if you wait until 66, it will take 8 years to make up what you left on the table, as opposed to starting at 62. I've signed into the SS.gov thing and saw my "account." At 62, I'd be due a bit over $1,000.00 per month, gross. But SS is taxed in MA. And I might just move far away where it's warm. Then there is the cost of medical insurance. This old dog does indeed consume multiple scripts. What is all this stuff about Medicare Part A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J.... ???
("M-I-C------ K-E-Y......... M-O-U-S-E.")

>> Are you seriously suggesting that this poor fellow put $100,000 into a single bond offering issued by this company?
Sure. Have you slogged through the details of many corporate bond prospectuses?
Thanks for the official rating info, and yes, I agree it is best to forget it for someone 'very cautious, conservative' to that degree.
>> signing away any bankruptcy rights
Usually the case, no? I lost quite a bit of money with very safe Lehman bonds, so yeah, I am aware they're not like a bank CD.
My thinking was that SC, with all of its contracted gov work (DoD housing), is not about to die in the next five years, Cruz or no Cruz (not gonna happen, but someone almost as bad is a possibility, I suppose).
And not a poor fellow by my standards :)

@Dex - thanks for being diligent and forthright with the numbers. ACA often does cost some people more money (though not as much as they may think, because health care/insurance rates were rising so fast anyway that part of the increase was inevitable).

The subsidy could influence me on when I take SS. For years 61 and 62, I may be able to get the subsidy. If, I took SS on the earliest date June of my 62nd year I probably would lose the subsidy for years 62, 63, 64. So in year 62 it might make some sense to delay taking SS so that I still get a subsidy. Based upon what I know now the subsidy is in the area of $3,000 per year of non taxable money. My income would need to be less then 4X of the poverty base for the year.
Now, considering my net worth - my getting a subsidy doesn't make much sense.
Also, after seeing how his subsidy thing works, I don't think OC will be repealed. Too many people are getting something out of it.

.........well, not much in happy land in many places during the recent days........the last week or so with softness in equity and bonds. 'Course, such a broad statement does imply that there are not areas that are somewhat happy; but not unlike a young person or an adult who sometimes states that they are going to run away from home.........likely from having a bad day, etc. :)..........even "investors" have periods when they want to "run away from investments", yes?
Well, your house (investments) is also likely getting its "clock cleaned" from recent market actions.
Some equity market areas during the past month had about 8% down moves and then flattened for a short period of time. But, this has reversed again. India being an example of a big run in the last 12 months +, then down about 8%, but further down May 6 dropping another 2.5% or so. Aussieland also found a large drop (>2%), reportedly due in part to poor earnings in the banking sector.
All investor returns will be different, of course; but the consideration is in place for this house to reduce equity holdings today (May 6) to protect very pleasing returns so far this year from investments in particular in HEDJ. Some healthcare may also be reduced; although the gains from these holdings has been from a period of years and not months.
Ya, I know; don't be a trader or time the markets. I'll have to name this as intuition.
Broad drawdowns will likely not be more than 10%, yes? Or you best guess.
At times, I recall a portion of information displayed upon the "old" hometown movie theatre screen before the main movie............."Preview of coming attractions". Attempting to determine the "coming attractions related to investments".
Well, just some early morning (1 cup of coffee) jabber.
NOTE: this write was started and planned to be posted on May 5, but other schedules changed this.
Regards,
Catch