Hi Maurice and Guys,
By being a long term resident in one of the Northeastern states, you have increased your likelihood of becoming a millionaire. The distribution of millionaires within the USA is very uneven.
It’s interesting that many references credit the Phoenix Marketing International (PMI) firm as their primary data source. PMI refreshes their data regularly, but it changes slowly over time.
Massachusetts is an expensive cost-of-living residence state. However, it is not home for the highest percentage of millionaires. That honor goes to Maryland at a 7.7% level. Massachusetts is in the seventh State position with 6.7% millionaires per household. To put that in context, Mississippi holds the bottom position with 4.6%. Here is a Link to an interactive map that presents 2013 household millionaire data:
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/real-estate/millionaire-households/
Just place your cursor over your State of interest to get the percentage.
That’s informative and fun, but the ultimate goal is to join the millionaire cohort. Most “how to” articles and books provide short, simple lists on how to climb this mountain. All these lists include securing multiple incomes, saving relentlessly, and investing those savings wisely (heavy on stocks) advice. Much more easily said than done.
The wealth distribution data provides useful guidelines for individuals. The millionaire distribution just discussed is one component of the proffered guidelines. It is far better for wealth accumulation to live in the Northeast than in our Southern States.
Numerous surveys and countless government studies provide other factors that contribute to wealth accumulation. Not surprisingly, age, education, and race are primary players. Here is a Link to a recent St. Louis Fed report titled “The Demographics of Wealth”:
https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/Files/PDFs/HFS/essays/HFS-Essay-1-2015-Race-Ethnicity-and-Wealth.pdf
This Fed report is a 24 page, 2015 document that is a worthwhile read. Its graphs are especially illuminating since they present trends over time. Please access it.
Being old, being white, having an advanced degree, and living in the Northeast States all increase the likelihood of achieving the Millionaire Club.
On a less serious note, you might enjoy a USA map that identifies “What Does Each State have More Of than Any Other?”. Here is a Link to this relaxing divergence:
http://blog.estately.com/2015/03/what-does-each-state-have-more-of-than-any-other/
I want to thank everyone for their participation in this discussion. The distinct perspectives are all well developed and instructive.
Best Wishes.

Does TRP offer a "fund of funds" that includes PRWCX?

Most likely not - from what I've seen.
One reason - To an extent PRWCX "mimics" some of their funds-of-funds' objectives through its own diversified/moderate-risk approach. Adding it to a fund-of-funds might seem redundant. (Of course, it's able to invest directly in the various asset classes rather than indirectly through other funds, giving the manager greater latitude)
Another reason - Price may not want to add to the AUM this behemoth already commands by including it in their fund-of-funds.

@little5bee: Unfortunately, the two TRP Spectrum Fund-Of Funds growth and international do not contain PRWCX as a holding. Purchasing a share of a fund from an individual is not as easy as it sounds. Many fund firms will not be a third party between a buyer and a seller. Furthur, the paper work and cost involved in the transfer process is not worth the effort. There is no such thing as a must have fund, period. There are a number of excellent moderate allocation, and for your information I have linked their ranking order from U.S. News & World Report.
Regards,
Ted
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/rankings/moderate-allocation

What I find interesting is the discussion regarding rolling over an existing IRA to an HSA.

The rollover provision is a one time event and the amount can only be as much as you are allowed to contribute in a given year. For instance an individual ( age 55 or older) could rollover $4350 from their IRA into their hsa for TY 2015. More if its a family plan. The rollover would be in lieu of any other contribution.
I use BRUFX as my hsa at Bruce Funds.

You know, one million dollars is more an emotional number than a high number now days. I wonder how many workers are employed in jobs paying more than $100K/year and maxing some sort of 401K plan? If lots of boomers have amassed a million under the limitations to contributions imposed in the 20th century, the new crop will amass several million (markets willing).
Each year there will be more millionaires and each year a million will be less. We were measuring wealth in millions in the 50s, shouldn't we measure In 10 millions today. Someone can give it a name - tillions or something.

@msf,
If I understand insurance plans deductibles correctly they reset each year. This also seem like something that needs to be managed over the course of a single health event. When does the deductible coverage begin? When does it end?
If a patient is being treated for a single condition that bridges multiple years, which I'm sure many do, keeping track of these recurring deductibles seems like the kinda math you might be able to handle :), but maybe not the average sick guy :(.
I wonder if doctors are able to offer services that provide a "package of care" that has a cost, but not a time frame thus avoiding having to meet a second deductible for at least that "illness". An illness doesn't know when the year's deductible resets and so long as you remain in contract with the insurance provider (don't change carriers) it seems continuation of care should be covered under the original deductible... not multiple deductibles due to calendar reset.
In my imperfect world, a deductible for a health event should be treated much like a deductible for a car crash. If it takes the mechanic longer to "fix" my car I'm not required to meet a second deductible. A patient should not be required to meet multiple deductibles over the treating/healing process (maybe multiple years).
Then again, I don't want my doctor to tell me I just "totaled myself".
Just some thoughts and thanks for all your information here. Great thread l5b!

FYI: With increasing volatility in stock prices and a hike in interest rates looking more likely to be pushed into 2016, bond funds are suddenly more attractive than they were at the beginning of 2015.
Regards,
Ted
http://investorplace.com/2015/07/best-bond-funds-bond-funds/print

FYI: Massachusetts has subpoenaed state-registered advisors on their supervision, compliance and training regarding a host of alt funds
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2015/07/15/galvin-targets-alt-mutual-fund-sales-with-exam-swe?t=mutual-funds
InvestmentNews Slant;
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150715/FREE/150719950?template=printart

Staying with the baby boomers group only.........I find that at least 5% of this group could have "investible monies" worth +$1 million. I would lean towards a higher number.
I can only reference this from the viewpoint of Michigan and the auto industry; as well as all of the ancillary supporting business.
In particular, from the early 1970's through the mid-90's, the big 3 auto companies had hugh payrolls, as well as the many of the outside vendors supplying product to these companies.
Many union "blue collar" jobs found high wages, superior benefits and many households had both adults working at auto factories. These folks were making a lot of money on an annual basis for many years for their household. Add the 1,000's of skilled trade jobs that were part of this and at a much higher wage. There were also many small business formations for a variety of tool and die works for all sorts of piece parts.
Knowing personally that the debt ratio for most of these folks was very poor; as they spent a lot of this money, too; but that a guess of 5% of this overall group was prudent with their spending habits could find "investible" monies to be ready available.
I recall a WSJ or Baron's article from 1976 ?, from which I pulled data for a report that noted at the time a list of per capita income by states. New York was first, Alaska was second and Michigan was third. There were so many people employed at high wage/low skill jobs to offer this per capita rate of income.
I am sure similar scenarios of wage happened in other industrial areas of the U.S. during this period.
IMO, I consider at least 5% of the baby boomer group (non-professional) to have at least $1 million of invested monies. This of course, does not include value of primary homes or similar related areas.
Too late at night, to search for a document.
My uneducated, no data observation, just from being there, summary.
Take care,
Catch

So long as you have income, whether it is considered compensation or not, you get to deduct your HSA contribution. It reduces your AGI.
You are correct that you can only make HSA contributions for the months in which you have an HDHP plan (and no other coverage).
As to whether HSA-eligible HDHP plans come out better, it depends on where you live.
Where I live, there are only three HSA-eligible plans offered. Comparing each with the "most popular" non-HSA plans from the same insurer, I would come out better with the HSA-eligible plan each time.
Insurer 1: Bronze vs. HSA-Bronze
- HSA plan costs $48/year more
- HSA plan has $400 higher deductible. (All services subject to deductible in both plans)
Worst case, HSA plan costs $448 more, but allows deduction of $4350 in HSA contributions.
Insurer 2: Bronze vs. HSA-Bronze
- HSA plan costs $276/year more
- HSA plan has $3K lower deductible
- All services on both plans are subject to deductible, except first two PCP visits ($45 co-pay) with non-HSA plan.
Worst case, HSA plan costs about $600 more (assuming PCP visit negotiated charge is around $200), but allows $4350 deduction.
Insurer 2: Silver vs. HSA-Silver
- HSA plan costs $120/year less
- HSA deductible is $200 more
- All services on both plans are subject to deductible, except for PCP visits with non-HSA plan.
Unless most of your services are PCP, the HSA is going to cost at worst a few hundred dollars more. Again, the HSA tax deduction will more than compensate for that.
A real problem with ACA plans is that even if they're not HSA-eligible, they still tend to be high deductible (albeit not HSA-eligible, because of the way they're structured). So if you're seeing ACA plans with much lower deductibles, consider yourself fortunate.

Hi @bee
Don't hold FAGIX right now; but probably should....., but it was traded in for the time being :)
Although rightfully classified as a high yield bond fund, this fund has always been one of the hybrid funds that doesn't fit into a complete category. The name Capital and Income is likely an appropriate name for this fund.
The fund mix has always held about 80% true high yield corp. bonds, with the remainder in equity. Some of the HY bonds is/was foreign and some of the equity is generally foreign, too. Current management has been in place for more than 12 years; but the prior team always performed well, too.
If one has access to this fund through whatever type of account they hold, I would always recommend this fund for a portion of bonds, although being HY with the equity mix causes this fund to be more equity directed for/with market movements.
Current YTD is about +4.6%.
We have held this fund at various periods beginning in the early 1980's.
Fidelity view, composition
The reason this fund is not in our portfolio at this time is that the monies from the sale were placed into healthcare/bio/pharma holdings for a direct path into equities. This fund is always on our monitored list of funds. For those reading this, don't confuse this fund with Fidelity's HY fund of SPHIX. This fund, as well as other vendor's offerings of high yield bond funds with not likely fit the same mold as FAGIX. I don't consider the E.R. of .72% to be out of line for the performance of this fund relative to others of this category. FAGIX has remained high on the list of HY bond funds.
As with any market sector, this fund is subject to market conditions and will have its "off" periods.
@bee, I know you may or have probably already formed some graphs for this fund; sadly I can't offer your well designed graphic layouts you post here.
Just for the heck of it............... a 5 year combo return for a mostly U.S. centric portfolio of these 3 funds:
---VTI, u.s. blend, leaning towards lg. cap.
---PONDX / PIMIX , mixed bonds, depending on the markets (excellent management)
---FAGIX, as noted above
5 year average = 12% annual
Not too bad for such a "Strange Brew" (Bruce,Baker,Clapton)
Take care and thank for all of your fine offerings here,
Catch

Hi Dex,
This from a 2015 article by CNBC's Robert Frank:
"The study, from market research and consulting firm Spectrem Group, found that there are now 10.1 million households in the U.S. with $1 million or more in investable assets, excluding the value of their primary residence."
This more recent study by another research firm yields an even higher percentage in the USA Millionaires Club. The Spectrem's number is 8.2 %.
After doing the requisite research, your "feelings" on the matter are not relevant. The facts command the day. As J.M. Keynes observed "when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"
In this instance the facts have not even changed; They've been confirmed. I suggest you toss your feelings on this subject in the junk heap. I'm puzzled by your reluctance to do so. The data demonstrates just how successful pre-retirees have been in assembling their million dollar savings. More power to them!
Best Wishes.

From my specific example, in 2014, I was in an employer HSA (HDHP) eligible plan and made the HSA contribution.
In 2015, I went to the ACA and chose a non-HSA eligible plan (I did not want the high deductible for my medical costs as no Earned Income, and because I have no Earned Income, the HSA contribution could be wasted as no real effect to reduce Adjusted Gross Income).
Edit - Therefore, in 2015 with no HDHP plan, I can not make an HSA contribution for the 2015 tax year, is that a correct statement?
And I have found that at least in the ACA versions, even with the high deductibles, the HSA plans were more expensive, higher deductible but offer the HSA contributions, which therefore are great for high income earners and business owners that can deduct all premiums and HSA contributions.

??
from the article:
>> That means 1 in every 20 households in the U.S. has more than $1 million in investable assets. Those figures don’t include the value of real estate.

I go back and forth on this issue. 5% investable assets sounds high. Then again I think about the distribution by age and inflation. The early baby boomers 45 to 64 could have accumulated a lot of money.

Everyone's buy and hold and/or rebalance period has various conditions, eh?
Best case scenario, I suppose, would be a buy/hold of VTI and PIMIX 50/50% mix. Stir the pot once and let simmer.....
Take care,
Catch

An investment discipline I need to try to adhere to...nice reminder. Thanks.
Then the moment passed...
What are thoughts on FAGIX?

Hi little5bee.
Windhaven portfolio is an actual portfolio of ETFs. There are 2 portfolio options, aggressive and moderate. The 2 portfolios are managed by a team of managers. The difference in the 2 seems to be the range of equities each may hold. Off the top of my head, the aggressive portfolio can range from about 25-75% equities, depending on how management perceives the world economic futures. The moderate portfolio has a lesser range of movement. Per my Schwab adviser, these portfolios have never been near the max or min of their ranges. One selling point for me was even the aggressive portfolio held up as well as a moderate balance mutual fund during the last recession.
The fee for the Windhaven portfolio is 1%. Really no different then the fee you pay for a typical mutual fund portfolio. The portfolio is always up to date (daily) and view-able. You actually get an email every time management makes a buy or sell plus managements reasoning for the buy or sell.
Don't know if the financial adviser you golfed with is a Schwab advisor, but I do know the adviser gets a referral fee paid to them by Schwab. So, yes they have an intensive to sell.

MARKETS
Calpers Struggles as Its Return Falls Short
Largest U.S. pension fund earned 2.4% in fiscal 2015, shy of 2.5% goal
By TIMOTHY W. MARTIN WSJ
Updated July 13, 2015 6:43 p.m. ET
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System fell short of its annual return target in fiscal 2015, as public pensions around the U.S. struggle through one of their worst years since the financial crisis.
The $301 billion pension fund, the largest in the U.S. by assets and known as Calpers, said it earned 2.4% on its investments for the fiscal year ended June 30 because of a slump in the markets and weak private-equity returns. The performance was just shy of its internal goal of 2.5%. It was Calpers’ poorest year since 2012, when it earned 1%, and down from 18.4% in 2014.
Pension investments have been challenged this year by low interest rates, uneven market performance and the recovery of the U.S. dollar, which has weakened gains in global stocks.
Calpers played down the importance of its 2015 performance, noting that the pension fund had topped three- and five-year internal targets with returns of 10.9% and 10.7%. Calpers assumes it will produce annual returns over the long run of 7.5%.
“We try not to get too fixated or excited about any one-year return,” said Calpers Chief Investment Officer Ted Eliopoulos on Monday at a board meeting. “The strength of our long-term numbers gives us confidence that our strategic plan is working,”
Mr. Eliopoulos, who was named CIO last year, has moved Calpers to simplify its portfolio and dial down the risk. Those moves include halving the number of external money managers it works with by 2020, plus winding down its hedge-fund program. Reducing risk in its portfolio also could have the effect of missing out on outsize returns.
“It’s a marathon, not a sprint,” he said. “Nobody expects stable 7.5% or 8% returns year in, year out.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/calpers-return-falls-short-of-annual-target-1436802617
Tough Times For Broadly Diversified Portfolios
How’s your globally diversified strategy faring these days? Having a tough time? You’re not alone–the headwinds are fierce. For the first time in recent memory, the overwhelming majority of the major asset classes are in the red on a trailing one-year basis. As a result, broadly defined asset allocation strategies are suffering, at least relative to the stellar numbers in recent years.
Using a set of ETF proxies for the trailing 250-day (1 year) total return, only US stocks, US REITs (real estate investment trusts), and US bonds (broadly defined) are posting gains among the major asset classes. By contrast, the other 11 asset classes are in varying states of loss over that period.... The lesson, of course, is that mean reversion is alive and well when it comes to market (and portfolio strategy) returns.
With Charts

http://www.capitalspectator.com/tough-times-for-broadly-diversified-portfolios/

Thanks for the info. It bothered me enough that I had no idea what "interesting" meant that I tried searching for Archipelago. Got one hit, on boggleheads:

If I do not want to invest in those 10 funds, looks like I can open a Saturna Brokerage account and buy mutual funds there. It has access to Vanguard funds via "Saturna Brokerage Archipelago", with some stiff conditions to avoid transaction fee:

I think NTF Vanguard funds qualifies as "interesting". Seems to be a thing of the past, though.
(Health Savings Administrators does offer Vanguard funds NTF, but they tack on a 32 basis point ER, and like a 12b-1 in excess of 25 basis points, I regard that surcharge as a load.)
Regardless, Saturna seems to be one of the least expensive ways of owning an HSA without being restricted to a small list of funds provided by Devenir.
(Devenir's HSA bank fund list, Devenir's Select Account HSA fund list, etc.)

@ msf said:
If you need to pull money out of a traditional IRA and you're under 59.5, then "laundering" it through the HSA gives you a way to do that (if you've got matching medical expenses). That's the only reason I can see for doing a rollover to an HSA.

For those that may have retired early or are retired and under age 65 with little or no earned income this rollover feature provides a way to fully fund an hsa in the form of a rollover without impacting present income. This perfectly legal rollover might help the newly retired "coupon clipper" who also has to do their own "laundry" and may not have the resources to budget for hsa contributions.
At 59.5 I plan on taking IRA distributions equal to my hsa contributions there by offsetting the taxes on the IRA with an equal hsa tax deductible contribution. I will do this until I am 65. I mention age 65 because that is the age at which one can no longer add to their hsa (because medicare kicks in).
Bottom line, without earned income you can't make Roth contributions. Not true with hsa contributions. hsa contributions are tax deductible even without earned income. In my case these hsa contributions will reduce any other taxable income I have (pension, annuities, SS, interest and dividends) and IRA distributions.

As an additional funding source have you considered a rollover into your hsa?
If you haven't already done so and have a tax deferred IRA you can make a one time rollover from your IRA to you hsa. The amount cannot exceed your maximum allowable hsa contribution. For an individual that would be $4350 for 2015 and a but more if you have a family hsa plan.
Its a nice way to move what would be taxable IRA dollars into tax free hsa. This is not a distribution...its a one time rollover.

Generally, I don't see this as an advantage, assuming you have outside money with which to fund your HSA. It's basically a shell game. You're taking money out of an IRA and thus losing the deduction you could have had by making a regular HSA contribution. So effectively, you are paying taxes on that IRA rollover.
If I'm going to pay taxes when I move money from a traditional IRA to another tax-advantaged account, I'd rather pay the taxes (directly) and move it to a Roth, rather than pay the taxes indirectly (by losing a deduction) and move it to an HSA.
With the Roth, after five years, I can take the money out tax free, no questions asked. With the HSA, questions are asked - what were the medical expenses that this withdrawal is covering?
On the other hand, with the rollover to the HSA, there's no five year waiting period.
If you need to pull money out of a traditional IRA and you're under 59.5, then "laundering" it through the HSA gives you a way to do that (if you've got matching medical expenses). That's the only reason I can see for doing a rollover to an HSA.