Well a million isn't what it used to be.
Year = 2015
1965 = $7,549,365.08
1975 = $4,420,167.29
1985 = $2,210,083.64
So pick a year and then ask the question what percentage of the population has the equivalent amount now.
That would tell us more insight into what is going on.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1,000,000.00&year1=1985&year2=2015
As to retirement planning the 1 million number doesn't mean much.
Yes, a 4% withdraw rate is doable on 1 mil but not a Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous.
With 1 mill and $25K social security, you could live well in most parts of the USA on $65K. But even with that, it will be reduced by taxes.
$5 Million Is the New $1 Million: But Can You Save Your Way to 'Wealthy'?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/09/10/retirement-savings-millionaire-wealthy/
---------------
If I only had 1 Mil. I would not have retired at 51. A small pension with a imputed (7%) values of $200,000 at 60 and SS of 25K at 63 with an imputed value of $357,000 gave me the confidence it could be done. 1 Mil alone for a single person isn't enough - it could be done but, why constrain yourself that way if you can help it.
I think it is time we retire the 1 mil. as some sort of goal.

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."

Another aspect in this is the word 'household' I tend to think in terms of an individual. A 'household' could be 2 people. It could have taken 2 people to get to 1 mil. Again, if it is 2 people that 1 mil. means even less since that money needs to support two people.

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.

The backdoor entry to funds that are closed to new investors is to buy a share off someone and have that person transfer that share into your account. There are also other ways. Click here: bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2001-11-04/unlocking-the-door-to-closed-funds

I know the fund closed in June 2014; however, I am trying to see if anyone knows or has found a "backdoor" to get into the fund?
I find with its track record and long history of a single manager (I believe the only fund me manages and its variations).
This would be for a taxable account (there is a backdoor for moving a 401k to a T Rowe Price IRA) - so not looking for an "income oriented" comparable fund.
Any and all help is appreciated.

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.

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

Individual plans have traditionally had higher deductibles/co-pays, but nothing like what we're seeing under ACA. That, and narrow networks, are some of the main ways that ACA premiums are being kept lower.
Trying to figure out the best plan becomes intractable, especially when more than one person is involved. You've identified a key difference between HSA plans and some non-HSA plans - the latter often allow doctor visits for co-pays, without requiring that you meet the deductible. The more people you're insuring the more important that becomes, as it becomes more likely that someone will be going to the doctor.
One other difference between HSA and non-HSA plans - with the HSA plans, the deductible is a single family deductible (e.g. $12,000). For a non-HSA plan, the deductible is an individual deductible (e.g. $6,000 per person and $12,000 for the family).
So in an HSA plan, no one escapes the deductible until the family pays the combined deductible. In a non-HSA plan, once someone reaches the individual cap (e.g. $6K), that person doesn't have to pay more deductibles. But the other family members do.
That can work out better if one person is incurring most of the expenses. Then, instead of meeting a family $12K deductible, that person starts getting real coverage after $6K.

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.

1. Generally, you need to have an eligible HDHP (high deductible health plan) in order to open an HSA. However, if you have an existing HSA, you're allowed to open another one (even without having an eligible HDHP), and transfer/roll over the existing HSA to the new one.
For example, here's Alliant CU's page:

To open an Alliant HSA you must be:
- 18 years of age or older
- Must be enrolled in a qualified High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) to make contributions.
- If not enrolled in a HDHP you are still qualified to roll over or transfer funds from your current HSA

2. As others have stated, you don't need compensation income in order to contribute to an HSA. AFAIK (this is speculation), you don't need income at all (though you'll waste the deduction that way).
In order to fund (not open) an HSA, you must have had an eligible HDHP. However, since funding can be retroactive (like an IRA, you can fund it early the next year), you can fund the HSA because you were in an HDHP, even if you aren't currently.

??
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 have a general question about the HSA (which is different than the Flexible Savings Accounts, which generally expire in that year). When I was previously employed, my employer switched the health insurance plan offerings to HSA eligible insurance plans that allowed for an HSA account, and that was how I funded the account.
The previous plans were not HSA eligible.
Now that I purchase under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans, it says which plans are eligible for an opening an HSA account as the contribution can be deducted against Income.
So two questions: 1. the health insurance plan has to be eligible to open an HSA account (as specified in the ACA plans - I was told the answer for this is Yes, ie, can only fund an HSA with specific IRS approved health insurance plans.
2. do you need Earned Income (employer or business income) to fund or add funds to an HSA account?
For those that have an HSA account, did all you have an HSA eligible health insurance plan when it was opened and funded?

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.