I'm 50 years old with more than $100,000 sitting in banks and credit unions earning about 0.50 % in interest.

While you are considering the many options in the various posts to this thread, you can easily double your interest from the 0.50% you are getting in "banks and credit unions".....by going with an internet only FDIC insured bank that pays about 1% interest on a savings account.
Just for example, Ally bank pays 0.99%, FDIC insured, savings acct, without locking your money up at all, and several others pay 1% or even very slightly higher. These are name banks (well known), also FDIC insured
You can also get 2.25% in FDIC insured 5-year CD's at several internet banks (e.g., Synchrony Bank).
One strategy several Bogleheads are using is to do this at a bank with a low early withdrawal fee. I believe there is an FDIC insured internet bank with only a 90 day interest early withdrawal penalty, so many Bogleheads are going that route, figuring that paying a 90 day interest rate penalty in the event that rates rise significantly and they want out of their 5-year 2.25% interest CD is not too bad.

If you want to gain a smidgeon of flexibility on cash flow re. unexpected bigger ticket items ($1000-2000) for dental/vision/hearing/dermatology care, I was offered a CC when my mother needed a hearing aide in December that does the trick for many things. CareCredit (www.carecredit.com). The min. monthly depends on the size of the charge, but there is no interest if the bill is paid in-full within one year. [I have no idea how the company makes money with this arrangement.] You'd have to use it responsibly, but it keeps you from having to bang a big payment out of your reserves, when doing so might leave you with an uncomfortably reduced margin for "error" with respect to something else coming along you wouldn't expect to happen (and that's when it often does).

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/05/the-qe-era/print/

>> If OC was the law before my retiring I may have had second thoughts.
Dex, when you were running the numbers at 51 for healthcare costs until Medicare, what did you plug in and what did you base them on? Was your nonjob private insurance inexpensive somehow?
Lots of impressive early retirees here! Way to go. I am delaying taking SS until 70, two years off, chiefly on principle, but have shaky confidence of living to wherever the lines cross, like 82 or whatever. Hope so. The best way to think of reduced vs max benefits is to look at the lines, as msf implies; see here, halfway down the page:
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security
I have had a lot of arthritis surgeries under Medicare with supplement, also an umbrella managed Medicare plan w rx (forget what this is called, Preferred maybe), so it seems (seemed) like a wise idea to me, though I have not run the numbers. I am now cash at the dentist, though. Maybe I should look into going without supp.

Edit: I am paying then around $3600 annually for health insurance. But that is still far cheaper than the close to $7000 I was paying before Medicare kicked in. And that private policy had a $2500 deductible.

Thanks, I currently have $8,500 budgeted for Health Insurance in 5 years when I'm 65. I might be able to reduce that some - maybe down to 6,000. But, I have to update my budget for years 61 - 64.

Many thanks msf. I read and then bookmarked that on supplemental insurance. I may have to rethink and will do more research. I had my first surgery as an adult as soon as I tuned 65 and thought (may have to review that closer) that the supplemental saved me over $10,000 of out of pocket.

Neither the best written nor the best read article. The underlined phrase is just part of the sentence. Notice that it is set off by commas. I'll emphasize the effect of that punctuation by replacing the commas with parentheses:

Of course, the best way to maximize Social Security is to delay claiming benefits until full retirement age (which is climbing gradually to 67) or beyond.

That is, the "or beyond" applies to "the best way to maximize SS" is to wait until FRA or beyond. The parenthetical remark simply clarifies what FRA is - it does not assert that FRA is rising beyond age 67.
The title is misleading, because actuarially speaking, benefits (on a constant dollar basis) are the same regardless of when you start taking them. They are not reduced if you start them at age 62. Of course, if you take them earlier, you're spreading them over more years, so the rate at which you receive your benefits is reduced. (There are ancillary benefits, like spousal payments that are indeed reduced if you claim before FRA.)
@Junkster - New medicare supplemental policies starting in 2020 will not cover 100% of what Medicare doesn't pay. (You're grandfathered in, but Dex is not.) Specifically, "Under the doc-fix law, Medigap plans will no longer cover the annual Part B deductible for new enrollees ($147 this year). That will mean changes for Medigap "C" and "F" plans, the two most popular plan choices and the only ones that cover Part B deductibles. Starting in 2020, seniors would have to pay it themselves. "
That's from M*: What the Medicare 'Doc Fix' Means for Your Pocketbook
It's actually rather debatable whether Medicare supplemental insurance is even worth it (given that part A is 100% covered without it). Here's a column suggesting that these policies are cash cows for insurers. He overstates his case, but the numbers seem sound. IMHO, the main virtue of these policies is for catastrophic insurance (i.e. they cap out-of-pocket expenses).

Edit: Wait till you get to 65 and Medicare. In my opinion the greatest thing since sliced bread. But you have to get the supplemental policy that covers 100% of what Medicare doesn't pay.

How much does medicare cost for a single person and the supplementals? At this point I'm just growing my health ins costs for budgeting.
Blue Cross/ blue shield just notified me that the non OC plan I have will end in Dec. So, the only option is OC plans. My state does not supplement OC - I agree with that - OC costs will bankrupt states in the future. So from this year to next year I'm guessing on a $3,000 health insurance increase or 12,000+ until I'm 65.

Dex, $104.90 is deducted from my SS check each month for Medicare (Part B) Part A is free. My supplemental through Anthem which covers 100% of the 20% that Medicare doesn't cover for doctor visits, surgeries, and the like is $2400 annually. My Medicare drug coverage is under $200 annually through Humana. It's not the most comprehensive but I take no medications.
Edit: I am paying then around $3600 annually for health insurance. But that is still far cheaper than the close to $7000 I was paying before Medicare kicked in. And that private policy had a $2500 deductible.

Edit: Wait till you get to 65 and Medicare. In my opinion the greatest thing since sliced bread. But you have to get the supplemental policy that covers 100% of what Medicare doesn't pay.

How much does medicare cost for a single person and the supplementals? At this point I'm just growing my health ins costs for budgeting.
Blue Cross/ blue shield just notified me that the non OC plan I have will end in Dec. So, the only option is OC plans. My state does not supplement OC - I agree with that - OC costs will bankrupt states in the future. So from this year to next year I'm guessing on a $3,000 health insurance increase or 12,000+ until I'm 65.

I didn't add in the COLAs.
I retired at 52. I also started work at age 15. For a lot of people, 35-40 years of work is enough. If you have saved all your life it is time to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Dex, everyone here enjoys your retirement articles including your personal journey. Did I miss it or have you written why you retired at such a young age? I took early SS at 62 (4/09) and have not regretted it in the least. That was money I didn't have to take from my trading accounts. I was *lucky* the markets were so vigorous after that time.

I did not write about it. I had a very easy office job, watched TV and read the internet, people worked for me and made good money. I worked since I was 15 and it just felt like the right time. I have a travel trailer and like to travel. Right now I'm at home getting dental work, check ups and soon a colonoscopy. I'm 60 now and might like to find some work during the winter months Nov - Jan. Other then that life is good.

Dex, everyone here enjoys your retirement articles including your personal journey. Did I miss it or have you written why you retired at such a young age? I took early SS at 62 (4/09) and have not regretted it in the least. That was money I didn't have to take from my trading accounts. I was *lucky* the markets were so vigorous after that time.
Edit: Wait till you get to 65 and Medicare. In my opinion the greatest thing since sliced bread. But you have to get the supplemental policy that covers 100% of what Medicare doesn't pay.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/3-out-of-4-retirees-receiving-reduced-social-security-benefits-2015-05-05
"Of course, the best way to maximize Social Security is to delay claiming benefits until “full retirement age,” which is climbing gradually to 67, or beyond. A person due to receive a benefit of $1,000 at a full retirement age of 66 would receive only $750 at age 62 (the earliest age at which most people can claim benefits) – and $1,320 at age 70."
Note that underlined part. People will still need to take it earlier but (I'm guessing) when they do take it earlier and the full amount is 67 or later they will receive even less at 62.
This adds to my "give up hope of retiring early" thread.
From what I not see about my finances (having been retired for 9 years, starting at 51) I am feeling less flush. A the major change in that feeling is Obamacare. I was paying $3,000/year before OC. I will be paying $7,200 under OC. If, OC was the law before my retiring I may have had second thoughts.

FYI: Warren Buffett and Bill Gross signaled the end is at hand for Treasury market bulls as 30-year bond yields rose to a four-month high.
Longer-maturity Treasuries led losses after Buffett, the billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., said long-term bonds are overvalued. Touting bearish bets after yields climbed last week by the most in almost two months, Gross said the bull market “supercycle” for both bonds and stocks is ending.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-04/buffett-and-gross-agree-slump-in-30-year-bonds-makes-good-sense

with my Dr.: its overweight @190# under 180#...for me..
investing: it means nothing....to me

Hi Guys,
Thank you Ted for this walk down memory lane. It is a worthwhile trip.
For a long time I believed that Marty Zweig and Jason Zweig were related. I was wrong.
I suppose I made that false connection because of the rather conservative investment style that both gentlemen advocated and practiced. As a panel member on Louis Rukeyser’s Wall Street Week TV show, the Marty version seemed the most conservative member of that gang; he seemed to be at least a semi-permabear with his constant worrisome outlooks. The Jason version shares in many of those conservative and worrisome attributes.
Marty Zweig liked to talk about the difference between the “rifle” and the “shotgun” approaches to investing. Here is a Link to a single page from his “Winning on Wall Street” book that nicely summarizes the distinctions:
http://theguruinvestor.com/2014/09/11/great-pages-zweigs-shotgun-approach/#more-13429
He firmly believed that most investors do not have the time or the skill set to be effective “rifle”-like investors. Note his stock selection criteria at the bottom of the same page. I suspect most MFOers would deploy similar criteria if we were choosing individual equity holdings.
In Jason Zweig’s “The Little Book of Safe Money” and his “Your Money and Your Brain”, he emphasizes the battle for risk control. Jason identifies 3 Commandments that are likely guiding principles for conservative, risk control investors.
He states that: (1) Don’t take risk you don’t need to take, (2) Don’t put money at risk that you can’t afford to completely lose, and (3) Don’t accept any risk if you don’t anticipate a payday that rewards that risk. For seasoned MFOers, this is all basic don’t do stuff.
In Appendix 2 of Jason Zweig’s “Your Money and Your Brain” book, he advises on the do-side of the ledger. Not many surprises here either. He endorses Expense Ratio cost management, low trading frequency, again a cost control measure, and smaller fund sizes to better exploit a shrinking excess returns target map.
He too prefers a shotgun to a rifle, and, at bottom, recommends a heavy weighting of Index fund products. Jason also favors having a female on the investment decision team to achieve a more balanced assessment of investing opportunities.
Indeed, Marty and Jason Zweig were not related. However, to a large extent, they shared many investment rules and principles. That’s a little surprising bottom-line judgment given that Marty truly admired famed trader Jesse Livermore. Upon reflection, maybe that’s not so shocking since Livermore practiced patience and money management in his storied stock dealings career.
Best Regards.

FYI: (The king is dead, long live the king ! Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund )
The Pimco Total Return Fund, launched by Bill Gross, has lost its title as the world's biggest bond mutual fund, following two years of withdrawals.
On Monday, Pimco said investors yanked another $5.6 billion from the Pimco Total Return Fund last month, bringing its assets to $110.4 billion at end of April.
By comparison, the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund had $117.3 billion as of April 30, according to a Vanguard spokesman
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/04/us-investing-pimco-flows-idUSKBN0NP1W820150504

Hi, Alex.
In general, we describe our coverage universe as "all those funds that are off Morningstar's radar." In general, we're willing to initiate coverage of a way cool fund if it is: (1) less than three years old or (2) has less than $150 million AUM. That covers roughly half of all of the funds in existence (about 1300 meet the first criterion, 3100 meet the second, some meet both). Once we've started tracking a fund, we'll stick with it even as it becomes older and larger so long as it continues to do stuff that we think you need to know about.
We will make exception and write about larger funds from time to time. Two categories come to mind: (1) there's been a change so substantial that it has de facto become a new fund. An example would be when FPA Paramount went from a quality-growth domestic smid cap under one team to a mid-cap absolute value global fund under a new team. And (2) if a newly reopened fund has been closed so long that it's dropped off the radar. Matthews Asia Growth & Income is an example of that.
Could we cover larger funds? Sure. Two things constrain us: (1) I do 99% of the fund profiles personally and it's hard to track more than 3000 funds while also having a full-time job and being dad and (2) the value-added isn't necessarily as great because other folks are likely to write about such funds.
Hope that helps,
David

I think it's hopeless. ... You're willing to assume some extra credit or duration risk to pick-up what? An extra 1 or 2%? Face the truth.
DODIX has done surprisingly well the past few years. Surprised me - and I own it, but am cutting back. They've kept maturities on the shorter end in recent years, but are still out there a bit. Will take a modest hit if rates rise sharply. Their most recent fund report alluded to concerns over heavy inflows and hinted they might have to close the fund at some point.
There's one problem with heavy inflows. That $$ can reverse and flow back out even faster than it flowed in - and they know it.
Everybody's chasing yield.

There are some funds that M* gets enthralled with, data aside. WPVLX is one of them. Like David, I took a flier on this fund in the late 90s and got burned. I looked through the M* analyst report archive to find the following headlines:
3/2000: WPVLX's bet on financial may be worth the short-term pain it is causing.
6&7/2001: We think that this is the kind of fund to buy and put away for years.
11/2001: This could be a buying opportunity.
2/2002: This fund's strict attention to value has paid off over the long haul.
4,6,&10/2002: Despite its struggles, WPVLX is worth keeping.
1&2/2003: Better than it looks right now.
7/2003: Investors in this offering have long been rewarded for patience.
12/2003: This fund is worth waiting for.
3/2005: Is this glass half full, or half empty? -and- Not for everyone.
9/2005: We still think there's good reason to like this mutual fund.
5/2006: Despite a very tough year and a half, we thing this mutual fund still has the goods.
12/2007 & 1/2008: This fund fund is down but definitely not out.
6/2008: Be patient with this fund.
11/2008: Recent performance woes don't dim our support for this mutual fund.
4/2009: Investors should stick with this fine mutual fund.
9/2013: Take a bow, Wally Weitz et al. -
the analysis says: "this fund has never been better than duringthe past 4.5 years." After which it wound up in the 63rd percentile for all of 2013 (meaning it had a dreadful latter part of the year) and 82nd percentile for 2014.
Briefly on costs. The M* article concedes that ARTKX's cost is not above average, but they wish it were lower given the large size of the fund. But the article wasn't about sizes of funds, it was about costs, and ARTKX isn't challenged by a high cost.