Really? A $1000/week isn't enough? Change your lifestyle then.
p.s. I lived in the Bay Area (Berkeley to be precise) on a $1000/month, with 2 kids, no problem. Guess it all depends.

I know I'll probably get scoffed at, but where I live (MD/Wash DC), $52,000 might get you check to check in a studio apartment, frugal or not, particularly if you are younger and just starting out.
If you live in the closest and cheapest livable suburb in VA (which you'll have to do because living out further will mean you need a car, and living in DC or MD will mean much higher taxes), you'll take home $734.50 weekly of your $1000 salary. That's $3182.83 per month.
Almost no leasing agent will even talk to you unless you make over $45k here, and then you better have sterling credit. 400 sq ft. studios start at $1250 as a rule; one bedrooms go for around $1500-$1700. That doesn't include utilities, internet, phone, water, transportation, food, health care, clothing, or any other outstanding debt.
$3182.50 - take home
-$1250 - rent
-$ 100 - utilities/electric/water (my BGE bill + water averaged about $125 for a 1BR for the past 4 years)
-$ 50 - internet (no cable)
-$ 90 - 2GB Phone contract w/ phone through AT&T
-$ 350 - Health insurance (figured @8% of $52k)
-$ 200 - Transportation on METRO (@$8 p/d, 5 days a week + $25 p/m)
-$ 380 - Food (@ $12.50 p/d. It isn't just rent that's steep here)
-$ 375 - Student Loan payments (that's about $50,000 @ 6.8% over 20 years, because you aren't getting a $52,000 a year job here without at least 1 or 2 degrees, usually at a higher cost than this.)
_______________
$387.50, or $89.42 p/w before car, clothes, and other misc. expenses even start. And that is without any investing in a retirement account to get that $1M or savings towards a downpayment on a house. The obvious solution is to get a roommate, but that is only going to knock your monthly rent down about $400. You could also move some place us, but plenty of us are from here and have family, or have skills that are only employable in DC.
And people don't even want to know what NYC costs.

The comment about SS waiting from age 62 to 65 and the comment about CPI not keeping up with "real" inflation are two different things. The SS payout goes up each year you wait based on change in life expectancy, not based on CPI. The inflation change is in addition to whatever the life expectancy adjustment is. For example, if you are 62 you are expected to live another (approximately) 21 years. If you wait a year, you now are expected to live another 20 years so the payout goes up about 5% because of that.

Performance PRHYX More... source morningstar
Growth of 10,000 10,429 9,996 10,563 13,388 16,083 21,131
Fund 4.29 -0.04 5.63 10.21 5yr +9.97 10 yr+7.77
Guess I need glases, I'll live with ultra/low cost VWEHX of +9.43 +6.78

This:

In all seriousness, I agree with a lot of what JohnChisum said.

VWEHX has a five year return (annualized) of 9.43%, and a ten year return of 6.78%. Each of those is under the stated returns.
I ran a search on bond funds with 5 year returns of at least 9.7% and 10 year returns of at least 7%. There are only 44 funds - 43 of them have "high yield" or "high income" in their name. M* classifies 42 of those as high yield funds; the 43rd, AGDAX (Alliance Bernstein High Income) is classified multisector.
The44th fund is also classified multisector. It's a high octane version(!) of LSBDX -
Loomis Sayles Strategic Income (NEFZX).

There are lots of different things going on here. It's been many days since I read a brief or two on the case, so this may not be exactly right (and I don't have the time now to review), but here goes:
- IMHO Vanguard should win quickly - not on the merits but on procedure - they seem to be arguing that the plaintiff (as former Vanguard counsel) cannot bring suit (breach of attorney client privilege). He may be relying upon a whistleblower exception to the privilege (assuming there is one - I haven't checked statute; Vanguard seems to be saying that caselaw denies there's such an exception).
But if there is such an exception, he'd have to be saying something new. While he may have new details, the basic argument (that Vanguard charges below market rates) isn't new - Vanguard makes it clear this has been public knowledge for forty years.
Vanguard is also arguing on the merits (that they didn't break a rule), but I don't expect it to get that far.
- Why people should care - not because you're a Vanguard investor/owner, but because you're a taxpayer. The complaint is not that Vanguard customers are losing (rather, they're winning with Vanguard's structure), but that the US Treasury, and thus all taxpayers, are losing, because Vanguard isn't paying its fair share of taxes.
There is a rule that says funds must pay market rate for services. Vanguard Group appears to violate this rule by charging cost - clearly below market rate, since fund management companies charge to make a profit. (In Vanguard's case, those profits would be distributed back to the funds, which own the Vanguard Group management company.)
So why does this matter, if the higher charges would simply flow right back to the funds that paid those extra charges? Because Vanguard Group would have to pay taxes to the IRS and to states. Only the after tax profits would be returned to the funds.
If Vanguard Group charged an extra $1M (to earn a $1M profit for all its management services), it might owe the IRS $350K. $650K would flow back to the funds, but the shareholders of those funds would have paid the full $1M extra in management fees.
At least that's my understanding of some of the issues.

With respect to "skimming", do a search on "annuitization puzzle". Here's the first hit I got:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.25.4.143 (Journal of Economic Perspectives)
"In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech given in 1985, Franco Modigliani drew attention to the "annuitization puzzle": that annuity contracts, other than pensions through group insurance, are extremely rare. Rational choice theory predicts that households will find annuities attractive at the onset of retirement because they address the risk of outliving one's income, but in fact, relatively few of those facing retirement choose to annuitize a substantial portion of their wealth." (From the abstract)
"The theoretical prediction that many people will want to annuitize a substantial portion of their wealth stands in sharp contrast to what we observe. Only a tiny share of those who reach retirement age with money in a personal retirement account or other financial assets will choose to annuitize a substantial share of that wealth. Part of the reason is that only 21 percent of defined contribution plans even offer annuities as an option (PSCA, 2009), and virtually no 401(k) plans do." (From the text.)

Many 401(k)s offer "brokerage windows" that allow employees to purchase individual bonds. The provider (issuer/guarantor) of these bonds can default.
Are you just asking whether the government is responsible for all losses (such defaults on bonds) in 401(k) plans, or do you have something more specific in mind?
While the article talks about several different types of offerings where the Treasury Dept has relaxed regulations on what a 401(k) can contain, unfortunately it offers a citation to only one of those changes. So it is difficult to figure out exactly what else is now being permitted. Or frankly, even exactly how the annuities within target date funds would work. (I found I had more questions after reading the cited IRS Notice 2014-66.)
A keyword here is "permitted." Treasury is adding no requirements, no mandates. Are you suggesting in your question that employees' 401(k)s choices should be further restricted by the government (e.g. closing brokerage windows)?
There's a case to be made for that. As you point out, the more freedom employees have with their retirement investments, the greater the possibility of total loss (as well as the possibility of greater gain).

It varies with the strategy. The more stocks you wish to own, the greater your capacity will be. Likewise, the lower down on the capitalization scale you wish to go, the lower your capacity will be. For example, let's say a fund wants to own 40 stocks and it's will to go down to $1 billion in market cap. Assuming you don't want to own more than 5% of any stock you get:
$1 billion x .05 = $50 million x 40 (the no. of stocks held) = $2 billion.
So roughly measured, you get a $2 billion capacity for that sort of strategy (GAINX might be a good example). That would be my rule of thumb, anyway.

Well it depends. Some strategies have a lower capacity than others. But speaking generally, a billion AUM is a nice round number and anything more than that I think we can start talking about bloat. I've seem some funds soft close from 1 to 2 B. But I don't have hard and fast rules on bloat, personally. I invest in some funds with much higher AUM. I'm not sure if I would invest in them today if I did it all over again (Is that a sign that I should sell and move money elsewhere.). I think it's very difficult to deliver top tier returns with AUM over 10 Billion, but there are exceptions. (DODFX has over $64 billion, 5 stars from M* and nearly an MFO great owl (RG of 5 for 10 year, 3 year, and 1 year, RG of 4 for 5 year).)

FYI: Treasury Department and IRS approval on Friday of the use of annuities in target date funds in 401(k) plans, including as a default investment, will make lifetime-income features more popular and help ensure that droves of baby boomers don't outlive their nest egg, industry officials and experts say.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20141024/FREE/141029947?template=printart

@Charles If you haven't been there in awhile, you might want to take a fresh glance:
1. changes have been made to the blog; the ad stuff is still around--- I know what you mean--- but they aren't as numerous as awhile back and seem far less obtrusive now;
2.Simon G seems more selective in the articles he links; he no longer fills up his categories with x articles/wk, regardless of quality, and will leave a category pretty barren if that week's offering are paltry; as a consequence, every 1-2 wks I'll peruse and find at least one article with something inside I'm pleased to note;
3. week before last, Simon G selected and linked directly to a MFO Discussion Board post (did you catch it?); this may have brought some fresh eyes to MFO and, if they liked what they saw, could result in "new members" with special knowledge/insight that we, as a group, do not presently have. So, in any case, don't want to be flickin' boogers at a benefactor, right?
@Ted Do continue on. I have this site bookmarked, but without you habitual end-of-week post I'd forget more often than not (if only because my BM list has become, once again, sadly disordered; "I have no idea how this happened"; yes, I'm one-of-those-people)

The later comments on this thread are not relevant to "Fund Discussions."
While I agree that cheap birth control should be available world-wide, it has little to do with retirement with $1 million.
Depending on the area of this country in which one lives, adding the MDR from $1M to SS can provide a satisfactory existence. I also think it's going to be difficult for my children to achieve this level of savings (which will probably be $3M by the time they retire).
I am very pessimistic about their chances of an income allowing savings with the "flattening" of the world, as they compete with low income countries with lower costs of living. One of the few remaining services/industries that can't be moved off-shore is health care, but that has to be paid for by someone, and the payors are reducing reimbursements yearly. Manufacturing returns to the US in robotic factories, which require fewer workers. Education is only rewarded when someone can pay for the knowledge you have.
This comment is also drifting off-topic, so I'll stop.

@JohnChisum: Yes, I'd heard "Junior" was pushing for contraception. But still, very recently, my wife informs me that doctors will not give it to you if you're not MARRIED. Even if you just put aside the ethical question, it is shown time and time again and again that young single mothers with unplanned babies and boyfriends who are quite unable to support them end-up living shit lives. And around and around it goes..... That whole "pasalubong" souvenir tradition is nuts, connected to that case of the sailor, for instance, who comes home and blows his pay. It's expected. Why? Because no one else has any money, nothing to share, they go hand-to-mouth every day. It's just about impossible to break out of that cultural mind-set. They are ACCUSTOMED to poverty, and so accept the bribes from the politicians, and expect relatives to spend all their money on the family, so that not EVERY day is shit. For 99% of people there, there is no future. They must go elsewhere. Just like the Irish, back at the turn of the 19th into the 20th century.

From the prospectus:

The Fund is currently not available for sale. ... Existing shareholders of Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund ... as set forth below, may purchase additional Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund through existing or new accounts .... Existing shareholders ... include: (1) shareholders of Retail Class Shares and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund as of December 2, 2013

Howdy folks,
Interesting article and approach to a miner ETF. It will be curious to see how it actually performs. The gold/XAU ratio is 16.71 (this is where the author talks about mining stocks undervalued relative to bullion). Note that historically (before the advent of the bullion ETFs, 5.0 was the equilibrium point - below which pointed to bullion and above which pointed to overweighting miners. The bullion ETF through this metric completely out of whack and while I haven't been following the trade, I don't think anyone has really quite figured out how to use it today. My best guess is that within your pm holdings, you should overweight miners relative to bullion. BTW, also for the record, the gold/silver ratio is 1/71 which points to overweighting silver to gold as the 'equilibrium' ratio here is historically 1/17 (more realistically 1/30-40).
And so it goes,
peace,
rono

Hi Mo,
Interesting. In the north west part of the Upper Peninsula, is what's called Copper Country. Mined it there until it got too deep to be cost/beneficial. It is what is known as float copper that people still find today.
https://www.google.com/search?q=float+copper&biw=1920&bih=899&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=GptNVKPfO8iPyATlrYLgBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQsAQ
I've seen that big rascal in Calumet. Back in the 1850's it was in line to be the state capital as it was the home of the copper boom. They chose Lansing because it was centrally located.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono

My two bond funds have annual returns of +9.7% 5yr, 7+% 10 yr
I EXPECT the same for the future, I guess that's stability... or stable enough

Howdy @JohnChisum
Not to you; but thoughts about the information presented in the article.
We, being "investors"; operate, in part, that we have the presumption of the full faith and credit of supposed to big to fail soverign governments (central banks) to have our back side when things don't go well in the financial system.
The ultimate concern for individual investors should be restrictions that could be put in place to access one's own monies. And yes, such restrictions are only a matter of a decision that it is the right thing to do during a financial stress situation.
As to the center point of the article. High yield or junk bonds and related poorer quality debt exist for the sole fact that those organizations and/or companies placing these financial instruments into the market place are perceived or known to be "on the edge" with the ability to honor a full payback of the monies "loaned" to them by the investors in the bonds issued.
It does not matter who the issuing entity may be. One needs to ask whether they are more comfortable or comfortable at all; investing in bonds issued by "some" countries (make your own list) or the HY bonds being issued (for example) by well known company names in the U.S., who have such hugh existing debt burdens and "on the edge" of profitable operations; but still need more money to continue to attempt to operate their business model and keep their heads above the waterline of profit.
A list of holdings (via prospectus) of junk debt issues helps to indicate how much one may have their monetary butts hanging over the "other" side of the quality fence. The same may apply to some of the equity holdings of various mutual funds.
While I can't disagree with premise of the article; there remains such a tight correlation between junk debt and equities (supposed high quality companies or not); that this "financial intercourse" keeps both areas on the edge, and relying upon one another.
If the junk credit issues where to crumble, the financial fallout in equity sectors would be widespread, eh?. We witnessed this event 6 years ago.
Below are two common, and widely used indicators.
A total return view from the period of Oct., 2007 (when indicators started to become "rough") through March 4, 2009:
SPY = -51%
HYG = -27%
We all have to pick our own investment poison (during the bad times); with the only apparent difference being that some will make one's investments more sick than the other.
We rely, in part; upon the bond rating agencies, with their abilities and with the data they are provided, to present what we believe to be the facts relative to bond qualities.
Even to the fact of whether one is supposed to take more comfort in a circumstance that the ECB may purchase "junk" credit issued by Greece (not picking on this country, but an existing circumstance); because no one else wants to buy the bonds. Magic money moves from the ECB to the central bank of country "x". Is this supposed to help me feel better that something, if anything; has been fixed? Not at this house. The "electronic" credit, the money loaned, is parked as a data file for a spreadsheet. What the heck becomes of the outstanding monies that were lent?
The above thinking is based upon course studies over many years; resulting in the "Whatsamatter U" diploma hanging on the wall, at this house. :) The degree didn't cost much; and that may be evident in this write.
Take care of you and yours,
Catch

"...Vanguard attached a copy of founder John C. Bogle's initial letter to the SEC reviewing the company's structure at the time of its founding. The document describes the early 1970s mutual fund business as an industry in rapid decline, plagued by high fees, poor results, manager conflicts of interest, and a lack of investor trust. Bogle presented Vanguard's fund-owned and at-cost structure as a way to regain public trust and convince Americans to start buying mutual funds again."