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.

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.)

Regarding complexities - each HSA administrator handles things differently - checks, debit cards, ACH transfers. Some will do the medical expense bookkeeping for you. (Similar to mutual fund companies keeping track of cost basis for you - pre-2012 - as a service, but not reporting it to the IRS.)
Whatever works best for you. Since I view HSAs as savings vehicles, I don't care about the withdrawal mechanism. I just keep track of all my eligible expenses since I opened the account. At some time in the future I'll withdraw a lump sum. I'll be able to justify the withdrawal with those medical expenses, so long as I keep good records.
Fidelity does offer an HSA account, but only to employer-sponsored plans. I've spoken with them for years about this. They tell me that they've gotten lots of requests, and they keep looking into it. My guess is that these are not especially profitable accounts, so they're not too interested.
- Accounts tend not to be large (limited contributions, people take withdrawals for expenses)
- Servicing costs are high (lots of small withdrawals)
- Regulatory costs are high
Question about Saturna - they mention Archipelago, but don't provide detail. Last time I checked (a couple of years ago?), this was a smaller list of funds (but more "interesting" as I recall), and required a $10K min. Did Archipelago vanish from Saturna?

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.

Hi Dex,
Often the retirement decision is a high anxiety event because of portfolio performance uncertainty. If the retirement depends on a portfolio drawdown, a few bad years can do lasting damage.
There are plenty of millionaires in the USA. In very rough numbers (it changes so precision gives a false signal), the Millionaires Club is about 5% of US households. Since there are about 123 million households in the US, there are about 6.2 millionaire households. These households are not evenly distributed across the Country. Here is a recent estimate map published in the WSJ:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/01/16/where-are-the-u-s-s-millionaires/

I couldn't tell from the WSJ info if that is net worth (including non investment income e.g. house) or invested assets. Can you?
Thanks

Hi, Maurice -- I would definitely check again at Fidelity, since HSAs have become more popular. The issue I had was that the maintenance fees were quite steep, and with a small account, it really ate into my return. That's basically why I switched to Saturna...but sometimes I wish I were with my prior firm, because I could "trade" the Rydex funds daily. I really did well with that strategy in 2011.