I was told not to wait. Take SS at 62. That source told me that if you wait until 66, it will take 8 years to make up what you left on the table, as opposed to starting at 62. I've signed into the SS.gov thing and saw my "account." At 62, I'd be due a bit over $1,000.00 per month, gross. But SS is taxed in MA. And I might just move far away where it's warm. Then there is the cost of medical insurance. This old dog does indeed consume multiple scripts. What is all this stuff about Medicare Part A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J.... ???
("M-I-C------ K-E-Y......... M-O-U-S-E.")

David -- TDVFX has piqued my interest. Any idea as to what extent they are team managed, vs. Mr. Towles (elder or younger) being the key person?
In the SV space I've got HUSIX. I don't mind the past year's poor performance (that will happen to any true value fund now and then) but the 1.85% ER has always left me queasy. TDVFX seems like a similar fund, but with a small asset base (about half as big, including both the mutual fund and separate accounts for both fund familiies) and their 1.2% ER strikes me as reasonable. What's not to like?
But I am increasingly wary about funds with a "great" man or woman running them, rather than a team with a deep bench. That probably is true for HUSIX too, but glancing at their website they at least have a bigger team behind Joe Huber.

Hi Catch22,
I have few problems when discussing religion. I am a practicing Roman Catholic and am at peace with it.
Investing is a horse of a different color. Perhaps I should have qualified my comment about supporting opinions with hard data. I was referring only to investment matters, decisions, and opinions in that instance.
I have no quarrel with investing opinions. All investors ultimately form them and should act on them. That’s what makes a marketplace. As a general rule, I just don’t trust opinions that are offered without supporting documentation. I’m surprised that some MFOers take exception to something as basic as that rule.
The marketplace is awash in a tsunami of statistical data. I expect that almost all investors use some portion of that data in making investment decisions. I do.
I surely agree that investing is not all stats; it is part analytic and part gut feelings. Analyses can be overdone. Correlation is not necessarily causation. There are countless examples of chasing ghost patterns.
Remember in the 1990s Harry Dent projected a Dow 41,000 because of a faulty population aging/spending argument. It was a badly flawed model.
With the abundance of market data, reasonably high correlations can always be “discovered” to project future market prices.
Remember David Leinweber’s discovery that the butter production in Bangladesh could predict 75% of the equity market’s returns. Add the Sheep population in that Country to the correlation parameters, and the correlation coefficient advances to 99%. Of course, subsequent out of sample data convincingly disproved that nonsensical correlation.
Enough. Please attend to your paint fumes while I do the same.
Best Wishes.

@MJG
You noted:
"But I don’t like just opinions that are not backstopped with applicable data and informed references."
You must have or have had some interesting discussions involving religious beliefs and other topics where opinion may not always have solid data and informed references .....
Fact and Opinion descriptive
Perhaps I will withdraw from opinion(s), before causing harm. You have caused me to rethink the way I think.
Okay. Return to breathing latex paint fumes, for me.

As a long-time Vanguard owner/customer, I would like to see them offer this kind of service with the option of paying a flat dollar amount instead of a percentage fee. I've never understood the fairness of advisers' charging ten times as much to suggest how a $1,000,000 portfolio should be invested vs. a $100,000 portfolio. In other words, I'd love to see Vanguard offer a "fee-only" service at a set flat $fee rather than % of portfolio fee. I wouldn't expect any financial services firm other than Vanguard to even consider it.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
WSJ Slant:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-rise-1430914380
Bloomberg Slant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-05/crude-extends-climb-as-gains-hit-bond-market-kiwi-sinks-on-jobs
Reuters Slant:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/06/us-markets-stocks-idUSKBN0NR17320150506
MarketWatch Slant:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-set-for-rebound-with-jobs-yellen-in-view-2015-05-06/print
WSJ Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures:
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Here's a quora post on these bonds; it does a good job of enumerating the issuer-specific risks:
http://www.quora.com/How-good-or-bad-an-investment-is-SolarCitys-Solar-Bonds
These bonds are not the same as typical corporate bonds. A couple of decades ago, some corporations started selling bonds direct to the public, marketing them as CD alternatives. Instead of buying bonds on the secondary market, with market discount/premium, commissions, and accrued interest costs, small investors can buy them at issue and at par (albeit at a lower coupon rate than the bonds bought by the "big boys").
They are (were?) known as InterNotes, DirectNotes, and a slew of lesser marketing names. You'll find the Solar City notes under InterNotes' unrated offerings.
But they come with a downside - they're generally not marketable - you can't get out of them until they mature or default. (See Direct Purchase Notes in this LA Times article.) That's different from typical bonds that trade through networks of brokers.
I've tended to be skeptical of these offerings - they seem to be attempts by companies to borrow from small investors when they can't borrow (at least at rates they accept) from institutional lenders. That certainly proved to be the case in 2008, when the Lehman InterNotes as well as CIT InterNotes and others went bust:

Targeting bonds to individuals “was part of a proliferation of gimmicky devices which on the surface looked attractive but was nothing more than high-pressure marketing tools,” said Arthur Levitt, a former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

That's not to say that all InterNotes are bad products, but that one needs to look at them closely, and ask why the issuer is borrowing through the retail market.

Hi Guys,
My general feeling is that as a group, we are overthinking and overreacting to the SS question.
There are far too many uncertainties and personal preferences to reach any definitive resolution. It all depends because there are to many variables and far too many uncertainties.
One of the major uncertainties are the ever changing laws, rules, and regulations. If they don't change today, they are sure to change in the future.
When asked to count Federal and State laws, experts conclude that it is an impossible assignment. The estimated numbers are all over the map, and are likely in the multiple tens of thousands. Additionally, a hundred more are proposed each day. Lucky for us that only 10% of these become law.
Good luck on forecasting which of these will be on the books a decade from now. Projecting any financial SS break-even point, given these uncertainties, is an impossible task.
I suggest we just move-on.
Best Wishes.

>> Are you seriously suggesting that this poor fellow put $100,000 into a single bond offering issued by this company?
Sure. Have you slogged through the details of many corporate bond prospectuses?
Thanks for the official rating info, and yes, I agree it is best to forget it for someone 'very cautious, conservative' to that degree.
>> signing away any bankruptcy rights
Usually the case, no? I lost quite a bit of money with very safe Lehman bonds, so yeah, I am aware they're not like a bank CD.
My thinking was that SC, with all of its contracted gov work (DoD housing), is not about to die in the next five years, Cruz or no Cruz (not gonna happen, but someone almost as bad is a possibility, I suppose).
And not a poor fellow by my standards :)

I would think the odds of loss in any of these worthy funds over the next 5y to be nontrivial, no matter what they do, even, you know, BERIX and FPA. So I would stick a hundred thou, or even more, into SC 4% bonds, and make a few thou against inflation. I mean, I like very much PONDX, FSICX, DODIX, FTBFX, BOND, PDI, and a few others, but have had trouble breaking even with all of them over selected short recent periods, when I was overmonitoring.

Are you seriously suggesting that this poor fellow put $100,000 into a single bond offering issued by this company? I took a quick look at the prospectus for this bond. It's unrated, unsecured, and the protective covenants for the investor are practically nonexistent. I did a bit more research and found that S&P had rated a secured bond issue from SolarCity that matures in 2022 at BBB+, and an unsecured bond from them maturing in 2022 at BB. BB is not investment grade. Other than some posters here dropping dead from the shock, what happens if somebody like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul gets elected president in 2016 and the investment tax credit and other subsidies for solar power gets dropped? It's questionable whether there will be a secondary market for these securities (that's from the prospectus), and SolarCity isn't obligated to redeem them early under any circumstances.
I strongly suggest that the original poster take a good look at these risk factors if he's considering this SolarCity offering.

Thank you for doing some research on this matter. Personally, I would never drop $100,000 in any single offering, whether it be a bond or fund/stock. I'm a very cautious, conservative investor.

I should have mentioned that you can buy these bonds in $1000 increments if you should wish. If I read that prospectus correctly, you are also signing away any bankruptcy rights and in that unfortunate circumstance would be receiving 25% of your investment back. If you want to support solar energy and like SolarCity this would seem to be a way to do it, but it doesn't seem to be any equivalent for a savings account.

@Dex - thanks for being diligent and forthright with the numbers. ACA often does cost some people more money (though not as much as they may think, because health care/insurance rates were rising so fast anyway that part of the increase was inevitable).

The subsidy could influence me on when I take SS. For years 61 and 62, I may be able to get the subsidy. If, I took SS on the earliest date June of my 62nd year I probably would lose the subsidy for years 62, 63, 64. So in year 62 it might make some sense to delay taking SS so that I still get a subsidy. Based upon what I know now the subsidy is in the area of $3,000 per year of non taxable money. My income would need to be less then 4X of the poverty base for the year.
Now, considering my net worth - my getting a subsidy doesn't make much sense.
Also, after seeing how his subsidy thing works, I don't think OC will be repealed. Too many people are getting something out of it.

Hi Catch22 and other posters,
My portfolio's holdings, according to M*, are collectively off their fifty two week highs by about five percent. I am not doing much of anything as I have been expecting a pull back for sometime now and with this I have been carrying a good allocation to cash since my recent sell off of my equity spiff position the first part of April and, as I write, I have a ytd gain (portfolio) of about 3.7%
I am planning on a limited watch as we move through the summer and most likely start buying around the edges as we approach fall. By then, corporate earnings should start to improve. Not in a hurry though because fall ... September & October ... where I usually ramp up my equity allocation is now about five to six months away. And, I have got a lot of things planned to do this summer.
Currently, my portfolio's asset allocation, rounded, is about 20% cash, 20% bonds,
50% stocks and 10% other. Within stocks I am about 65% domestic and 35% foreign.
If stocks as measured by the S&P 500 Index dip by about 10% down towards the low 1900's then I start to perk up and do some strong looking. But, we are now only about a mere two percent off the Index's recent high. The Index will have to get down to about the 2010's range before I reduce summer activities and start spending more time watching the markets. Currently, I don't plan to do any selling ... but, I might.
Should my portfolio's assets reach a decline of ten percent off their fifty two week highs ... Well, I am still covered with my twenty percent cash position. Now, if it should go beyond a ten percent decline, then I'll need to start raising my cash position through an asset sell down process to rebalance and raise my cash position.
Signing out ... and, now 'hopefully' gone for the summer to enjoy some R&R.
Old_Skeet

.........well, not much in happy land in many places during the recent days........the last week or so with softness in equity and bonds. 'Course, such a broad statement does imply that there are not areas that are somewhat happy; but not unlike a young person or an adult who sometimes states that they are going to run away from home.........likely from having a bad day, etc. :)..........even "investors" have periods when they want to "run away from investments", yes?
Well, your house (investments) is also likely getting its "clock cleaned" from recent market actions.
Some equity market areas during the past month had about 8% down moves and then flattened for a short period of time. But, this has reversed again. India being an example of a big run in the last 12 months +, then down about 8%, but further down May 6 dropping another 2.5% or so. Aussieland also found a large drop (>2%), reportedly due in part to poor earnings in the banking sector.
All investor returns will be different, of course; but the consideration is in place for this house to reduce equity holdings today (May 6) to protect very pleasing returns so far this year from investments in particular in HEDJ. Some healthcare may also be reduced; although the gains from these holdings has been from a period of years and not months.
Ya, I know; don't be a trader or time the markets. I'll have to name this as intuition.
Broad drawdowns will likely not be more than 10%, yes? Or you best guess.
At times, I recall a portion of information displayed upon the "old" hometown movie theatre screen before the main movie............."Preview of coming attractions". Attempting to determine the "coming attractions related to investments".
Well, just some early morning (1 cup of coffee) jabber.
NOTE: this write was started and planned to be posted on May 5, but other schedules changed this.
Regards,
Catch

Nothing wrong with 529 plans, but in the priority of savings they fall far lower on the savings ladder. I would first fully fund an employer's retirement match through a workplace / self directed retirement account. Second on the savings wrung would be to fully fund a Roth IRA. Third would be funding an emergency fund in a (taxable account) equal to 3-6-9-12 months of one's salary. As important, would be to have a plan to pay off high interest loans (revolving credit).
As a "good" parent we think saving for college is a requirement. My opinion is that the fewer dollars specifically ear marked for funding college the more dollars will be offered to your college student in financial aid (grants, loans, internships, work study, etc) as they are mostly all needs based.
Your college student should strive to be a good candidate to get into college (good academics, athletic, and civic minded), but they should also be a good candidate for financial help.
Nothing wrong with 529 plans other than you are short changing your kid the opportunity to receive financial aid and sticking them with the burden and guilt of your financial insecurity.
Let your kid be needy...they'll thank you for it.

FYI: A “robo” adviser has added college savings to the online investing services it offers. But FutureAdvisor’s new offering is limited by the nature of state-sponsored 529 plans.
The San Francisco online-advice firm has rolled out a website feature that helps parents figure out how much to save for a child’s education and makes suggestions among 529-plan accounts, Coverdell education savings accounts and custodial brokerage accounts. Parents who set up accounts through FutureAdvisor can get the firm’s investment-management assistance at no charge.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2015/05/05/robo-adviser-tackles-college-savings/tab/print/?mg=blogs-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Ftotalreturn%2F2015%2F05%2F05%2Frobo-adviser-tackles-college-savings%2Ftab%2Fprint

FYI: After more than two years in pilot and $17B in assets, Personal Advisor Services ready to take on the expanding field.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150505/FREE/150509967?template=printart

Re msf's question:
JohnC is correct that "funds-of-funds" should be viewed differently and might warrant a higher allocation. One of these, RPSIX, currently comprises my largest holding at just over 14%.
1. I prefer to view money management decisions in terms of percentages (not in dollar sums).
2. I don't have set limits. However, I become uncomfortable when any one fund exceeds about 20% of total assets. With equity funds, 10% in any single fund is enough.
3. I believe it's wise to diversify (fairly evenly) among at least 3 different fund houses or other custodians.
-
Added: The above reflects the thinking of a 70+ year-old, 15-20 years into retirement, already in the distribution stage. Were I younger, I'd have a higher risk tolerance and would be much more concentrated in a few good growth funds.

I can say that VWENX is my largest holding at just under $100,000, but that's because I've reinvested dividends for several years. As a result, the fund has grown to that amount coupled with capital gains of course. But I would never just drop $100,000 on one fund at this time. As I said, I'm a bit apprehensive given the current market valuations.

Personally, I would never drop $100,000 in any single offering, whether it be a bond or fund/stock. I'm a very cautious, conservative investor.

This raises an interesting question. You wrote that your portfolio is around $1M, so (quickly doing the long division :-)) that means that you would not put more than 10% in a single fund.
That rules out "couch potato" portfolios. What do people feel is a maximum percentage to allocate to a holding, or should it be a dollar amount (so a $5M portfolio might hold 50+ funds)?

@msf and @Junkster, Thanks to both of you for those clear and informative answers. The statistics show we are living longer but as with any statistical study, there is a mean average. So 50% don't make it to that certain age and 50% go beyond it. On which side am I or anyone else here? Well, that is the million dollar question. Family history and physical shape are good determinating factors but they are not 100%. In my case, my family has a history of long life well into the 80's and beyond. Then again, there is also a family history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer. I already have the diabetes. So for me, taking it while the taking is good seems to be the prudent choice.