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.

"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."
The cynical side of me begins to wonder if all these media spots that tell you to wait on SS is being run by the govt in hopes that there will be less payout? I cannot be the only one that has noticed we are inundated with this idea.

The calculation I'm familiar with views SS as an annuity. Suppose you start SS at age 62. The question asked is: If you bought a private annuity with the checks you receive from age 62 to age 70, would that annuity be able to make up the difference between the checks you're getting and the checks you would have gotten by deferring until age 70? If not, then deferring benefits gives you "extra value".
For example, if you'd get $900/mo at age 62, and $1600/mo starting at age 70, would you be able to replace that extra $700 with a private annuity for the cost of the $900 checks that you received for eight years? The answer is no.
But as this FA Magazine page points out, "the reason that SS annuities are a better deal than those in the private markets is that SS can offer a product that is actuarially fair - the y are based on the life expectancy of the average person ... and SS does not have to worry about marketing costs or profits." Sort of like Vanguard, except Vanguard pays marketing costs.
Another reason aside from profits that private annuities cost more is adverse selection. People who buy annuities tend to have longer life expectancies, so the insurers have to charge more simply to cover that cost.
With SS, those people should be deferring benefits. But with 3/4 of people not only not deferring, but actually taking benefits before FRA, it's clear that many people are making the "wrong" decision - lots of people with personally long life expectancies are going for the earlier checks. (They often have other reasons, such as cash flow, for taking early benefits.)
Thus rather than costing SSA money, its seems that so many people starting benefits early actually saves the government money, statistically speaking. Thank you very much.

So, it looks like I may be wrong about next year's OC cost.
I may be able to get plans at $240/month with the subsidy.
this is because my income is 345% of the poverty line, over 400% and you don't get one.
you are eligible for an estimated subsidy of:
$2,737.2annually
$228.1 monthly

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.

FYI: The reversal in, well, everything continued on Tuesday. Stocks across the globe finished sharply lower and so did bond prices. Recent market action continues to be dominated by the sell off in the Treasury and Bund markets. You might never pin down a specific trigger, but it seems that amorphous concerns about the eventuality of a Federal Reserve rate hike have manifested like an F4-power tornado. It’s spilling into growth-focused stocks, including small caps. The sickness also is spreading to yield-oriented defensive stocks. Much is riding on Friday’s April jobs report from the Labor Department. Markets are skittish for the first time in a while, and a red-hot reading on jobs growth might cause a full-blown case of Fed-related jitters.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/05/05/etf-market-vital-signs-cinco-de-mayo-the-sea-was-angry-that-day/tab/print/

Retiring on June 1 at age 59....getting COBRA for about $1K a month and will figure out what the ACA has in store for me at the end of the year since I am not insurable otherwise.
The week after I retire, I'm headed to Italy for 3 weeks.
There are perks for living below your means during your working career.

>> 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?

In 2008, I paid $205.83/month from BC/BS I was able to keep it in the 240 range until OC. Then it went to 335 same BC/BS policy but OC adds increased it. Next year they are canceling the policy so I have to go full OC. Which will be close to $600/mo the last time l looked.
I'm still very OK financially. Part of this is because I'll get Medicaid in 5 years and Georgia does not tax retires' dividends/interest/SS/Pensions after 62(?). However, I am feeling less flush due to OC. I won't be changing my spending habits.
However, if I knew about the OC costs, I may have not stopped working or delayed it for a couple of years. It is just too much of an unknown for 14 years. Spending $2,400 Vs $7,200 and an unknown future is disconcerting.
This is just another reason why I don't think many will be able to do what I did in the future.

“The REIT market is very volatile, down 75% between 2007 and 2009 — which was terrific if you were in a re-balancing situation — and then up 400% from that bottom,”
I wanted to create a picture of the above quote using a personal investment ( I experienced this with VGSIX). I wanted to highlight the recover time (shown in the form of a triangle).
It is this the period of time (recovery from maximum Draw Down or MAXDD) an investor wants to shorten if possible. Six years was a long time to wait in my opinion.

I think a 50/50 split makes a lot of sense. I think so for a couple of reasons:
1) The USD has probably made a good portion of its move already so from a tactical perspective, it makes sense to take some of this bet off the table.
2) Longer-term, I like the 50/50 split because it removes (at least most of) the emotion when it comes to what will happen in the shorter-term. If USD continues to rise, you won't have to go back and think "man, I wish I had hedged" because you did (50% of it) and vice versa.

Related RE article:

"In a rising market, REITs also have some of the same challenges as directly owned property. “The REIT market is very volatile, down 75% between 2007 and 2009 — which was terrific if you were in a rebalancing situation — and then up 400% from that bottom,” Haraway says. “I handle REITs as maybe 10% of a portfolio. REITs tend to lead the other indexes and provide some diversification.”
Along with volatility, REITs also carry interest rate risk, Altfest points out, and aren’t always available at favorable prices. “We’re value investors, and a lot of money is chasing REITs. Valuations are high and yields are low,” he says.
Instead of (or in addition to) REITs and direct real estate ownership, Altfest suggests private partnerships, in which a group of people pool money to make a real estate buy and pay for its professional management."
real-estates-new-rules

FYI: The managers of Phocas Real Estate buy property companies that should do well even in a declining market.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.kiplinger.com/printstory.php?pid=13514
M* Snapshot PHREX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PHREX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot PHREX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PHREX?countrycode=US
PHREX Is Unranked In The (RE) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/real-estate/phocas-real-estate-fund/phrex

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.