76% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/24/pf/emergency-savings/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/03/are-the-suburbs-making-people-live-paycheck-to-paycheck/284586/
http://time.com/2742/nearly-half-of-america-lives-paycheck-to-paycheck/
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/retirement/one-third-high-earners-are-living-paycheck-paycheck-n342726
The details and numbers vary but the volume of articles about this has me thinking these numbers are probably not far off.

It sounds like the majority of people retired or nearing retirement still make mortgage payments. A leftover from the housing bubble? Their equity must be small.

FYI: The average large-cap growth mutual fund has lagged well behind its midcap and small-cap peers in the past 15 years. But top performing large-cap growth mutual funds have managed to stay ahead of the broad stock market during that span and several are doing so this year.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTkzMzcwODA=
Enlarged Graphic:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WebLVpent051315.jpg&docId=752343&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1120&caption=&id=752331

If anyone is interesting in a Webinair (May 20th @ 2pm) on the topic of "A New Look at Social Security: Coordination with the Retirement Portfolio" register here,
A New Look at Social Security: Coordination with the Retirement Portfolio

Hi Old Joe,
There you go again with your wordsmith worshipping. It is really tiresome and even dishonest. I try to make the case for including Monte Carlo analyses in the retirement decision process, and you emphasize challenging a single word.
I didn’t invent ”vituperous”. If you link to the thesaurus.com website, two sets of definitions are given. One is associated with “scurrilous” while the other is associated with “truculent”. I meant the word in terms of scurrilous.
The listed synonyms for vituperous include: defamatory, indecent, insulting, obscene, offending, salacious, and a few others. From my viewpoint, these are all adequate alternatives. Your claim that the word doesn’t exist is dishonest. It might not be the best choice, but who cares? Why linger on a single word?
Maybe that’s the best you have to offer. When you find yourself in a weak position, the military approach is to confuse and obfuscate; when in a stronger position, simplification is the order of the day. You seem to be in the confuse and obfuscate mode.
Why? I suspect you detest and distrust Monte Carlo analyses. We each get to pick our own poison. From my viewpoint it Macht Nichts what your personal preferences are. I’m merely offering another tool for everyone’s toolbox consideration.
I’m satisfied with my submittals on this MFO exchange. I’ll let the MFO readership judge their merits and shortcomings. I’m sure they both exist. However, they reflect my honest opinions on the subject matter. And I truly mean it when I say without reservation……
Best Wishes.

Hi Old Joe,
You don't fail to disappoint.
Yes, I did offer that suggestion some time ago. That suggestion was completely overwhelmed by the subsequent.numerous MFO member submittals. I simply acknowledged the wisdom of the MFO membership, so I continue to participate.
There are no easy answers to either the retirement or the SS decisions, mostly because of longevity and investment performance uncertainties. That uncertainty causes pain and inaction. Monte Carlo tools partially address that uncertainty and can reduce, but not eliminate them.
You and I have had this debate since FundAlarm days. You reported that you did SpreadSheet analysis to aid your retirement decision process. Good for you. I replied that Monte Carlo does thousands of such SpreadSheet calculations.
I suspect I caused you considerable discomfort when I asked how you filled the annual portfolio return box in your SpreadSheet analysis.I proposed that the estimate you input is identical to a Monte Carlo random selection controlled by the input statistics. I'm not sure you took kindly to that proposal.
Perhaps that's a factor in your continuing harangue?
Best Wishes.

Hi Junkster,
In a very short space, your comments managed to be vituperous, tasteless, and inaccurate. That’s quite a trifecta for a single entry.
Good health is an essential ingredient to the likelihood of an extensive longevity. I hope you enjoy your hiking and continue to do so for a long time. That exercise program is a major contributor to a positive lifespan outcome. I too hike, but for much shorter distances these days.
I’m surprised that MFO’s own Mini-Me hasn’t joined your diatribe just yet. But I’m patient (that’s a characteristic of old age); that too is likely to happen. On the happenstance that you don’t recall, Mini-Me is a comic nemesis to Austin Powers in the movies of the same name. Here is a short clip:
http://www.google.com/search?q=mini-me+austen+powers+movies+videos&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=mini-me+austen+powers+movies+videos&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3..30i10.25394.28156.0.31414.7.7.0.0.0.0.379.1102.0j6j0j1.7.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..0.7.1098.CVtdvDNOrfo
It surely is a “hard knock life” if you choose to make it so. I don’t.
I fully understand that Monte Carlo simulations are not everyone’s cup of tea. I merely offer it as one candidate financial planning tool. If it is not attractive from your perspective, the functional solution is simple: just ignore it. I really don’t care if you do or you don’t. You’re always free to choose.
Twenty years ago I developed my own retirement Monte Carlo code because none existed at that time. In that same timeframe, Bill Sharpe was developing his version. It’s now accessible on his Financial Engines website. I called Professor Sharpe to help in a few tricky programming places. He graciously provided guidance. I recognize that you have little interest, but other MFOers might, so I’ll link to his Financial Engines website now:
http://corp.financialengines.com/
Sharpe also offers a Social Security planner on his site. I have not used it.
You do yourself a disservice with your insipid submittal. I’m baffled by the animosity displayed by a few MFO members. Question the message, but don’t disparage the messenger based on pure personality conjecture.
Regardless, I do extend you Best Wishes for a long, a happy, and a prosperous life.
Quick Edit: It happened as anticipated!

Hi Guys,
Wow! The Social Security (SS) drawdown decision is a MFO subject that just keeps on giving.
I suppose that’s because it’s a complex decision for most upcoming retirees. It includes both factual and feelings elements that interact in a non-predictable manner for each person or couple. That observation has been bolstered by the variety of opinions and approaches that have been recorded on this continuing exchange.
There is a mountain of opinions and studies that are accessible on the Internet. Here is a Link to a 2013 Merrill Edge paper that addresses many pertinent issues in that decision process:
https://www.merrilledge.com/publish/content/application/pdf/gwmol/me_timeismoney_topic_paper.pdf
I selected this paper because it summarizes the conventional wisdom: “If you or your spouse are in reasonably good health and you can afford to, wait to collect your payments for as long as you can. Yet three quarters of Americans do the very opposite….”.
It certainly is a “no-brainer” that if a candidate retiree can’t afford to wait, he simply will not wait. The operational controversy about initiating SS drawdown only applies to those fortunate folks who don’t need SS benefits for a comfortable retirement, but are eligible. Now a timing issue enters the equation. When?
The Merrill paper advices delay because of the benefits increase it shows as a function of age. Merrill quotes an annual $18000. benefit at age 62 that increases to a $ 31680. annual award at age 70. Merrill concludes that: “Being an early bird usually doesn’t pay”. That’s a standard viewpoint.
I’m not convinced that that advice universally applies to those wealthy enough to wisely invest the smaller, but longer duration SS income. As in many investment scenarios, time is an ally.
Investment outcomes are notoriously uncertain which further confuses any decision. Given these uncertain outcomes, I default to Monte Carlo analyses. In this instance, I used the Monte Carlo simulator available on the Portfolio Vizualizer website. Here is a Link to that excellent resource:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/
That website offers many fine investment tools. I ran its Monte Carlo code for a reasonable approximation of what might happen if a retiree had the resources to invest his entire SS benefits in a respectable portfolio.
My postulated portfolio included US stocks, International stocks, Core Bonds, and Short Term Corporate Bonds (STCB) in a 40/20/30/10 mix, respectively. I used the STCB as a cash equivalent. For money inflow, I used the age dependent Table recommended by Merrill. I coupled those cash inflows to early, nominal, and late SS drawdown timeframes.
Time was the central influence in this analysis. The early (age 62) withdrawal initiation ended with the highest median portfolio end wealth. The results ordered nicely according to time in market. Even the lowest 25th percentile and the highest 75th percentile ordered the same way; early withdrawal was best while late withdrawal yielded the smallest end portfolio.
The simplest conclusion from this very incomplete analysis is to “take the money and run” with it to assemble a diversified portfolio. My analysis produced results that are counter to the Merrill paper.
Yes, there are risks since the government payday is guaranteed and investing is not. But for those who are strong of heart, and have the financial resources to do so, taking the early SS payout seems like a positive in the risk/reward tradeoff.
I hope this is helpful.
Best Regards.

What's all the hellavalo over?
The snippet is a short, simple, multi-pronged piece presenting one financial advisor's view on the subject we've all been discussing. If you're interpreting it as "heavy" reading, you're probably over-reacting. Yahoo is good at tossing out short and incomplete attention-grabbers like this one. I guess that's how they sell ads. If you read Yahoo's business pages you already know this.
There's a few interesting facts: The number of recipients taking SS early has been growing (although we hardly needed to be informed of that). A Gallup Poll survey showed "... more non-retirees ... than at any point in the last 15 years are planning on Social Security to be a major source of their retirement income ..."
The advisor's main point is, I think, offered a bit tongue-in-cheek in the form of a "paradox". A good paradox often expresses an underlying truth contained within an apparent absurdity. Perhaps that's why the reactions are so divergent.
The underlying truth here is that those at 62 are, health wise, better able to enjoy the extra income from early SS payments by engaging in travel, hobbies, and other life-enriching experiences (and the adviser thinks they should avail themselves of the opportunity.)
The obvious absurdity is that only those who don't need the money can afford to take it early.
Best wishes

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355064/000158064215002120/arbitrage497stkr.htm
497 1 arbitrage497stkr.htm 497
Catalyst Event Arbitrage Fund
(the “Fund”)
a series of Mutual Fund Series Trust
Supplement Dated May 11, 2015
to the Prospectus Dated November 1, 2014
The Board of Trustees of the Mutual Fund Series Trust has concluded, based on the recommendation of Catalyst Capital Advisors LLC, that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund, and redeem all outstanding shares, on June 15, 2015 (“Liquidation Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments and will no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents until all shares have been redeemed. Any capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash. Shares of the Fund are otherwise not available for purchase.
Current shareholders of the Fund may, consistent with the requirements set forth in the Prospectus, exchange their shares into shares of the same class of other funds in Catalyst family of funds, such as the Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy Fund or Catalyst Macro Strategy Fund, at any time prior to the Liquidation Date.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED OR EXCHANGED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO JUNE 15, 2015 WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OR ACCOUNT OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the Fund at 1-866-447-4228.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
This Supplement and the existing Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated November 1, 2014, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated November 1, 2014 have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Funds toll-free at 1-866-447-4228 or by writing to 17605 Wright Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68130.

@Junkster @MJG - thanks for the kind words. They are much appreciated.
@Dex - I agree with you that money may be more useful/valuable early in retirement, when it can be enjoyed. (Of course this depends on one's objectives - if it is to horde every penny for a legacy, then we're throwing enjoyment out the window.)
A problem is that people often tend to underspend in precisely this time period, because they are worried about the possibility of living "too long" (outliving their money). An event that may never happen. So we could view the issue you're raising as asking how to avoid underspending while not having the risk of living too long.
Say, what if we came up with some newfangled insurance product to offload that risk? Maybe we could call it longevity insurance :-)
IMHO that is one of the few products the insurance industry has come up with in the past several decades that could meet a real need at a reasonable price. Deferring SS is sort of like a longevity insurance product. You're "paying" (in foregone checks from age 62 to whenever - 66, 70) for higher payments starting in the future. That increase in SS payments is your longevity insurance payout.
Like longevity insurance, the higher future payments enable you to spend more now, because you don't have to worry (or at least worry as much) about what happens after you're 85. If you don't live to 85, you won't be around to fret that the policy didn't pay off.
Regardless of how long you live (and whether the deferred SS checks pay off), you wind up with more cash to spend in your earlier years (even after subtracting the amount of money those foregone early SS checks cost you). That's because you're no longer saving for that long life that may or may not come.
As you wrote, this is something you have to be able to afford. If you need those checks at age 62, then you collect early, no questions asked.

It sounds like you're trying to get a better understanding of basic investing and follow good guidance. May I suggest a bit more reading (and asking questions here) before making major changes?
While I'm not familiar with Dave Ramsey, three things immediately stood out for me when I looked up his advice:
- His use of growth, aggressive growth, etc. (your question) is at best quaint. Morningstar abandoned these categories decades ago, because it found that what a fund says it is doing (its objective) wasn't reliable; what is more reliable is how the fund is actually investing. So you can't necessarily go by the name or objective of the fund. See, e.g. http://mutualfunds.about.com/od/typesoffunds/a/What-Is-Aggressive-Growth.htm
- He is advocating a pure equity portfolio for retirement plans (no bonds, real estate, etc.). That might be okay for a 25 year old, or for someone with a high risk tolerance, but is generally not considered good advice. You are implying this also in asking about balanced funds; the page I linked to above makes the same point.
- He recommends front end load funds. If you are managing your own portfolio, there is (almost) never a reason to pay a load. That goes into the pocket of your adviser. If you're getting advice for that money, it may be okay, but if you're managing your own investments as you want to do, it makes no sense (or cents).
All that said, here's my suggested mapping from CREF funds to Ramsey's four categories. This is quick and dirty, I suggest you learn more about the funds instead of relying upon a list like this; also, because I'm not researching now, don't count on my accuracy:
CREF Equity Index - Growth and Income (traditionally, equity index funds are considered G&I)
CREF Global - not quite international, because it includes US as well
CREF Growth - growth (not aggressive; CREF is a conservative manager; also this invests "primarily in large, well-known, established companies"; it might be consider G&I, as part of its portfolio is invested in an index)
CREF Social Choice - none (it is basically an allocation fund - a mix of US (and a few foreign) stocks, and bonds)
CREF Stock - growth (it has a lot of foreign, somewhat like FLPSX)
Regarding the TIAA-CREF funds:
Emerging Markets Equity - international
Emerging Markets Equity Index - international
Enhanced International Equity Index - international
Enhanced Large Cap Growth Index - growth
Enhanced Large Cap Value Index - growth
Equity Index - growth and income
Growth & Income - growth and income
International Equity - international
International equity Index - international
International Opportunities - international
Large-Cap Growth - growth
Large Cap Growth Index - growth
Large-Cap Value - growth and income (close call; typically large cap value stocks pay more in dividends, so this inherently focuses on some income as opposed to pure growth)
Large-Cap Value Index - growth and income (as above)
Mid-Cap Growth Fund - growth (TIAA-CREF is not an aggressive fund manager)
Mid-Cap Value Fund - growth (could be growth and income but smaller caps tend to not be considered income-oriented investments)
S&P 500 Index - growth and income
Small Cap Equity - growth (not aggressive - focused on long term growth, managing risk)
Small Cap Blend Equity Index - growth
Anything else is a hybrid, bond, or sector fund.

FYI: U.S. stocks are near record highs. But what if there's another market meltdown like the one from October 2007 to March 2009? Such a catastrophe can be tough if you're ready to retire or early in your retirement years. A severe bear market right before or after your paychecks cease can make mincemeat of your carefully constructed retirement planning.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTkzMjMxMTE=
NY Times Slant: New Math for Retirees and the 4% Withdrawal Rule
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/your-money/some-new-math-for-the-4-percent-retirement-rule.html?ref=business

@Shostakovich: With that much time until retirement, I recommend a large cap growth fund. Here are some ranked by U.S. News & World Report.
Regards,
Ted
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/rankings/large-growth?int=9ed708

Hi all -- soliciting your thoughts on what the best mutual funds might be for a low-growth economy, for an investor about 30-35 years from retirement.
Cheers.
D.S.

@MJG, Thanks for those Monte Carlo references. I am a big fan of the system. There is another site that has a very simple MC calculator.
http://moneychimp.com/articles/volatility/montecarlo.htm
I run the calculator on a range of returns. This way if the market is up only 2% for one particular year I can come up with the amount I can safely withdraw. I'm not quite in retirement yet but very soon. These calculators take all the guess work out of the equation. For this subject on SS, they are an invaluable tool.

Hi Guys,
Over the last few days, a tennis buddy, Ralph, tried the Monte Carlo simulator that I recommended for the very first time.
Although he is certainly not mathematically illiterate, Ralph is not especially sophisticated in the odds calculation arena. Truth be told, he is a terrible gambler, but a terrific tennis partner. Vegas comps him lavishly. Until yesterday, he had never run a Monte Carlo code. He called me today to register a complaint.
Ralph made a sequence of runs with identical inputs. He was shocked that the projected portfolio outcome success percentages slightly changed with each simulation. He questioned the reliability of a code that produced different end results on each trial.
I assured him not to worry, and neither should you guys. I suspect many of you know the reason.
A Monte Carlo code randomly selects numbers given the programmed model (Gaussian or a modified form thereof) and the statistical input parameters (mean annual return, standard deviation). Therefore, although typically a thousand random individual cases are computed for each input scenario, it would be shocking if the end outputs were identical for each scenario. Ralph was a happier warrior when he said good-by.
Also, users should be cautious when interpreting probabilities expressed as percentages (as in the Flexible Retirement Planner format) or as a frequency. Percentages are more abstract; frequencies seem more concrete. Folks are swayed in their decision making by the output format according to behavioral wizards.
Folks are likely to make better decisions when the probability of success is quoted as 80 out of 100 cases than when presented as an 80% success probability. Also, if fear generation is a presentation goal, more fear will be induced if the results are given as a 20% failure rate rather than an 80% success ratio. So much for rational decision making!
Please try a few simulations yourself to explore the likelihood of your portfolio’s survival rate, not its failure odds.
Best Wishes.

Sorry wrong fund initially posted.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1032423/000119312515178419/d922872d497.htm
497 1 d922872d497.htm SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 8, 2015 TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2015
DIAMOND HILL FUNDS
Diamond Hill Small Cap Fund
Diamond Hill Small-Mid Cap Fund
Diamond Hill Mid Cap Fund
Diamond Hill Large Cap Fund
Diamond Hill Select Fund
Diamond Hill Long-Short Fund
Diamond Hill Research Opportunities Fund
Diamond Hill Financial Long-Short Fund
Diamond Hill Strategic Income Fund
Supplement Dated May 8, 2015 to Prospectus Dated February 28, 2015
Effective June 12, 2015 at 4:00pm Eastern Time, the Diamond Hill Long-Short Fund (the “Fund”) will close to most new investors.
The Fund will remain open to additional investments under the following circumstances:
• Existing shareholders of the Fund may add to their accounts, including through reinvestment of distributions.
• Qualified defined contribution retirement plans, such as a 401(k), 403(b) or 457 plans, utilizing the Fund as an investment option on June 12, 2015 may continue to establish new participant accounts in the Fund for those Plans.
• Financial Advisors who have clients invested in the Fund as of June 12, 2015 may establish new positions in the Fund for new clients where operationally feasible.
• Investors may purchase the Fund through certain intermediary sponsored fee-based model programs, provided that the sponsor has received permission from Diamond Hill Funds that shares of the Fund may continue to be offered through the program. Approved or recommended lists are not considered model portfolios.
• Trustees, Directors, and employees of Diamond Hill Funds or Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. and their immediate family members may open new accounts and purchase shares of the Fund.
In general, the Fund will look to the financial intermediary to prevent a new account from being opened within an omnibus account at that intermediary. The Fund’s ability to monitor new accounts that are opened through omnibus accounts or other nominee accounts is limited and the ability to limit a new account to those that meet the above criteria with respect to financial intermediaries may vary depending upon the capabilities and cooperation of those intermediaries.
The Fund reserves the right to make additional exceptions or otherwise modify the foregoing closure policy at any time. The Fund also reserves the right to reject any purchase or refuse any exception, including those detailed above for any reason.
This Supplement and the Statutory Prospectus dated February 28, 2015, provide the information a prospective investor ought to know before investing and should be retained for future reference.

There is nothing wrong with early retirement and having to live off or saving SS funds. In that time period of 8 Years you will gain about $110K in retirement payments. If that is what you feel you need to do. A lot of people have no other choice as they need it. But as long as my health is good, my game plan was to collect an additional $1.1 myn. pay check in that same 8 yr. time frame.

Hi Guys,
I have been following this extensive discussion only loosely since I retired almost 2 decades ago. That needed to be said since what I’ll now propose just might have already been suggested – but I doubt it.
For the most part, the earlier postings have told some very personal and appealing stories. Many are fascinating, but are somewhat unique given their one-off situations and circumstances. They’re useful to a future retiree with a critical Social Security decision compounding a retirement decision because they singularly add to his experience base.
That’s hard learning because the decision is complex with a host of moving parts, each with its own set of uncertainties. These moving parts include such elements as expected total wealth, portfolio value and investment style, guesstimated portfolio returns, savings habits, anticipated expenditure rates, inflation, inheritance plans, and especially life expectancy. That’s why I earlier posted an “It Depends” assessment.
When uncertainty dominates a planning problem, that is a signal for a Super Spreadsheet to explore options in a cost and time efficient manner. I know you guys are tired of me repeating this recommendation, but I’m obliged to make it once again. Please do some analyses and scenario “what-ifs” using Monte Carlo simulators that are available for free on the Internet.
Some rather extensive and solid studies on the Social Security (SS) now or later issue have been made by reliable research sources. Please consult them to supplement the discussions and recommendations made on this MFO exchange. Both have a place prior to any final decision. Here is a Link to a nice Morningstar study that defines and explores many SS issues:
http://corporate.morningstar.com/ib/documents/MethodologyDocuments/WhentoClaimSocialSecurityRetirementBenefits.pdf
The Morningstar paper is extensive and presents much hard data. In so doing, many parameters were necessarily fixed (like the type of investment portfolio and what its future returns were likely to be). The fixing of parameters is necessary to permit the analysis to proceed, but it is limiting in specifics.
A study that is more tailored to the specific requirements of each retiree is a more refined approach. So, I once again recommend a visit to the Flexible Retirement Planner site. Here is the Link to the Monte Carlo code that this organization developed:
http://www.flexibleretirementplanner.com/wp/
If you don’t trust my assessment of this specific tool, here is a Link to an independent study that basically endorses the tool I did plus a Vanguard and another product:
http://www.caniretireyet.com/the-best-retirement-calculators/
Please give one of these Monte Carlo tools an experimental try. It will NOT fully resolve the SS problem since the future is uncertain. But it does provide a feeling for the possible impact of these unknowable “what-if” happenings on your specific portfolio.
Let me close by emphasizing the significance of your portfolio survival likelihood when making any retirement/SS decision.
Many of the SS issues examined in the literature quote “break even” projections between the immediate and delayed SS drawdown options, Sure that’s of some interest. But the salient concern is the overall survival probability of your entire portfolio. That’s the Big Picture issue. That’s the distinction between a comfortable retirement and a trip to the poor house.
I encourage near-term retirees to play “what-if” scenarios using these powerful Monte Carlo codes. It’ll help in the complex and coupled retirement/SS decision.
There have been some terrific MFO submittals to this issue already. I hope you find the Links I suggested additionally useful.
Good luck to everyone.
Best Wishes.