One thing we don't often discuss at MFO is Social Security claiming strategies. Take someone just about to reach what SS calls "Full Retirement Age", which is age 66 for most people looking at this question. If that person delays taking SS from age 66 till age 70, they will collect 32% more when they reach age 70.
If this person is thinking about collecting SS at age 62, if they wait till age 70 they will collect 76% more than at age 62. Since this also has an inflation rider added to it, it's a very big deal.
It's the most valuable "annuity" out there.
Of course for this to work, one must have pretty good health.
And there is the 'devil's advocate' other side of the story, and I can make that case too, but this side is pretty compelling.
@Junkster, please opine.

XX beats XY.
St. John Bogle says Social Security is your bond fund.
...
I do like the EM bonds, tho, but most of your bond funds are for geriatrics. We pay 20 to 40% of our return in expenses for security, which you don't need unless you will really pull the trigger and sell them all and buy stocks at the next correction, if you recognize it in time. Those funds are for fifty-somethings.
High yield with a low ER is probably OK, but they act like stocks in the crash, but recovered faster last time. (Of course, if you are in them, you might have trouble making yourself sell after a loss to buy stocks.)
...
15 to 20 years from retirement, I'd start looking at bonds in moderation, but you might be so rich by then that it wouldn't matter.
Be sure you marry the girl.

People should also be aware that inherited IRAs are no longer afforded bankruptcy protection per a Supreme Court ruling last week. Essentially the Court said they aren't "retirement money" if inherited. You can try to roll inherited IRAs over, but that has possible tax consequences.

"....
The case involves a daughter’s inherited IRA of a daughter and not that of a surviving spouse. The opinion implies that the surviving spouse’s rollover IRA is the person’s own IRA and thus exempt in bankruptcy but, if the surviving spouse does not rollover, then the IRA is an inherited IRA and subject to the same rules as an inherited IRA of a non-spouse beneficiary. The opinion says no more on that subject and does not address whether a surviving spouse’s rollover IRA is comprised of “retirement funds” or whether the surviving spouse’s inherited IRA does not have “retirement funds.” Since the funds would be the same in either case, that would be a difficult distinction. The opinion implies that if a surviving spouse does not rollover an IRA and thus does not make it his/her own IRA, the result would be the same as the daughter’s inherited IRA, as the IRA that is not rolled over by a surviving spouse is also an inherited IRA. The Court states: “If the heir is the owner’s spouse, as is often the case, the spouse has a choice: He or she may “roll over” the IRA funds into his or her own IRA, or he or she may keep the IRA as an inherited IRA (subject to the rules discussed below).”
...
Nevertheless, while not clear, the Court seems to imply that an IRA rolled over by a spouse beneficiary will be treated as the spouse's IRA, rather than an inherited IRA, and such IRA will be an exempt asset. If the spouse chooses to treat the IRA as an inherited IRA, however, it will not be an exempt asset."

My understanding is that an inheritance in the form of individual stocks is one of the best methods of helping your heirs manage tax burdens since the cost basis of the individual stocks inherited adjusts to correspond with the stock price on the date of death. This, at least, eliminates a generation (your life) of capital gains taxes for your heirs.