I invest directly with four fund companies (Traditional IRA, Roth and non-retirement accounts). Was already aware from past experience that three no longer required a medallion for lower amounts. The one involved here assured me that morning (when I called) that they still required a medallion signature - even for relatively small (4-figure) sums. Hence - the trip to a bank.
After talking with the bank later that morning and returning home to retrieve a statement, I called the fund house again, stating: (1) I was concerned about the need to “turn over my fund documents to a third party”, and (2) I would need them to send me an updated statement, since I’d transferred the funds involved only recently from their stock fund into one of their more stable funds.
At that point the representative remarked that they do not require the medallion signature for amounts under $100,000. Sound strange? I can tell you this is not the first time in recent months I’ve gotten “mixed messages” from more than one of the houses I deal with. I suppose we could pursue reasons why that might be … but it’s the case.

"But why stress over that choice? Whats the + or - going to be, $10k, 20k, 30k maybe? A piddly amount in the scheme of things?"
Here's a quick look at the magnitude of the risk, worst case. According to SSA, the average retiree monthly check (as of Dec 2020) is $1,544. That is likely less than what the average PIA (primary insurance amount - amount one would get at normal retirement age) is, because so many people take SS benefits early. For our back-of-the-envelope purposes, $1600 seems like a reasonable amount to use for the typical full retirement monthly benefit.
Someone born in 1954 retiring in 2021 (age 67) would receive 108% of PIA if they started benefits at age 67, and 132% of PIA if they waited until age 70.
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/1943-delay.html
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/delayret.html
So we can compare a benefit of $1728/mo for an extra 36 months to a benefit of $2112/mo starting at age 70. Worst case if delaying is 36 x $1728 = $62,208 (dying right before turning 70). If we use 100 years old as an upper bound on living, the "worst" case (living too long) of not delaying is:
lost extra income over 30 years minus gained extra income over first three years =
30 years x 12mo/year x ($2112 - $1728) - $62,208 = $138,240 - $62,208 = $76,032.
That's about 2.5x as big a variation as suggested. But that's not the key point. The key point is that by deferring benefits risk of a lower cash flow in very old age is being reduced, and risk reduction has real value. At least for the risk averse.
(FWIW, one of my grandparents lived to near 100, and while 1 in 4 aren't the best odds, it's enough to offer hope and for me to use age 100 for my own planning purposes.)
In short, the piddly (or not so piddly) variation in possible legacies may pale in comparison to the value of the risk reduction achieved should one have the "bad luck" of living a long life.

Additionally , I really liked the use of the word "only "
"You will pay tax on only 85 percent of your Social Security benefits, based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. If you:
file a federal tax return as an "individual" and your combined income* is
between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits.
more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
file a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income* that is
between $32,000 and $44,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits.
more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable."
Thats a pretty low threshold of income .$44,000 of income between two people .
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/taxes.html

Update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1199046/000139834421010241/fp0065409_497.htm
497 1 fp0065409_497.htm
SELECTIVE OPPORTUNITY FUND
Supplement to the Prospectus
and
Statement of Additional Information
dated April 29, 2020
Supplement dated May 11, 2021
In Supplements dated February 26, 2021 and March 24, 2021, we notified you that the Board of Trustees has determined that it is in the best interest of shareholders to liquidate the Selective Opportunity Fund (the “Fund”), that as of February 26, 2021, the Fund is no longer accepting purchase orders for its shares, and that the Fund will close effective June 21, 2021 (the “Closing Date”). We are now notifying you that the Closing Date has been changed to May 21, 2021.
Shareholders may redeem Fund shares at any time prior to the Closing Date. Procedures for redeeming your account, including reinvested distributions, are contained in the section “How to Redeem Shares” of the Fund’s Prospectus. Any shareholders that have not redeemed their shares of the Fund prior to the Closing Date will have their shares automatically redeemed as of that date, with proceeds being sent to the address of record. If your Fund shares were purchased through a broker-dealer and are held in a brokerage account, redemption proceeds may be forwarded by the Fund directly to the broker-dealer for deposit into your brokerage account.
In the Supplement dated February 26, 2021 we notified you that the Fund will continue to pursue its investment objective through the Closing Date. In the Supplement dated March 24, 2021 we notified you that effective immediately, the Fund will no longer pursue its investment objective and may begin to liquidate the holdings in its portfolio. As of the date of this Supplement, all portfolio holdings have been liquidated and the proceeds of the liquidated holdings are invested in money market instruments or are held in cash.
Any capital gains have been distributed to shareholders and reinvested in additional Fund shares, unless you requested payment in cash.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax adviser regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another IRA within 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 are the trustee of a qualified retirement plan or the custodian of a 403(b)(7) custodian account (tax-sheltered account) or a Keogh account, you may reinvest the proceeds in any way permitted by its governing instrument.
* * * * * *
This Supplement and the Prospectus provide the information a prospective investor should know about the Fund and should be retained for future reference. A Statement of Additional Information dated April 29, 2020 has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is incorporated herein by reference. You may obtain the Prospectus or Statement of Additional Information without charge by calling the Fund at (434) 515-1517 or visiting www.selectivewealthmanagement.com.

...if we get more yield-curve control policies in coming decades, (then) bonds become even more useless. Now, they are a lot less useful than they need to be.
Well, ya, my bond fund investments amount to a surrender, an admission that I won't make as much as I could if the money were in stocks. But the market has a rocket in its pocket, zooming upward toward unreasonable valuations and prices. I'm still making money, just standing pat. Just not as much. But you see, I'm NOT desperate to squeeze-out the conceivable ultimate maximum profit that might be possible. When it comes to the Sharpe ratio, these days I'm happy with a fair-to-middling performance--- deliberately. I want to make money, but not at any substantial level of risk, in retirement. But I'm still optimistic: I just renewed my US passport for another 10 years. :)

What are your own priorities? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wheres-the-best-place-for-you-to-retire-pick-what-matters-most-to-you-and-you-may-be-surprised-11619189008?mod=where-should-i-retire

I think it is worthwhile ensuring that in the event of a substantial bear market with drops like 2008 and a duration like 1930's you have enough cash to avoid selling at the bottom.
It is possible that it will take five or more years for losses to recover, even after a modest bear market.
QQQ didn't hit it 2000 peak until 2015. DJIA lost 40% in the 1930's, was up only 5% in the 1970's and many of us can remember the loss of 10% in the 2001-2010.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/how-the-dow-jones-industrial-average-performed-over-the-last-100-years-51620421855?mod=past_editions
Having just entered retirement without a pension, I can ill afford to loose 30% of my savings nor wait ten years for it to come back.
To answer your question, if there is a substantial drop, I might DCA back in to about 50% of where I was at the start but little more.

Yes, been holding them for years, and now into retirement. Reduces the volatility, and the dividends make it easy to wait for better days for bond funds. I can own bonds at pretty damn good interest rates through the funds, which I could not do on my own--- since I'm not independently wealthy. PRSNX. RPSIX. PTIAX. Plus bonds held in balanced funds PRWCX and BRUFX.
current yields:
PRSNX. 3.04%
RPSIX. 2.73%
PTIAX 3.81%
PRWCX. 1.01%
BRUFX. 1.92%
(And when did this goddam computer decide FOR me where I wanted periods inserted--- where they DON'T belong?) DAMN machines.

:) Thanks for chiming in guys.
@MikeM - My less than expert take is that a lot of the cash / bond position is actually held in “reserve” to back the short positions. And that that method of displaying is to comport with SEC disclosure rules.
As Mark implies, I think, funds that play in derivatives can post some pretty weird numbers. One commodities fund I once owned would typically display about 150% cash and bonds. Consider that your fund manager has no way to store crude oil or pork bellies. So the “commodity” exposure in commodity funds is achieved with smoke and mirrors (derivatives).
If I can find another fund with weird numbers like that, I’ll post it here.
My take on owning TMSRX - “Making the best of a bad situation”. That’s because of the super low prevailing interest rates along with what appear to me to be overvalued equity markets. So, by default, TMSRX has just north of 12% of my retirement assets. On a sharp equity selloff, I’d probably cut that back a couple %. With funds like that it boils down to a matter of trust in the fund’s operator not to gamble with your money.

As @Old_Joe said, " Losing this place is going to leave a great void for me, and will be like losing a great number of friends all at once.
Thank you so much for all that you've done here, in the creation and management of the best financial watering hole that one could hope for. "
My thoughts also !
Enjoy your retirement, Derf

Under David’s stewardship at MFO the Dow Jones Industrial Average has roughly tripled, rising from 12,800 on 4/29/11 to near 34,000 today. Stepping aside at the top is never a bad idea. :)
And - thanks for everything David. Please continue to post / share during your semi-retirement.

lede
Ever since the covid-19 pandemic struck, the Federal Reserve has gotten plenty of kudos for moves that have helped stabilize the economy, kept house prices from tanking and supported the stock market. But those successes have obscured another effect: the inadvertent impact the Fed’s ultralow interest rates and bond-buying sprees are having on economic inequality.
Longstanding inequality in the United States has been exacerbated by the Fed’s role in touching off a multitrillion-dollar boom in stock markets — and stock ownership is heavily skewed toward the wealthiest Americans.
ending
Jason Furman, a former chair of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers and currently an economics professor at Harvard, summed up the inequality trade-off this way in an interview: “I don’t want to have a lower stock market and higher unemployment.”
In other words, increasing wealth for the wealthy is an inevitable side effect of keeping interest rates low to support the economy and create jobs.
The latest round of stimulus checks will help close that gap a little by putting money in the pockets of low-income earners like Tan. But near-zero interest rates will make it harder for them to save the money for the future, as Tan hopes to do. She would like to set aside $1,000 to $2,000 in savings accounts for her 16-year-old son and 3-year-old grandson in addition to saving for her retirement and a rainy-day fund.
And as the Fed pumps more money into the financial system by buying Treasury securities and indirectly supporting federal stimulus programs, the run-up in stock markets is likely to continue — and leave people like Tan even further behind than they already were.

“Happy birthday. Now pack up your stuff and go.
“That might constitute a harsh goodbye for most employees, but unless your name is Warren Buffett, it is a possible ending for corporate executives and directors … Mr. Buffett is 90 and has been running Berkshire for five decades. His business partner, Charlie Munger, is 97.
“(The) reality is that most CEOs will never be able to approach that tenure. Some 70% of S&P 500 companies had a mandatory retirement age in place for corporate directors as of December … Other research suggests such policies are in place for perhaps a third of S&P 500 chief executives. Not even Berkshire is immune to the pressure: The pension fund Calpers cited the board’s long tenure and the lack of board “refreshment” as one reason it plans to withhold its vote to re-elect some Berkshire directors this weekend.
“While many won’t last in a top job nearly long enough to see such a policy invoked—the average S&P 500 chief executive retires at 60.1 years old after a tenure of about 8.4 years—perhaps the practice needs a rethink in an era when once-unthinkably long lifespans are commonplace.”
From: The Wall Street Journal - May 1, 2021

My situation is a little unusual. Normally I'd wait as long as possible to take SS especially since my wife is ten years younger than me. However, we have many children and the youngest two are still teenagers (13 and 16). I'll start taking SS at full retirement age (66 + 2 months for me) because I can collect some money on their behalf until they hit 18 or graduate high school. Has anyone else actually done this? I've only read about the option. Later this year I'll get serious about researching it. I plan to sign up this winter.

“Professional money managers are turning up the heat on Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. California Public Employees’ Retirement System and Neuberger Berman have demanded that the Omaha, Neb., conglomerate bring in new directors and provide more disclosures on climate risks and executive pay.
Leading up to Berkshire’s annual meeting on Saturday, proxy advisers Glass Lewis & Co. and Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. have recommended that investors withhold their votes for board members. While many of the complaints aren’t new and none of the shareholder proposals are likely to pass, Berkshire’s lackluster returns in recent years have made it more vulnerable to criticism amid a growing wave of investor interest in corporate sustainability issues …
Under Mr. Buffett’s leadership, the firm boasts 20% compounded annualized gains from 1965 to 2020, outperforming the S&P 500’s 10.2% gains including dividends during the period. Berkshire’s total returns over the past three- and five-year periods were 12% and 14%, respectively, compared with the index’s 19% and 18%.”
Link: The Wall Street Journal - May 1, 2021
Lengthy article. While I’ve excerpted portions relevant to Berkshire’s investment returns, other areas of contention are also addressed, including Berkshire’s commitment to fighting climate change,

@davidmoran,
There are reasons why American above age 62 may not be able to work.

A lot of people can't afford to wait to sign up for Social Security. Consider that most Americans have not saved enough for retirement.
"The biggest challenge for most people is they under-save for retirement," Houston says. Many people can improve their financial situation by working in retirement, but you could also end up retiring earlier than you planned to. "They can work in retirement, but unfortunately 50% of Americans end up retiring before they had planned for three reasons: The first reason is their health, the second reason is their spouse's health and the third reason is that their services are no longer necessary – they were terminated," Houston says. So, planning to continue to work during retirement is not always an option.

The reality for many older Americans... they have to work to make ends meet...that means collecting SS @ age 62 and working a job.
The fastest labor growth rate comes from those 65 and older:

@MikeM.
I couldn't agree more. Everything is uniquely situational, but a person who is waiting until age 70 (to collect SS) will more than likely continue working (through their 60's). That is why running your own numbers is so important.
Thanks @msf for your data sets.. your links and use of PV for this exercise is very helpful.
Some additional considerations:
If, at 62, this "worker" takes early SS, continues to work and they earmark that portion of their SS income (what SS pays each month) into a workplace or individual retirement account it would eliminate the tax implications (so long as these retirement vehicles were tax deferred) right up through age 70 and beyond. At age 70, the early SS recipient they will have a smaller SS benefit plus a "tax deferred SS nest egg".
In the spreadsheet above, the cash strategy pays out the same number of dollars as a person who waits to start collecting their SS at age 70 right out through age 86. What I feel is important to remember is that the early SS payouts (which I'll call the differential) sits in the pocket of the individual as early as age 62. The individual has the choice of using it as income at anytime. If it was previously invested into a tax sheltered account it remains their until it's withdrawn for income. A person waiting until age 70 has no choice but to count every SS dollar as income.
@davidmoran @kings53man,
These SS dollars are not guaranteed to you while you wait to reach FRA or age 70. A person who sits around waiting to turn 70 to collect SS collects nothing (SS benefit) if they predecease their 70th birthday and collects less (total accumulated SS benefit) if they die before age 86.
I haven't explored QLACs but they might be just the thing missing to address longevity risk:
what-is-qualified-longevity-annuity-contract-qlac/

Why Choose a QLAC?
A QLAC has several advantages for retirees:
- Long-term income security. If you’re worried that your retirement savings might not last for the long haul, a QLAC can offer some peace of mind. QLACs provide guaranteed income later in retirement and can act as hedges against long-term care costs later in life.
- RMD deferral. If you’re looking to minimize how much money you’re required to draw from your retirement accounts, a QLAC allows you to delay distributions on a portion of your savings up until you turn 85.
- Principal protection. A QLAC locks in future payments, protecting your retirement money from market dips later in life. But unless you purchase an inflation rider, which will lower the initial amounts you receive from an annuity, your monthly payment may lose value over time.
- Income for your spouse. If you set up a QLAC as a joint annuity, it will continue paying income as long as you or your spouse is still living. That said, joint annuities tend to offer lower payments due to this benefit.

Not sure what the motivation is in this article? Many investors hold broad based index funds and ETFs. They are commonly available to their retirement accounts, 529 college saving plans, and many other.

One more factor I didn't see in this is if you are still working at 62 and beyond until "full" retirement age, you will be limited to around $18,000 per year in SS payments plus some formula to reduce further payment over that. So, you aren't banking the full $24,720 SS at 62+ (if you are still working).
I don't know. For me these "when to take SS" scenarios have way to many unknown factors; do you continue to work, inflation, nest egg return rate, market crashes at the worst time, ect... Plus, do you have the the fortitude to playout this plan. Things change in life. In contrast, waiting to collect SS is pretty straight forward. Your value increases 7-8% a year, period.
I agree with what David said above. Take as late as possible. If your health and family longevity are good, wait as long as you can. Especially if you are married.

FRA - Full Retirement age.
I foresee that 85% of my SS Income will be taxable.