I took Social Security at 62 and don't regret it one iota! By the time it all equals out, something like around 78, it won't make any difference as I assume my nest egg will be that much larger. I just learned today that one of my lady friends in one of my hiking groups woke up the other morning and found her boyfriend dead beside here. He was 65! No matter how great we may feel, we just never know. In old age methinks it is better to start enjoying those budding fruits of our long time financial labor than to just keep over-obsessing and over-planning till the day we drop.
Edit: I should also add that I turned 62 in April of 2009. Since then the market has been super. Taking early SS is just that much less of my capital I would have had to use for living/lifestyle expenses.

>>>>>@Junkster, is the reason you would salivate at a Fed Funds of 3.75% because you would want to invest in those money market funds or Certificates of Deposit, at the decent yields that we used to see in the past?<<<<<<
Yes! Unlike most here, I have no pension/employer retirement or a large monthly Social Security check. So what I earn on my nest egg is critical. At 2% (actually 1.50% to 1.75%) and more that would be more than enough to cover my lifestyle/expenses and even continue growing my capital. I am even beginning to watch the 5 year T-Bill rate like never before albeit not sure I would ever want to tie up my funds like that.

Is Gundlach looking for an eventual inverted yield curve? He has been outspoken about how he thinks the economy is not all that strong and an inverted yield curve would imply a recession. I can't see the Fed allowing an inverted yield curve though. I also think the economy may surprise to the upside in a big way. But then I never was much of a forecaster. I would salivate at a Fed funds of 3.75% in 2017 and the ensuing yields on money market funds.

The Fed released their "Dot Plot" yesterday, showing the expectations of where the Fed Funds rate will be, according to each of the committee members, at the end of 2015, end of 2016, end of 2017, one "dot" for each member, for each data point. They expect 3.75% by the end of 2017.
@Junkster, is the reason you would salivate at a Fed Funds of 3.75% because you would want to invest in those money market funds or Certificates of Deposit, at the decent yields that we used to see in the past?

Why is the Fed still paying .25% on excess reserves held by some banks???

Because banks have good lobbyists?

Is Gundlach looking for an eventual inverted yield curve? He has been outspoken about how he thinks the economy is not all that strong and an inverted yield curve would imply a recession. I can't see the Fed allowing an inverted yield curve though. I also think the economy may surprise to the upside in a big way. But then I never was much of a forecaster. I would salivate at a Fed funds of 3.75% in 2017 and the ensuing yields on money market funds.

Why is the Fed still paying .25% on excess reserves held by some banks???
Fed data as of Sept 17, 2014
From MFO, Jan. 2, 2014:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/10146/the-other-fed-taper-what-are-the-implications-for-our-investments
Take care,
Catch

I don't know JohnChisum.
I do know that Bill Gross does not believe that the Fed Funds rate will be 3.75% after rates have normalized. PIMCO believes in the "new neutral", and says the Fed Funds rate will be about 2% after rates have normalized. A "new", much lower "normal" of Fed Funds.
I think Gundlach may have said this month that he thinks the Fed will have to move backwards and do more stimulating.
Guess it depends on if you forecast the economy doing better and recovering better.......or needing to stay on life support.

Another factor I thought of is that many actively managed funds try to focus on higher quality names, and this year's market has been one in which low quality has outperformed.

@dryflower, appreciate if you can reference that, provide a source that this year's market has favored low quality. I thought that since small caps have done very poorly this year, then probably the high quality stocks have done better. You may be right with respect to biotechs and some other names. I don't know. But certainly the high quality S&P 500
has beaten the pants off the Russell 2000, which are much lower quality names.

Thanks JohnChisum.
There's still a mystery here. Why a Long Duration Bond Fund now?
Gundlach gave his most recent views this very month, and they seem to be slightly different than in the article you referenced. Not huge, but he would have to think long term rates will fall to open a Long Duration Bond Fund.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2014/09/09/jeffrey-gundlach-gives-market-calls-and-outlook/#commentform
How are long term rates going to fall if the Fed said yesterday that the Fed Funds rate should go to 3.75% at the end of 2017, and should go up gradually starting 2015.
Are long term rates going to fall while the overnight Fed Funds rate goes up steadily from 2015 thru 2017?
Or maybe he is banking on steady long term interest rates, and is looking for the greater yield that comes with longer maturity bonds.
Louis Rukeyser often talked about people who said that long term rates would not go up even though the Fed Funds rate went up....he believed they were wrong.....that it is not reasonable to expect long term rates to go down while the Fed is raising the Fed Funds rate

“I think long-term interest rates will fall in 2014… the 30-year Treasury rate may have already peaked,” he said.
This is a quote from Mr. Gundlach in a article from Think Advisor earlier this year.
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2014/05/14/gundlach-long-bond-melt-up-coming

Me too. Is Gundlach thinking that long duration bonds are best at this time?
Of course, these bonds have the greatest interest rate risk.
The fund is supposed to have an average duration of at least 10 years, meaning that if the corresponding interest rates go up 1%, the NAV of the fund will go down by 10%.
The Fed just revealed yesterday that the Fed Funds rate, currently 0% to 0.25%, is expected by the Fed to be at 3.75% at the end of 2017. If the corresponding rates of the bonds that the DoubleLine Long Duration Bond Fund will invest in also increase 3.75%, the NAV of the fund would be expected to drop close to 37.5%.
That's huge. What's up with this new mutual fund? Why long duration, in light of what the Fed said yesterday?
Would love to hear what Gundlach would say.
He obviously must think rates will not go up 3.75% over the next 3 years.
MFOers, your comments please......

@MOZART325, see above, the 1, 3, 5 and 10-year total return of VTSAX vs. VTI.
You don't pay the bid-ask spread as a separate fee or cost. It is reflected in the total return performance. The separate fee is the commission, less than $10 at a discount brokerage, or no commission at Vanguard or TD Ameritrade to buy VTI.
The total return of VTI suggests that the supposed negative effect of the exchange traded fund vs. the traditional index fund has not been realized.

@MOZART325, I'm not 100% certain that the index fund has the advantage there over the exchange traded fund. The index fund has to "pay" the bid-ask spread on every single purchase it makes. How is that fundamentally different than the bid-ask spread on the exchange traded fund?
Suppose you are buying 200K of an open-end mutual fund with 500 million in total assets. You get to buy a pro-rated portion of the 500 million in assets with a zero bid-asked spread. The mutual fund may pay a bid-asked spread when it invests your 200K, but you only pay a small fraction of the cost (200k / 500 million). In other words, all shareholders share the cost of the new purchases.
On the other hand when you invest the 200K in an etf, you pay the entire bid-asked spread which can be quite costly. Typically the cost might be 0.1% or $200 plus commission.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thestreet.com/video/12881530/source-etfs-unveils-euro-stoxx-50-fund-as-initial-us-offering.html

Hi JohnChisum,
Thank you for the referenced Bloomberg article.
I am not quite as sanguine about the improving character of the so-called dumb money investors as the article posits.
Yes, there is a swing in the positive learning direction, but it is modest and very unsure of itself. A large part of the learning resistance is due to laziness, and another major part is due to innumeracy. Since I occasionally have lectured on this topic to both senior groups and to high school level students, my evidence is personal anecdotal and mostly from readings.
One piece of evidence offered that “The Dumb Money Is Getting Smarter Every Day” is the customer movement to Index investment products. That’s true, but might simply be a result of exposure, an aggressive selling program rather than a better understanding of the whys for the decision. That just might be blind herd following action.
I’m often amazed by the general population’s reluctance to learn investment fundamentals. Far too often they accept the wisdom(?) offered by folks with private incentives without challenging its credulity; the audiences are not nearly skeptical enough. They seek specific recommendations without demanding any meaningful explanations. That’s a formula for an impending disaster.
If the dumb money is getting smarter, the smart money is getting even smarter and faster. Index investing has become an even higher fractional holding among the professional community than among the amateur population. The recent Calpers decision is a timely illustration of this trend.
It’s remarkable how the entire investment world is morphing towards the simple investment rules that John Bogle has long advocated. I take conformation bias comfort in these rules since I have practiced them for many years. Here is a summary of Bogle’s 10 rules:
1. Remember reversion to the mean.
2. Time is your friend, impulse is your enemy
3. Buy right and hold tight.
4. Have realistic expectations.
5. Forget the needle, buy the haystack.
6. Minimize the "croupier's" take.
7. There's no escaping risk.
8. Beware of fighting the last war.
9. Hedgehog beats the fox.
10. Stay the course.
It’s hard to beat John Bogle for investment advice or for the simplicity by which he summarizes his findings and observations. He is indeed a worldwide treasure. Here is a Link to the article that expands on his golden rules and from which I lifted his insights:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-bogles-10-rules-of-investing/
There is a noteworthy equivalence between these investment rules and many military maxims that have survived the acid test of war time. Contingency planning, alternate strategies, flexibility, reserve management, defense in depth, learning from mistakes by after-action reviews, risk recognition, realistic outcome expectations, and a resolve to continue the march are taught at even company-level military seminars.
Investment learning is slow, and at times painful, but it is positive with many pitfalls to avoid.
Best wishes for your continued success.

I have a 403(b) account at Fidelity with all fidelity only choices and another Employer contributed Vanguard based retirement account.
From 2015, The fidelity account will be moved to Vanguard by the employer, I wanted to send some additional fund suggestions in addition to choices below to see if they will consider adding more choices, This Vanguard account has target funds and index funds.
Bond Funds
PIMCO Total Return Admin-----------PTRAX
Balanced Funds (Stocks and Bonds)
Vanguard Wellington Fund Inv--------VWELX
Domestic Stock Funds
Perkins Small Cap Value L------------JSIVX
T. Rowe Price Instl Large Cap Growth---TRLGX
Wells Fargo Advantage Discovery Instl--WFDSX
Dodge & Cox International Stock-------DODFX
I have large allocation in VWELX and DODFX and consider rest of the choices not that great. On fidelity side I had large allocation in FLPSX, FSICX, FNMIX and FSCRX, That money will need to move to above funds.
Please suggest funds preferably with low cost and group managed(instead of single star manager) suitable for retirement account that I can send as suggestion to the Employer.

@MFO Members: M* ETF Conference: Q&A With Russ Koesterich, BlackRock.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=665610

@MFO Members: M* ETF Conference: Q&A With Russ Koesterich, BlackRock.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=665610