USAA Funds
https://content.usaa.com/mcontent/static_assets/Media/MutualFundDist_PreNotification.pdf?cacheid=1879588210_p
Conestoga Small Cap Fund (will ask to load/run Flash...you do not need it to see the page)
http://www.conestogacapital.com/mutual fund.htm
LKCM Funds
http://www.lkcmfunds.com/media/pdfs/LKCM_Distribution_Estimates.pdf
Schroders Funds
http://www.schroderfunds.com/staticfiles/Schroders/Sites/Americas/Schroderfunds/documents/Estimated-Year-End-Distribution-Information.pdf

davidmoran: Thanks for clarifying. Also, that was in the 2015 budget proposal. The fact that the 401K limit has been raised to $18,000 next year makes me think maybe the budget (or sections pertaining to tax- sheltered accounts) has now been settled.
Knocking out the exemption would be a real "downer" here in that protecting that $$ from RMD was the primary motivator in doing the conversion. The paperwork wasn't daunting, but was substantial. I recall paying the taxes off in four equal installments in '09 mailing in the checks along with coupons printed from the IRS website (yes- something works there:).
Thanks

MSF said:
"However, if SS COLA does not keep up with inflation, then everyone - whether they need to or not, should take payments early, because they would get more real value, as I explained ..."
I like the way you think Sir. Along with that thought ... I'd rather be lucky than good. By sheer chance I had started taking SS at 62 about a year before markets bottomed in March '09. Using that extra income (to pay the taxes), was able to convert a sizable chunk of our traditional IRA to a Roth in March '09. Need I say more?
There's perhaps never a bad time to convert, but during depressed markets makes more sense - especially when you are older and have a shorter time horizon. One more note per Junkster's earlier lament - While Roths are currently exempt from the RMD requirement, the (Obama) administration is seeking to have that provision axed in 2015. I can't vouch for the accuracy of that report, but believe it to be accurate and certainly hope the change is not enacted.

Dex, Thank you for clearing some things up. One's choice of words lead to certain interpretations.
We're talking about rising costs of health care; that is, health care has always been a part of retirement costs. But it has become a larger part over time. This might have been clearer had health care been listed in the original list of costs.
You mention Medicaid as something not kicking in before age 65. But Medicaid is a program based on income, not age. It's a different program in many ways from Medicare. For example, Medicaid covers long term care, Medicare does not.
With respect to SS and Full Retirement Age (FRA) - As I understand your clarification, your first statement was that some people will have to take SS before (FRA) because they need the money. Fair enough.
However, if SS COLA does not keep up with inflation, then everyone - whether they need to or not, should take payments early, because they would get more real value, as I explained. So people who have to take benefits before FRA are not disadvantaged (they don't "lose"). You may not have linked the two statements, but the two assertions are logically coupled.
One last note on medical costs - they are rising at their slowest rate in fifty years.
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/aca-impact-on-per-capita-cost-of-health-care/
(One can just look at a couple of bar graphs in the article if one doesn't want to read the whole text.) And for 2015, Medicare premiums are rising less (0.0%) than SS benefits (1.7%).
That's not to say that health costs are not a major concern. IHMO, they are one of the two most significant retirement uncertainties, and I said as much in another post. But if one is going to say that they are skyrocketing, one should acknowledge recent trends too.

Very interesting thread. The diversity of responses is terrific. The thing that strikes me the most is the diverse circumstances and different ideas people feel were important to achieving their retirement wealth.
For my wife and I, the biggest benefit we had was living in a place where you could come out of high school, get a good paying job at a fortune 500 company and feel secure until you were ready to retire. That just doesn't happen any more for younger generations. We accumulated (with savings and pension) $1m by the time I was 54, and all we had to do was blindly put around 10% of our wages into a 401k and stay working long enough to get our lump some pensions. I now realize how lucky we were.
We were very lucky to have the employment cards we were dealt. And to be honest, we weren't big spenders but bought whatever we wanted even if we couldn't afford it at the time. We carried credit card debt all the way up until maybe a year or two ago. And cash reserve on the checking account, always a balance. Very much contrary to everybody else's advice. Still did it. Go figure.

Let's slow down here - you may have some good points, but the facts are rather mixed up.

When Social Security began, it meant that a person would not be a pauper but food, clothing and shelter. Now, it means food, clothing, shelter, travel costs, cable TV, dining out, internet, Obamacare etc.

When SS began, there was nothing else in place for health care - so to the extent that SS was intended to help people survive, that included medical care. It was only decades later that medical care was taken out of the equation.

As to Social Security helping - look at how much you lose if you take it at 62 vs 65. AND, what a person gets if they do not make a lot of $ when working.
Then there is inflation - although the official CPI is low the retirement CPI is higher - food, energy and health care.

The two statements implied - that one gets more money by waiting, and that SS doesn't keep up with inflation - are contradictory.

Let's slow down AND understand each other - not make inferences.
Medical costs - Medical costs and ins have sky rocketed from the time SS came into being and even since the mid 1980s. That is why I specifically mentioned Obamacare. If a person was to retire now or in the future before medicare/medicade kicks in that would be a significant cost that would impact the $1M question.
The other two statements were only to be linked regarding the $1M, not inflation. The first one relating to if, a person retires before 62 or 65 & not at the high end of the wage earning scale. This is important because many people (especially at the high end of the earning scale) do not have the option to work until SS kicks in - they are offered buy outs, laid off or other things happen. The second about specific inflation for a retired person VS the general CPI.
So, to really evaluate if a person can retire on $1M, we need to know their assumption for spending, investments and expected returns.

Let's slow down here - you may have some good points, but the facts are rather mixed up.

When Social Security began, it meant that a person would not be a pauper but food, clothing and shelter. Now, it means food, clothing, shelter, travel costs, cable TV, dining out, internet, Obamacare etc.

When SS began, there was nothing else in place for health care - so to the extent that SS was intended to help people survive, that included medical care. It was only decades later that medical care was taken out of the equation.
In 1965 (effective 1966) Medicare was created, but it is not part of SS. And because there is Medicare, the ACA (aka Obamacare) explicitly prohibits people over age 65 from purchasing individual plans. (Payments for Medicare can be made directly out of SS as a convenience; it is not a part of SS.)
Even the idea that poor people had to be accepted and treated by hospitals isn't something that the government promised until COBRA, passed under Reagan in 1986 mandated that hospitals that take Medicare accept all patients regardless of ability to pay or lack of insurance.

As to Social Security helping - look at how much you lose if you take it at 62 vs 65. AND, what a person gets if they do not make a lot of $ when working.
Then there is inflation - although the official CPI is low the retirement CPI is higher - food, energy and health care.

The two statements implied - that one gets more money by waiting, and that SS doesn't keep up with inflation - are contradictory.
In theory, the expected real value of SS payments is the same no matter when one starts payments. (The term is actuarial equivalent.) But if SS COLA isn't keeping up with inflation (as you suggested), then the later dollars are worth less. So if one benefit (starting payments at 62) has more early dollars than the other (starting payments at 65), one doesn't lose by taking at 62. One wins.
(Note: I don't agree with that conclusion for a variety of reasons; I'm just trying to show where the statements lead.)
Where I think you are spot on is the difficulty that many people have in saving for retirement. That $50K average household income doesn't leave much room for saving, especially if one is raising a family. (That $1K/mo for two kids in Berkeley aside.)

FYI: (Click On Article At Top Of Google Search)
By weighting its bets on factors other than just size, Sprott Gold Miners improves chances for gains.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=a+gold+etf+barron's&oq=a+gold+etf+barron's&gs_l=hp.3...1812.10654.0.11115.19.18.0.1.1.0.97.1401.18.18.0....0...1c.1.56.hp..7.12.905.WjZPBtBjv7Y

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Michael Shaoul, chief executive of Marketfield Asset Management, combs through economic data and corporate earnings in search of something—anything—that other investors are missing. He uses the nuggets unearthed to help shape his global macroeconomic calls, which in turn influence the $16 billion MainStay Marketfield Fund.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=marketfield's+barron's&oq=marketfield's+barron's&gs_l=hp.3...1343.11268.0.11633.22.19.0.3.3.0.137.1395.18j1.19.0....0...1c.1.56.hp..7.15.968.MznmcmYQ5fY

SPY all blue, once again...very strong week. Now up nearly 8% YTD.

That is the key. A lot of people do not know how to be frugal. They grew up spoiled by their parents or parent who couldn't say no. That is the end result when they are adults. There is a lot of stuff people can cut back on. Going to the movies every week? Bad habits like pubs or clubs most nights of the week. Eating out all the time instead of cooking at home. The list is huge.
As for the question of attaining a million being easier for older people, my opinion is that we were raised by folks who endured the Great Depression and WW2. They taught us to spend wisely and save for the future. Somehow the lesson got lost as generations went by and now young children have iPhones and parents spoil them silly. Us older people were working in our school years already. Summers might mean picking berries or whatever was local. Now there are restrictions on how much young people can work.
My keys to attaining a lot of money? Learn the discipline of saving early on. Even if the amount is small, it is that discipline that gets ingrained into one's mind and eventually you are putting several hundreds into your retirement accounts. (depending on your salary of course) Another key is to quit loaning money to the government in the form of overpaying your taxes. How many people get huge refunds every year? A lot. For example if you got $3000 back on your taxes that works out to $115 each paycheck. (3000 divided by 26) That money could be going to your 401k etc. Reduce your withholding so that you get close to break even. As you put more money into your tax deferred accounts, your taxable income goes down more and that provides you with even more money to put away. Usually big refunds get spent on adult toys or vacations etc.
If you get a bonus or a raise, think about what would happen if that hadn't happened. Put those raises and bonuses into your retirement accounts too.
How was my life after all that? I ate well, drove new cars, went on vacations etc. I wasn't deprived of the good things in life, I just knew what my limits were. I never let credit cards ruin my financial plan. That is very easy to do. I had a average middle class wage at my work but I did work OT and that also was saved. By the time I was in my early thirties I had my first $100k. Getting to $200k was much faster. The curve really takes off once you hit a certain amount. My accounts continued to soar as I kept to my plan. I won't tell exactly how much here but it is substantial. I was fortunate to have a good bull market. That is something we don't know or can predict. I made my share of mistakes as well. I pulled out of my funds after Oct 1987. That crash rattled me but it was a learning experience and I didn't make that mistake a second time. I thought about buying AAPL at $18. Hindsight. Thats water under the bridge now. I had money in Twentieth Century Ultra fund when it rose 87% one year. I had money in the TRowe Price New Asia fund when they had some booming years early on. Gold was spectacular in the early 2000's. I guess those made up for the mistakes.
The main point is to keep pumping the money away and whenever you have an opportunity to increase that, go for it. It's called paying yourself first.
I apologize for the long post. I didn't mean to drift off here but I wanted to share my experience and maybe someone can use some of my tips to increase their assets.

Let's first start with what retirement means. When Social Security began, it meant that a person would not be a pauper but food, clothing and shelter. Now, it means food, clothing, shelter, travel costs, cable TV, dining out, internet, Obamacare etc.
Yes, you can retire on $1M based upon the old definition. Under the new definition it is very difficult to do in expensive areas - east/west coasts and other high price areas - ESPECIALLY when you take into account housing costs - rental or purchase. Look at the cost or renting in NYC or San Francisco.
As to Social Security helping - look at how much you lose if you take it at 62 vs 65. AND, what a person gets if they do not make a lot of $ when working.
Then there is inflation - although the official CPI is low the retirement CPI is higher - food, energy and health care.
So, if you want to retire on $1M and maybe SS at 62 you will need to move to a low cost area.
However, generally speaking, it is very difficult to accumulate $1M - depending upon when you were born and if your spouce worked or not.
My guess is that there are 'OLDER' posters here born earlier then apx 1960 or '64 who have large assets who will disagree with me on the difficulty of accumulating $1M. They really need to look at the employment/economic/wage/benefit/defined benefit/health ins/401k changes over time.

"The benchmark [S&P 500] rose 4.1% for the week, snapping a four-week losing streak. The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA..........gained 2.6% for the week, also halting a four-week losing streak"

Hi Guys,
I recognized that house assets were not included in the article scenarios.
The fact that the numbers I quoted did so just exasperated the gap between what was referenced in the piece and the realities of the median US retiree nest-egg. Subtracting the house and lot component means that the median retiree has maybe 15% of the articles baseline one million dollars. Only about 45% of US households own mutual funds.
That gap is one of the primary thrusts of my post. Most retirees would kill for a one million dollar portfolio. The referenced article is not representive of the retirement situation that confronts most retirees.
Best Wishes.

Hi Guys,
A one million dollar nest-egg is an unrealized dream for most retirees.
The median retiree nest-egg is shockingly small when contrasted against that illustration number. Different estimates locate a retiree's pot of gold at 20% to 35% of that target.
The median nest-egg depends on home ownership, on being single or married, and upon sex. Home value represents about one-half of the nest-egg sum. Married folks enjoy a retirement pot that is roughly double that of a single person. Single men save slightly more than women.
Also, a one million dollar nest-egg might be (a) totally inadequate for one who earned $300,000 annually, (b) comfortable for an individual who earned $100,000 annually, and (c) nirvana for a sole who struggled with a $40,000 annual income. It all depends.
Nest-egg survival is a challenge for most retirees. I trust most MFO members have escaped or will escape this dilemma.
Best Regards.

Following Ted's soft-glove caution re. "style drift" on the board, I splashed some cold water to the face, gave myself a two-palm cheek slap, and recommitted to purpose.
Consistent with this spiritual reawakening, I now link to updates to RiverNorth Q3 factsheets, about which I just received notice. I've been in RNDLX for quite awhile; it continues to do well, and brings a lot to the table that you just cannot get anywhere else, within a MF wrapper. (e.r. has been dropped to 1.15%).
If you're a bit starved for eye candy, you might check out their redesigned website, if nothing else. oo-la-la. (frankly, I thought what they had was fine; the new layout is .... a bit much!)
http://www.rivernorth.com/literature/?tid=rnqfu2014q3&utm_source=RiverNorth+Primary&utm_campaign=4ef69ba804-2014_Q3_Quarterly_Update10_22_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a7ebf79ed0-4ef69ba804-408079161

1. I agree that many financial "articles", including this one, are silly.
2. This article is really about asset allocation in retirement; the rest is cheap window dressing to frame the article. ($50K/$1M were simply neat round numbers for illustrative purposes.)
3. Waggoner errs in adding extra for income taxes - he's trying to match household income, and like IRAs, that's pretax also. (That is, income taxes come out of the $50K household earnings.)
Regarding people's comments here:
- IMHO health is one of the two big variables in retirement planning. The other is longevity. These are both areas where insurance can be invaluable - Medicare/Medigap or Medicare Advantage (Part C) for the former, and longevity insurance (deferred income annuity) for the latter. But they're not without cost.
- NYC - the median household income in Brooklyn is $45K; even in Manhattan is it "just" $67K. (Slate: Brooklyn's Median Household Income is Less Than $45,000 - Jan 9, 2014). One can get by, even in NYC on less than $50K, but the key phrase is "get by".
- Berkeley - I'm with davidrmoran on this one. $12K/year is foodstamp level income for one person, let alone three. Anywhere in the country. And unlike NYC, the Bay Area tends to be more homogeneous in housing/living costs (harder to find affordable pockets). From the Berkeley Pier to Walnut Creek (where there is no longer a T. Rowe Price office), from Baghdad by the Bay to Silicon Valley, the cost gradient is miniscule.

FYI: NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- U.S. stocks closed with solid gains Friday, handing the S&P 500 SPX, +0.71% its largest weekly advance of 2014. Investors shrugged off worries about New York's first Ebola case, which had weighed on U.S. stock futures.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stocks-end-higher-sp-500-nabs-biggest-weekly-gain-of-year-2014-10-24/print
Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us
WSJ Slant: http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-trade-lower-1414153540

It is not difficult to live cheaply in Seattle - rent instead of owning, 22 year old car, eat at home. My big account is 5 figures, all in Vanguard Wellington, VWELX. Yes, I am cheap and happy. Just dreaming about a hot mutual fund tip ...