Thanks for your figures. Now I can be more specific to your particular "what if". Since I'm still making estimates, feel free to adjust the calculations as needed.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that your SS benefits are 50% taxable. (It could be as high as 85%.) Let's also assume that you're working part time until age 70 so that we don't have too many different intervals to compute.
Finally, let's assume a fed marginal tax rate of 22% and a state marginal rate of 6% for a combined 28% rate. We have to pick some figure to work with to make this concrete.
I gather from your followup that you need an extra $20K/year (after tax) over and above your part time income for your expenses until you fully retire (assumed age 70). The fact that you'd be drawing from your IRA for this money suggests no money in taxable accounts - since that's what conventional wisdom says to deplete first.
So if you defer benefits, you'll need to draw $27,778/year from the IRA. (72% of this gives $20K post tax).
OTOH, if you take benefits at age 67, you'll get to "bank" $14,028/year, assuming you bank it in that same deductible T-IRA:
$35K pre-tax SS benefits = $20K for expenses + $14,028 to IRA + $972 taxes
[ net taxes = tax on SS benefits - tax savings on deductible IRA contribution
$972 = (28% x 1/2 x $35K) - (28% x $14,028) = $4,900 - $3,928]
So from age 67 to age 70, you're either reducing your IRA by $27,778/year or growing it by $14,028. That's a difference of $41,806/year for three years. In pretax dollars. In post-tax dollars (72%), that's $30.1K.
I already explained how to account for the growth of this amount in an earlier post in this thread. So I'll just give the results here:
Expected value of $30.1K (post-tax) difference/year over three years: $104K (portfolio visualizer), $93K in real (inflation adjusted) dollars.
After age 70, if you've deferred SS, you'll be receiving 132%/108% x $35K, roughly $42.8K/year.
Compared with the $35K you'd get by starting at age 67, that's a $7.8K/year difference pre-tax, real dollars. Post tax, the difference is $7.8K - (28% x $7.8K x 1/2) = $6.7K/year.
The extra savings and growth ($93K real dollars to age 70) that you get by taking SS at age 67 can on average be expected to cover this $6.7K shortfall through age 87 (portfolio visualizer).
That's a tad under what the new RMD table1 (single life) gives as the expected lifetime (88.2) for someone now age 67.
The comment "by the way your dead at the end anyway" suggests that you're not giving much weight to the risk of loss once you're dead, since, well, you're dead anyway. OTOH, the risk of having less money while you're alive is going to matter. A risk averse person who values these two risks (dying before "breaking even", and living "too long") differently will tend to make the choice that reduces the more important risk.
In addition, the estimate that by deferring benefits one will begin pulling ahead around age 87 is a result subject to wide variations. Maybe the market will not produce 7%/year (the figure I used as input), maybe it will swoon early in your drawdown period. Maybe you'll do much better, maybe you'll do much worse.
In contrast, SS is a steady (inflation adjusted) income stream. All else being equal, the risk averse person will take the sure thing.
A final note on the numbers. The calculations above incorporate the effect of taxes and account for investment growth. Your potential shortfall by taking benefits at age 67 and living to 100 still comes out to nearly triple magnitude you hypothesized: ""$10k, 20k, 30k maybe?" Or maybe $87K (13 x $6.7K, post tax, in real dollars).

From an email I just received from GP:
May 17, 2021
Dear Fellow Shareholders,
With the continued strength of global markets and the performance of the Grandeur Peak Funds, we find it necessary to announce the following fund closures effective as of market close on Friday, May 28, 2021.
Moving to Hard Closure[1]:
*Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund (GPEOX/GPEIX)
Moving to Soft Closure[2]:
*Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund (GPROX/GPRIX)
As you know, we carefully review capacity at both the strategy and firm level. We are committed to keeping our investment strategies nimble to fully pursue their investment objectives without being encumbered by their individual asset base or the firm’s collective assets. Achieving performance for our clients remains our paramount objective as always.
As of June 1st, the Grandeur Peak Funds that remain open to all investors include:
*Grandeur Peak Global Stalwarts Fund (GGSOX/GGSYX)
*Grandeur Peak Global Contrarian Fund (GPGCX)
*Grandeur Peak US Stalwarts Fund (GUSYX)
To check the current open/closed status of all Grandeur Peak Funds at any time, please visit our website.
Thank you for your continued trust. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to me or a member of our Client Relations Team.
Best Regards,
Eric
[1]"Hard Closure": means that these Funds will no longer accept purchases, from new or existing investors, through financial intermediaries unless the purchase is part of: (1) a retirement plan which held the Fund prior to this closure, (2) an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund, or (3) a de minimis annual rebalancing approved by a member of the Grandeur Peak client team. The Funds will remain open to purchases from existing investors, and to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
[2] "Soft Closure" means that the Fund will close to new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund through third-party intermediaries subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors with an established position in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund. The Fund will remain open to purchases from existing investors, and to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
PDF from GP:
https://www.grandeurpeakglobal.com/documents/grandeurpeakglobal-pr-20210517.pdf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834421010939/fp0065552_497.htm
497 1 fp0065552_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST: GRANDEUR PEAK FUNDS
GRANDEUR PEAK EMERGING MARKETS OPPORTUNITIES FUND
GRANDEUR PEAK GLOBAL REACH FUND
(Each, a “Fund,” and together, the “Funds”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 17, 2021 TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND
PROSPECTUS OF THE FUNDS DATED AUGUST 31, 2020,
AS SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME
Effective as of the close of business on May 28, 2021, the Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund will no longer accept purchases, from new or existing investors, through financial intermediaries unless the purchase is part of:
● a retirement plan which held the Fund prior to this closure,
● an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund, or
● a de minimis annual rebalancing approved by a member of the Grandeur Peak client team.
Also, effective as of the close of business on May 28, 2021, the Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund will close to new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund through third party intermediaries subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors with an established position in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund.
The Funds remain open to purchases directly from Grandeur Peak Funds by existing investors and by new investors.
The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

I thought the original topic worth airing. Appreciate all the great input from members. Lots of great ideas on this and associated investment subjects.
Bottom line for me (from the experience related above) is that none of the four fund families I deal with any longer appear to require the medallion for transfers under 50K or 100K (depending on institution). With my retirement distributions consistently coming out of TRP, I can continue to “feed the goose that lays the golden egg” as necessary without the added hassle. Amen. :)

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: