Laurence Kotlikoff - Maximize my SS.com

Independent said:

I think you're saying that at 0% real interest, deferring to 70 makes sense if one of them will live past 81. ...

Click to expand...

Well, that's about the break-even on the portfolio. I think it can be looked at different ways as to making 'sense' or not. As we've discussed, spousal benefits, desire to leave money to heirs/charity plays into it.

And, at 0% real interest, $32k withdrawals will exhaust at $900k portfolio in 28 years (age 90).

And, one extra $60k withdrawal will cause the portfolio to run out 2 years sooner.

Click to expand...

Yes, and in the delay to 70 case, the portfolio fails at age 108 and 101 (with the extra spend), and you still have $49K in SS coming in.

I'll guess that rayvt is expecting more than 0%. But, although higher investment returns eventually favor the age 62 start, the cruise is still "affordable" with the age 70 start.

Click to expand...

Could be, I just used zero real to keep the SS simple. But if the portfolio grows, it is less of a concern in either case, so go ahead and take the cruise. But since these are unknowns, we generally plan for a bad-case scenario, and zero-return for 8-10 years is in the 'bad-case' area I think.

Like anything, one could play with the numbers until the cows come home. But I think the point you made, and this SS (spreadsheet) reflects, is that it isn't a 'no-brainer' that delaying SS means you can't also spend the money up front.

That's the point that Cut-Throat has made - even though you don't have it, you can spend now based on getting that larger amount in the future. Yes, that assumes there are not big changes to SS payments/taxation for those in/near retirement, but even so, that was a big delta (and we rounded down the age 70 SS to even 000's).

Spending up-front could mean less to heirs/charity if you die early on. But that is a personal decision point.

-ERD50

ERD50 said:

the portfolio break-even point is age 80 (well below median LE for a 62 YO).
...
Add a one-time $60,000 spend at age 66, and B-E is still age 80 (though numerically improved slightly for delaying).

Click to expand...

Funny how math works, huh? No matter how you compute it, it always says the same thing: delaying from 62 to 70 has a 10 year break-even period.

I guess the overall point I was trying to make is that having a large lump of [-]cash[/-] liquid assets gives you more options. What I had in mind was the people who have said to spend down your portfolio pre-70 and then SS rides to the rescue at 70 just as your portfolio runs out. I didn't run any spreadsheet -- I didn't care that much about the details.

SS is not a lump sum, it's a monthly payment stream. That was all that I was getting at. You cannot make a large, one-time lump sum purchase from a payment stream, vendors (cruise line, roofer, etc.) want their money up front.
'course, you can do what many young people do, pay for the cruise on a credit card and then pay that off at 18% interest for the next few years.

You have more options if you have liquidity than if you don't.
I think this concept got internalized for me some 20+ years ago from an occurrence in the family. One uncle was retired and owned some land outside of Atlanta that was easily worth $3M. But their income was only SS and pension.

Then one day (in fact, the day before their big 50'th anniversary party), he had chest pains. Rushed to the hospital and he had emergency quintuple heart bypass surgery. Medicare has strong limitations on what it will provide for nursing home-type care. Not to mention that many Medicare & Medicaid facilities are like something out of Charles Dickens.

So you have to pay on your own. Well they had a large net worth -- but little cash and little monthly income. Oddly, banks aren't particularly eager to lend you money (even secured by land) when you are in a hospital bed surrounded my machines and full of tubes. Private nursing care facilities won't let you in unless you can show them that you can pay their bills. Up front, cash/check only, no credit.

The whole extended family had to scramble to cover his immediate cash needs.
All my aunts & uncles, and my Mom, took a fresh look at their own asset allocations, to make sure they couldn't get caught in the same bind. Although most of them didn't have such an extreme case, $3M in land and very little cash.

I'll guess that rayvt is expecting more than 0%.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

If you can make 5% above inflation, the 62-70 SS break-even age is 91. 0% is 80.
BE age at 3% above inflation is 85.
So I ask myself, how likely is it that I can (long-term) make 3% above inflation? That's a 15 year BE period -- how far out is acceptable? Most businesses won't make an investment with a 15+ year payoff. They want more like 3-5 years.


We are talking about a 30 year retirement, so we need to look at historical 30 year returns.
For 1950 to 2015, the worst 30 year return of a 60/40 portfolio was 9.0%. (median was 10.8%) That was Nov'55 to Nov'85.
Overall annual inflation 1950-2015 was 3.6%.
Annual inflation 1955-1985 was 4.5%.
10.8% - 3.6% = 7.2% (median)
9.0% - 4.5% = 4.5% (worst 30 year period).

At 4.5% above inflation, BE age is 89. (19 years)
At 6.0% above inflation, BE age is 98. (28 years)
At 6.6% above inflation, the BE age is 107.
At 7.2% above inflation, BE age is .. never. My spreadsheet only goes to 108. But at 108, the age 62 lead over age 70 is growing, so there is no break-even, ever.)
(Specifically, for 10.8% return and 3.6% COLA the BE is also never.)

rayvt said:

... I guess the overall point I was trying to make is that having a large lump of [-]cash[/-] liquid assets gives you more options. What I had in mind was the people who have said to spend down your portfolio pre-70 and then SS rides to the rescue at 70 just as your portfolio runs out. ...

Click to expand...

Well that is a long way from the general statements you've made supporting taking SS early. Maybe I missed it (or just ignored it as irrelevant to any reasonable discussion), but I don't ever recall anyone saying to 'spend down your portfolio pre-70 and then SS rides to the rescue at 70 just as your portfolio runs out.' Got some links to refresh my memory?

Look back at your posts #188, and Independent's reply in post # 197, and my spreadsheet to illustrate the scenario. Those seem like pretty reasonable starting points, not the condition where you run the portfolio to zero.

At any rate, I (and I think few in support of delaying SS) would recommend delaying SS if it meant drawing the portfolio to near zero.

SS is not a lump sum, it's a monthly payment stream. That was all that I was getting at.

Click to expand...

Right, and delaying SS provides a larger monthly payment stream in later life, to both you and your spouse (if applicable), when the portfolio could be dwindling.

You cannot make a large, one-time lump sum purchase from a payment stream, vendors (cruise line, roofer, etc.) want their money up front.
'course, you can do what many young people do, pay for the cruise on a credit card and then pay that off at 18% interest for the next few years.

Click to expand...

Or do as I showed in the spreadsheet - pull money from the portfolio for the cruise, and there is no future issue, because your later years are covered by that larger income stream. The numbers don't lie (unless someone can point out a flaw in my calculations).

You have more options if you have liquidity than if you don't.

Click to expand...

Yes, but 'enough liquidity' is 'enough'. And in that spreadsheet, they had enough liquidity to pay cash for a cruise w/o current SS, and they did well.

I think this concept got internalized for me some 20+ years ago from an occurrence in the family. One uncle was retired and owned some land outside of Atlanta that was easily worth $3M. But their income was only SS and pension.

... Well they had a large net worth -- but little cash and little monthly income. Oddly, banks aren't particularly eager to lend you money (even secured by land) when you are in a hospital bed surrounded my machines and full of tubes. ...

The whole extended family had to scramble to cover his immediate cash needs.

Click to expand...

As many of us keep saying, there is no one correct solution, it depends on the circumstances. If you need to take it early, there is no debate, you take it early.

In the example you provide, the problem is the $3M is not liquid - that is the problem. You said they had very little cash, not enough to pay their medical bills even though it sounds like they were taking SS early (or at least at FRA). So this has no bearing on anything, it sounds like they were stuck either way. A few years of early SS would not have added up to a big $ amount, relative to a staggering medical bill.

My approach to this would be to try hard to gain some liquidity, regardless of SS. I think we agree that practically ever retiree (and non-retiree for that matter) benefits from having some liquidity at their disposal.

rayvt said:

I'll guess that rayvt is expecting more than 0%.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

If you can make 5% above inflation, ...

Click to expand...

It seems every time we answer your scenarios, rather than addressing the answer, you throw out a different scenario. It sounds to me you just want validation, not an actual discussion of pros/cons or decision points.

I gave the reason I chose 0% real for the spreadsheet, simplicity, and it makes a 'bad-case' scenario for drawing down the portfolio of the person delaying SS. A rising market would have kept more cushion with the draw down, and they would have had more money for the cruise. So I was trying to make it a tough case for delaying, or I might have been criticized for cherry-picking.

And we've already discussed the 'break-even' analysis versus the 'longevity insurance' aspect (especially if spousal benefits apply). I guess you are not listening.

I think I've learned all I'm gonna learn on this, if all you are going to do is divert the responses to something else rather than address them, I'll bow out.

-ERD50

A valuable discussion, though, since most every point/counterpoint could play into one's 'when to start' decision.

rayvt said:

Indeed.

If you can make 5% above inflation, the 62-70 SS break-even age is 91. 0% is 80.
BE age at 3% above inflation is 85.

Click to expand...

This is true. But, I don't see the connection to your earlier post:

rayvt said:

... it just struck me that there are other issues than just one's living & lifestyle expenses. Like...you're getting along peachy-keen with your $60,000/yr, and then you decide you'd like to see the world, and something like this Cruise Details comes to your attention. 4 month world cruise, something that you'll only do once, for the two of you costing $60,000 to $80,000.

.... If you've run down your investment portfolio in order to maximize your 70+ SS benefit, then it'll be much harder to come up with this large of a chunk.

Click to expand...

I asked you to show me an example where a couple defers SS, and then can't afford a $60,000 cruise because they deferred.

I'm fine with an example that uses 5% real return. Just show me the numbers for a couple that has enough assets/income to retire with a $60k annual spending plan, but then finds it much harder to cover the one time $60k for the cruise, just because they deferred SS.

I'd suggest filling in the blanks here as a start:

John and Mary are retired, age 62, and have traditional IRAs totaling $_____
If they start SS today, their combined annual benefit will be $_____
If they wait till 70, their combined annual benefit will $______
They feel they can live "well enough" on $60,000 per year.
At age ___
they see an ad with a great, $60,000 price for a once-in-a-lifetime cruise.

Click to expand...

::sigh:: Actuarially neutral really means actuarilly neutral. The SSA stated that the pre- and post-FRA adjustments were designed with the goal of making it actuarilly neutral. It's not completely, of course. Just the fact that the benefit is same for male & female but females live longer means that it isn't competely neutral. But it's pretty close.

All that changing the age at which you file does, is change the shape on the benefit stream.

If there was a concrete answer one way or another, these interminable discussions wouldn't take place. There are no debates about whether receiving $500 is better or worse than $1000. These SS debates are essentially arguing if 10 $100 bills is better or worse than 50 $20 bills.

Some people look at the 10-18 year break-even period and says it's too long. Others don't care about the BEP, they just want to have longevity insurance and are okay with the price that it costs. Neither viewpoint is right or wrong, they are just a matter of personal preference.

rayvt said:

: Actuarially neutral really means actuarilly neutral.
. . . .
Others don't care about the BEP, they just want to have longevity insurance and are okay with the price that it costs.

Click to expand...

Well, if they are "actuarilly neutral", then the greater monthly benefit for an unexpectedly long life (longevity insurance) can be had at zero cost. "Zero" is a good price.

samclem said:

Well, if they are "actuarilly neutral", then the greater monthly benefit for an unexpectedly long life (longevity insurance) can be had at zero cost. "Zero" is a good price.

Click to expand...

If longevity insurance is your primary goal. Some posters here place higher importance on income smoothing and/or keeping the retirement input streams diversified and not running down the portfolio portion. We can't all maximize for every retirement factor. Maximizing income stream diversification may mean not maximizing for longevity insurance.

We're not doing solar panels because the BE period is too long at 15 years and may feel the same about SS when the time comes. When I used to coordinate the annual budgets and project plans at work I don't remember anyone ever advocating in favor of projects with a 15 year or so payback period, and at my house we run our budgets like we would a business. That is the same line of thinking as to we personally aren't in a rush to pay off a low interest mortgage. Businesses borrow when the rates are favorable, why not use the same concepts in running our household.

It is not like when to take SS is a major financial success factor in books like The Millionaire Next Door, compared to other factors like picking the right vocation or LBYMs. I find it odd that taking SS at 62 seems to draw a lot of negative comments here and posts implying financial imprudence, but spending money on cruises, luxury vacations, expensive dinners, vacation homes, RVs, boats, etc. does not draw the same level of finger wagging. As long as one is not in danger of running out of money it comes down to personal choices.

If Household A takes SS at 62 and the retirement calculators show having a net worth of $5M at age 100 and household B takes SS at 70 and goes for 90% success in Firecalc (using historical returns that may be higher than what the financial pundits are predicting for the future) resulting in a $0 portfolio balance at 90, which household is being more cautious? Which one has more longevity insurance?

daylatedollarshort said:

It is not like when to take SS is a major financial success factor in books like The Millionaire Next Door, compared to other factors like picking the right vocation and LBYMs.

Click to expand...

It could be a lot more significant than changing the light bulb in foyer to an LED.. Hey, this is what we do here.

daylatedollarshort said:

I find it odd that taking SS at 62 seems to draw a lot of negative comments here and posts implying financial imprudence, but not spending money on cruises, luxury vacations, expensive dinners, vacation homes, RVs, boats, etc. As long as one is LBYM why criticize any of the personal financial choices.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not criticizing anybody's choice. I'm trying to understand why they do the things they do, maybe I'll want to do the same thing. I understand why someone would want an expensive dinner. I do not understand why someone would say something is "actuarily neutral, then say it really isn't, then say that one particular option has a "cost".

samclem said:

It could be a lot more significant than changing the light bulb in foyer to an LED.. Hey, this is what we do here.

Click to expand...

But if a household has 1,000 little cost saving items like the light bulb that average $10 a year savings without lowering the overall standard of living, $10 X 1,000 X 40 years = $400K.

One problem I see is that people want to define actuarially neutral at the individual level... it is not... it is based on a group of people....


Just like life insurance... some die early, some die later... nobody is good at guessing which person is going to die first and which one will die last... but they are pretty good at guessing what the average age that the group will die... (or median if that is the better word)....

So all the talk about it being neutral is just talk... it really means nothing... it is kinda like Schrodinger's cat... it is either dead or alive... it can only be both in an equation... just like taking at 62 or 70.... it is either a good move or a bad move, but you will only know when you die....

When I run FIRECalc for 30 years with SS at 62 or 70, I see little difference in the spending level for 100% success. I am leaning towards my wife drawing at 62 and myself at 70, but that could change depending on the economic condition between now and when I turn 70.

A poster mentioned earlier that most people draw SS at 62, even if they can afford to delay it. Perhaps they are thinking "a bird in hand..."

Texas Proud said:

One problem I see is that people want to define actuarially neutral at the individual level... it is not... it is based on a group of people....


Just like life insurance... some die early, some die later... nobody is good at guessing which person is going to die first and which one will die last... but they are pretty good at guessing what the average age that the group will die... (or median if that is the better word)....

So all the talk about it being neutral is just talk... it really means nothing... it is kinda like Schrodinger's cat... it is either dead or alive... it can only be both in an equation... just like taking at 62 or 70.... it is either a good move or a bad move, but you will only know when you die....

Click to expand...

I think the point of mentioning the program is actuarially neutral is that various factors like being female may add a few years to life expectancy beyond the likely cross over point, but higher SS benefits for a few years is more of a thoughtful consideration than a lottery winning kind of windfall some of the FA articles imply:

"The average life expectancy for a person who was 65 years old in 2012 is 19.3 years – 20.5 years for women and 17.9 years for men."

Life expectancy in the USA hits a record high

The FAs want to collect their fees and hang on to our 401K money as long as possible and the super wealthy do not want taxes raised to cover SS shortfalls. They both have a vested interest in keeping the masses working until 70 as much as possible. I think this is why we see all the $1M is not enough to retire and we all need work until 70 and delay SS until then kind of articles.

If a retiree would otherwise run out of money if he lived to age 100 or so, then I would say delaying until 70 is financially prudent. But many posters here will leave an estate at age 100 or later so when to claim becomes a personal choice. Claiming earlier might mean having $200K less or whatever in net worth in old age, depending on household SS benefit amounts and life span, but then buying a a yacht or going on luxury vacations might have the same $200K decrease in NW. Some retiree households might choose the bird in the hand security with claiming at 62 more than spending the money on vacations or dying with a $200k larger estate.

I assume that the SSA is correct that they design the discount/premium to be actuarially neutral for a single person on a unisex basis. An EPV analysis suggests that it is indeed acturially neutral for a single person.

However, that creates opportunity for some. Those who have good family longevity, are in good health, or have higher than average wealth tend to live longer than average so they will collect longer. Also, where a spouses PIA based on their work records are significantly different then joint mortality become a factor.

The "game" is to optimize benefits for one's personal situation. For a single person of average family longevity, health and wealth, then theoretically it shouldn't matter if you take at 62, FRA or 70 (or anywhere in between). For a single person in poor health or with chronic health issues, then 62 would generally be preferable. For a married person in poor health or with chronic health issues but with a healthy spouse with a low PIA, then later would generally be preferable.

And of course, all of the claiming strategies assume that one has financial resources to live on while you wait. If you don't have financial resources, then your choice is to continue to work or start drawing SS to put food on the table.

daylatedollarshort said:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
One problem I see is that people want to define actuarially neutral at the individual level... it is not... it is based on a group of people....

Click to expand...

I think the point of mentioning the program is actuarially neutral is that various factors like being female may add a few years to life expectancy beyond the likely cross over point, ...

Click to expand...

Agreed - the 'actuarially neutral' factor is just a reference point for individuals. It helps us understand how it works - we need to make a decision based on our best guesses on our future situation and needs.

If a retiree would otherwise run out of money if he lived to age 100 or so, then I would say delaying until 70 is financially prudent. But many posters here will leave an estate at age 100 or later so when to claim becomes a personal choice.

Click to expand...

Except that most of don't know that they will leave an estate or not (though I agree it is likely, based on history). As samclem has pointed out, for some of us, increasing the SS leg of the stool can smooth out our sources of income.

NW-Bound said:

When I run FIRECalc for 30 years with SS at 62 or 70, I see little difference in the spending level for 100% success. ...

Click to expand...

You expected that, didn't you? A run like that in FIRECalc is basically going to be a break-even analysis. If you ran it for a longer period, as a 'what-if' to model the 'longevity insurance' benefits (which like most insurance, we never know if we will need it or not), I think you'll see an advantage to the delay. Maybe even more so if you model the more typical case of the larger SS spouse dying first, and the lower SS spouse loses their benefit and gets only the higher SS benefit. If the larger SS spouse took it at 62, it would be closer to the lower SS amount, and the surviving spouse would have significantly less to live on.

-ERD50

rayvt said:

If you can make 5% above inflation, the 62-70 SS break-even age is 91. 0% is 80.
BE age at 3% above inflation is 85.
So I ask myself, how likely is it that I can (long-term) make 3% above inflation? That's a 15 year BE period -- how far out is acceptable? Most businesses won't make an investment with a 15+ year payoff. They want more like 3-5 years.


We are talking about a 30 year retirement, so we need to look at historical 30 year returns.
For 1950 to 2015, the worst 30 year return of a 60/40 portfolio was 9.0%. (median was 10.8%) That was Nov'55 to Nov'85.
Overall annual inflation 1950-2015 was 3.6%.
Annual inflation 1955-1985 was 4.5%.
10.8% - 3.6% = 7.2% (median)
9.0% - 4.5% = 4.5% (worst 30 year period).

At 4.5% above inflation, BE age is 89. (19 years)
At 6.0% above inflation, BE age is 98. (28 years)
At 6.6% above inflation, the BE age is 107.
At 7.2% above inflation, BE age is .. never. My spreadsheet only goes to 108. But at 108, the age 62 lead over age 70 is growing, so there is no break-even, ever.)
(Specifically, for 10.8% return and 3.6% COLA the BE is also never.)

Click to expand...

Sequence of returns is a factor too. I can find many starting years where it would have been better to defer.

I look at it this way. If you aren't going to drain your other accounts while waiting, you have an 8 year window in which you decide whether to take SS or not.

• If the market has dropped, it makes sense that you wouldn't want to sell stocks off at a lower point, so take SS then, whether you are 62 or 69. It could be the next year will be down, but it's likely that soon enough the market will recover, and you will come out ahead using SS and keeping your investments in the market. After the tech bubble burst of the early 2000s or the big fall in 2008 would be such times.
• If the market has been rising, it's hard to call when the top is but it seems good to be selling off a little more and holding off taking SS. It's true that you may be losing out on some gains if the market continues to rise, but if things are rising, my plan is probably safe. If you look at Firecalc failure scenarios, I doubt you'll find too many failures if the years between age 62-70 are good. If there is a failure, it's likely because there is a big drop to follow, and in that case I'd start taking SS after the drop and enjoy larger SS payments.

It's not a fool proof strategy. I'm only starting to work through the scenarios, but I imagine there are ones where it doesn't work as well, such as a steady rise between 62-70 and beyond where I'd be best off as fully invested as possible--meaning take SS early. I probably will do some backtesting to see if the odds favor my strategy, and to quantify the decision point on when the market has dropped or flattened enough. At age 54 I'm not in a big hurry, but I throw this out here to see if others can verify or shoot holes in it.

pb4uski said:

The "game" is to optimize benefits for one's personal situation. For a single person of average family longevity, health and wealth, then theoretically it shouldn't matter if you take at 62, FRA or 70 (or anywhere in between).

Click to expand...

I think your wording may not be precise enough. In my view, the objective of the exercise is to optimize the expected utility of the SS benefits within the context of one's situation (assets/income and liabilities). That's not at all the same as just maximizing the expected average number of dollars from SS. We keep going down the oversimplified rabbit hole of "BE analysis", which totally misses the hard-to-quantify but very real value of an increased inflation-adjusted monthly check that lasts as long as a person lives. How much extra portfolio size is required to make up for the forfeited $900 per month for maybe 30 years? Let's throw in that we might be at a point of high stock valuations (like today) and/or low bond yields (like we are today).
There are a lot of answers to the question, and everybody has a unique situation. Maybe that extra $900/mo (forever) has very low expected utility for some people, and has high expected utility for other people --based on their expected and worst-case situations. But for DW and I, based on what I see now, it has high expected utility.
If each person was just the average of the expected mortality of 10,000 people, the BE analysis would be more useful. But each of us is a potential "fat tail", with all that comes with that.

daylatedollarshort said:

It is not like when to take SS is a major financial success factor in books like The Millionaire Next Door, compared to other factors like picking the right vocation or LBYMs. I find it odd that taking SS at 62 seems to draw a lot of negative comments here and posts implying financial imprudence, but spending money on cruises, luxury vacations, expensive dinners, vacation homes, RVs, boats, etc. does not draw the same level of finger wagging. As long as one is not in danger of running out of money it comes down to personal choices.

Click to expand...

DLDS, almost everything does indeed come down to personal choice. Including whether to take a drunken moonlight swim with a hungry gator. That does not means that some choices are not better then others.

All the consumption expenditures that you mention at least get people something that they think that they want. When to take SS boils down to tactics. If one of the choices also feels better to somebody apart from tactics, then she should do that, because at least she gains what she thinks she wants.

I ran a tree. Do I need the income now? If not, then is some fixed income important to me? If so, would I like some of that to be annuities? If so, do I trust that I will likely get my SS paid more or less in full? If so, is this additional SS annuity either better, or more secure, or better priced than commercial possibilities? If so, wait. It is obviously better priced, and better (full COLA). If I could get the same cheap full COLA annuity from a large mutual insurance company I would likely take it in preference to waiting for higher SS, but I can't so I waited. I know there are other important special situations, but these are not personally important to me and I do not understand them in any detail so for this discussion they are not taken into account.

Ha

RunningBum said:

I probably will do some backtesting to see if the odds favor my strategy, and to quantify the decision point on when the market has dropped or flattened enough. At age 54 I'm not in a big hurry, but I throw this out here to see if others can verify or shoot holes in it.

Click to expand...

The "is the market rising or falling" trigger is probably less useful than a trigger based on "is the market overvalued or undervalued by historic measures." The recent thread on PE10s utility in setting AA may be of interest, and the latency of that metric (it can be "wrong" for years) is not a bad fit for the SS claiming decision/duration.

First off, haha's post ahead of was an excellent summary...

daylatedollarshort said:

....

It is not like when to take SS is a major financial success factor in books like The Millionaire Next Door, compared to other factors like picking the right vocation or LBYMs. ...

Click to expand...

But I don't think that means much. As we can see from this and other threads, it is a rather complex decision, personal situations have a very profound affect - whether there is a spouse, age differences of spouses, whether the spouse has restrictions on survivor benefits, SS benefits differences for each spouse, special LE considerations, taxes. And the rules may change. IMO, they probably skipped it as it is far too complex for easy reading. And on average, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference, so it just can't be generalized in a book targeted to be 'easy to read'.

A friend of mine started asking me about this, he is thinking of taking it at 62 (he doesn't 'need' it). With his spreadsheet, he assumes some great market returns, so sure, taking it early likely 'works' in that case.

It was hard to get him to make other assumptions, and he still had not worked out what his wife's SS would be, and so on. I told him what to look for, and we agreed that since we don't know our date of demise, there is really no 'right' answer. The way I left it with him was that either way, unless there is some special circumstance, he can't go far wrong with either taking at 62 or 70. You place your bet, you take your chances.

I find it odd that taking SS at 62 seems to draw a lot of negative comments here and posts implying financial imprudence,

Click to expand...

Is that really the case? I think there is one poster saying that to delay is a 'no-brainer' (I don't agree), and I think for the most part people are saying it isn't that straight forward for either decision, and are trying to clarify the decision points.

Where is all this negativism towards drawing at 62 (not negativism at ignoring information, or making broad-brush assumptions)? Did I miss it?

If Household A takes SS at 62 and the retirement calculators show having a net worth of $5M at age 100 and household B takes SS at 70 and goes for 90% success in Firecalc (using historical returns that may be higher than what the financial pundits are predicting for the future) resulting in a $0 portfolio balance at 90, which household is being more cautious? Which one has more longevity insurance?

Click to expand...

What point are you trying to make? I can't follow the connection between two such divergent scenarios, which are apparently an after-the-fact, rear-view-mirror analysis?

Who knows what we end up with? This seems to be like framing a question about whether Joe should buy a lottery ticket, and then explaining that he would have got the jackpot winner if he bought it? How does having one person end up at $5M at age 100, and the other at $0 at age 90 have anything to do with taking SS at 62/70? You lost me.

-ERD50

samclem said:

The "is the market rising or falling" trigger is probably less useful than a trigger based on "is the market overvalued or undervalued by historic measures." The recent thread on PE10s utility in setting AA may be of interest, and the latency of that metric (it can be "wrong" for years) is not a bad fit for the SS claiming decision/duration.

Click to expand...

Good! That's the kind of feedback ad discussion I was looking for.

samclem said:

I think your wording is not precise enough. In my view, the objective of the exercise is to optimize the expected utility of the SS benefits within the context of one's situation (assets/income and liabilities). That's not the same as just maximizing the expected average number of dollars. We keep going down the oversimplified rabbit hole of "BE analysis", which totally misses the hard-to-quantify but very real value of an increased inflation-adjusted monthly check that lasts as long as a person lives. How much extra portfolio size is required to make up for the forfeited $900 per month for maybe 30 years? Let's throw in that we might be at a point of high stock valuations (like today) and/or low bond yields (like we are today).
There are a lot of answers to the question, and everybody has a unique situation. Maybe that extra $900/mo (forever) has very low expected utility for some people, and has high expected utility for other people --based on their expected/worst-case situations.
If each person was just the average of the expected mortality of 10,000 people, the BE analysis would be more useful. But each of us is a potential "fat tail", with all that comes with that.

Click to expand...

I mostly agree with you and put little weight on any BE analysis. I tend to look at delaying as paying a premium (forgone cash inflow) in exchange for a joint life COLAed payout annuity at age 70 (increase in benefits).

So simplistically, if your age 62 benefits are 75% of your PIA then the forgone benefits are 7,200% of your monthly PIA with no interest (8 years * 12/months a year * 75%). Add in a provision for interest forgone and you're talking roughly 8,500% (at ~4%). In exchange for that "premium" of forgoing those benefits you get a joint lifetime COLAed annuity that pays 32% more per month (384% for 12 months). That's a 4.5% payout rate for a COLAed joint life annuity... pretty good in my opinion compared to a 5.4% or so payout on a joint life fixed annuity for a 62 year old couple.

NW-Bound said:

When I run FIRECalc for 30 years with SS at 62 or 70, I see little difference in the spending level for 100% success. I am leaning towards my wife drawing at 62 and myself at 70, but that could change depending on the economic condition between now and when I turn 70...

Click to expand...

ERD50 said:

You expected that, didn't you? A run like that in FIRECalc is basically going to be a break-even analysis. If you ran it for a longer period, as a 'what-if' to model the 'longevity insurance' benefits (which like most insurance, we never know if we will need it or not), I think you'll see an advantage to the delay. Maybe even more so if you model the more typical case of the larger SS spouse dying first, and the lower SS spouse loses their benefit and gets only the higher SS benefit. If the larger SS spouse took it at 62, it would be closer to the lower SS amount, and the surviving spouse would have significantly less to live on...

Click to expand...

That's a good point: to make a longer run to amplify the effect.

So, I make another set of runs, with the period set to 40 years. That should put us to near 100-year old, way too optimistic. The other inputs are: portfolio of 50% Total Market + 50% 5-Yr Treasury.

At 30 years: Both SS @ 70 increases the spending level to 1.7% higher than both SS @ 62.

At 40 years: Both SS @ 70 increases the spending level 3.5% over both SS @ 62.

Note that at 40 years, the spending levels are reduced about 4% relative to the 30-year runs. The effect of SS @ 70 is a bit more pronounced for the 40 year runs compared to 30 years, as one would expect.

Then, I made a set of runs with SS @ 62 for my wife and at 70 for myself. Of course, these runs fit in between the above set.

But, but, but what if I croak, and my wife loses her SS. I simulated that by subtracting out her SS when I reach 78. The results are that the split SS @62,70 is indeed the best, followed by both drawing SS @ 70, and the least being both drawing SS @ 62. However, the difference between the best and worst cases is only 3.7%.

Conclusion: The difference is not that big a deal, according to FIRECalc. What you do to make yourself feel comfortable is more important.

PS. The range of all outcomes is more compressed than one would expect. Between all variations of SS claiming strategies, and whether both will live to 100 or I croak early, the difference in spending levels between the highest and lowest cases is 11%. And I currently spend way below the lowest case.

NW-Bound said:

....
Conclusion: The difference is not that big a deal, according to FIRECalc. What you do to make yourself feel comfortable is more important.

PS. The range of all outcomes is more compressed than one would expect. Between all variations of SS claiming strategies, and whether both will live to 100 or I croak early, the difference in spending levels between the highest and lowest cases is 11%. And I currently spend way below the lowest case.

Click to expand...

Thanks for all that data! Yes, it does seem pretty compressed considering the extremes. I wouldn't expect much difference using near-average LE, but thought the extremes might show more difference.

I'll guess that the compression is because these runs are sensitive to the failures, and that is generally a market declining (in buying power) right after retiring. And that is the scenario that favors taking SS early (as some of the forum members here did in the last down-turn).

I'm not saying that to try to play up one approach over the other. I think it just points out the idea that circumstances matter, and they can change, so keep evaluating each year if you have the choice.

-ERD50