Would it be better to take Social Security at 62?

[mathjak107]

the key word is risk adjusted returns .

if someone takes early ss and gets the average 5% real return they will do better then someone who doesn’t live to at least 90 .
, at least from a balance perspective which ultimately drives income

ss hedges things at a cost and the cost is if you die younger then 90 and most of us will , you may have less of a balance left if it matters then early ss and investing…

you actually need to most likely live to 92 or so to beat early ss and a balanced portfolio.

so the question is do you want to bet more on markets and rates or more on longevity.

personally i am more comfortable with earlier ss and investing vs longevity .


if one wants to accept the possibility of a smaller balance left since odds are most won’t live to 90 , and trade it for some guarantees then delaying is best .

but any time we risk adjust anything there is a price to pay for that hedge.

risk adjusted returns always have a cost to them for that greater safety

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

the key word is risk adjusted returns .

if someone takes early ss and gets the average 5% real return they will do better then someone who doesn’t live to at least 90 .
, at least from a balance perspective which ultimately drives income

ss hedges things at a cost and the cost is if you die younger then 90 and most of us will , you may have less of a balance left if it matters then early ss and investing…

you actually need to most likely live to 92 or so to beat early ss and a balanced portfolio.

so the question is do you want to bet more on markets and rates or more on longevity.

personally i am more comfortable with earlier ss and investing vs longevity .


if one wants to accept the possibility of a smaller balance left since odds are most won’t live to 90 , and trade it for some guarantees then delaying is best .

but any time we risk adjust anything there is a price to pay for that hedge.

risk adjusted returns always have a cost to them for that greater safety

Well, now they have the link and they can read all of it. Your bias gets in the way of reading what he actually wrote.

 

[mathjak107]

no bias at all ..delaying wasn’t something i wanted to do , but i have no bias against it

it’s just math as far as which one will give you more .

you either bet on longevity to give you more or you bet on markets to provide more .

if one wants a potentially lower balance then delaying is fine and for that bet they hedge longevity, markets and inflation .

the trade off is most will not live long enough to see more since most likely they need to see 90

if one wants to dispense with the hedging and risk they may get sub par returns then that is the alternative.

bigger returns over a shorter potential life expectancy

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

no bias at all ..delaying wasn’t something i wanted to do , but i have no bias against it

it’s just math as far as which one will give you more .

you either bet on longevity to give you more or you bet on markets to provide more .

if one wants a potentially lower balance then delaying is fine and for that bet they hedge longevity, markets and inflation .

the trade off is most will not live long enough to see more since most likely they need to see 90

if one wants to dispense with the hedging and risk they may get sub par returns then that is the alternative.

bigger returns over a shorter potential life expectancy

You still have not read the entirety of what he has written on SS. You cite him constantly, but, then impose yourself over what he has actually written. You don't acknowledge it because you have not read and understood the parts you just don't agree with.

 

[braumeister]

Thanks for the interesting discussion.