Would it be better to take Social Security at 62?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, you calculated the future value of a stream of income using an interest rate? And then you calculated a stream of 8 years of contributions to a brokerage account accounting for the year-to-year compounding of those 8 amounts and stretching into the future?. You did this to a certain date?

no i didn’t do it , michael kitces in his research did it .

he compared the average long term return of a balanced portfolio in an average of 3% inflation to the internal rate of return on social security .


i-KmsGcPL-S.png


i-6dWGZkG-S.png



i-pMXGMwg-S.png
 
Last edited:
Except maybe the people with pensions and less than multiple millions.

exactly …they need a means of support.

not millions but they need enough in my opinion to not exceed spending 35-40% of their nest egg
 
Last edited:
no i didn’t do it , michael kitces in his research did it .

he compared the average long term return of a balanced portfolio in an average of 3% inflation to the internal rate return on social security .


i-KmsGcPL-S.png


i-6dWGZkG-S.png



i-pMXGMwg-S.png


I'd really have to see the underlying assumptions and calculations to buy into it. But, I will also run the math on it myself. Since starting here in Early Retirement I have created buckets for my retirement and preliminary bought into the glide path. I have a spreadsheet reflecting preliminary how I will withdraw from the 401k. So, I appreciate your invitation to this forum. Many people post with their calculations, links to external calculators and spreadsheets and essentially they show their work (which is very helpful and encouraging). But, it also makes me realize I have a lot more work to do for myself in the planning and analysis category.
 
it is fairly straight forward .

there are few if any 30 year periods a balanced portfolio didn’t produce at least 6%
 
it is fairly straight forward .

there are few if any 30 year periods a balanced portfolio didn’t produce at least 6%

even the 30 year period from 1994 which included the dot com collapse , the lost decade for stocks , the great recession of 2008 and the covid shutdown averaged 7.44% cagr

60% s&p fund. 40% total bond , i used vfiax and bnd
 
many experts like blanchette feel up to 40% is safe as far as a trade off

What trade off? You lost me. If I collect my SS it does not mean I have to spend it or spend the whole thing. I do not need to equivalently pull out the entire amount of SS to go between 67 to 70. Right now it looks like the payment is $15k more at 70 than at 67. Yes, it does not mean I get more out of the system; but, it compresses the payout to my older time period. What it would personally cost me out of my 401k to delay as I see it right now I would recoup in 3 years. It's not an all or nothing trade off if that is what you are referring to.

Some would argue that you are better off with the diversification of the annuity like guaranteed payment to compliment your portfolio. From a risk perspective it would rate higher.
 
Last edited:
you are getting to far down a rabbit hole .

the internal rate of social security delaying is what it is .that doesn’t change .

the average return of a balanced portfolio at 6% cagr is what it is .

anything else is superfluous as far as how you choose to spend .

it is simple math …for ss to equal that 6% return takes about 24 years.

that’s fact .

your personal situation may have you not even invested so this has nothing to do with personal choice
 
you are getting to far down a rabbit hole .

the internal rate of social security delaying is what it is .that doesn’t change .

the average return of a balanced portfolio at 6% cagr is what it is .

anything else is superfluous as far as how you choose to spend .

it is simple math …for ss to equal that 6% return takes about 24 years


I would need to do the math myself to begin to agree with that. I still need to get another 3 hours of sleep right now. I'll look at it this weekend.

Just seeing a chart does nothing for me. I need to see all the underlying assumptions and the actual input to the calculations, etc.

It's not a lump sum; it's a stream of payments.
 
well google it .. lots of researchers have calculated internal rates of return for ss.

portfolio visualizer can calculate portfolio returns over any time frames they have loaded
 
What trade off? You lost me. If I collect my SS it does not mean I have to spend it or spend the whole thing. I do not need to equivalently pull out the entire amount of SS to go between 67 to 70. Right now it looks like the payment is $15k more at 70 than at 67. Yes, it does not mean I get more out of the system; but, it compresses the payout to my older time period. What it would personally cost me out of my 401k to delay as I see it right now I would recoup in 3 years. It's not an all or nothing trade off if that is what you are referring to.

Some would argue that you are better off with the diversification of the annuity like guaranteed payment to compliment your portfolio. From a risk perspective it would rate higher.

you are answering your own argument. what you are pulling out delaying to live regardless of amount shouldn’t exceed 40% of what you have .

no one said it’s based on any particular amount being laid out. whether it’s a partial amount of ss or all the ss you are fronting yourself the cap on spending down saving’s applies
 
well google it .. lots of researchers have calculated internal rates of return for ss.

portfolio visualizer can calculate portfolio returns over any time frames they have loaded


Yet it is much more meaningful to use your own particular situation/numbers and calculate it for yourself (using the actual numbers on your SS statement).
 
you are answering your own argument. what you are pulling out delaying to live regardless of amount shouldn’t exceed 40% of what you have .

no one said it’s based on any particular amount being laid out. whether it’s a partial amount of ss or all the ss you are fronting yourself the cap on spending down saving’s applies

On the high side I estimated 15%.
 
Yet it is much more meaningful to use your own particular situation/numbers and calculate it for yourself (using the actual numbers on your SS statement).

what you do personally has nothing to do with the base line numbers .

stocks have long term returns based on indexes used .

obviously if you don’t own those indexes you do differently.

but that doesn’t change those base numbers , it’s your results that differ
 
what you do personally has nothing to do with the base line numbers .

stocks have long term returns based on indexes used .

obviously if you don’t own those indexes you do differently.

but that doesn’t change those base numbers , it’s your results that differ


I would agree to use your numbers for the stock side - 6%. There's two sides to this because there's the SS side and the what if portfolio side.

I need people to show their work (including Kitches). He's not above the law! :)
 
After I was shown this spread sheet on taking SS at 62, I think I will just in case I don't make it till 70 and if I do, I'll invest every penny of it while taking it at 62 years of age and be a lot richer at 70. Also seen way too many people die before getting a penny of SS so I'll be taking it at 62.


But, some will have more that enters that equation, like, do you want/need to do Roth Conversions? The extra income from SS will either push you into a higher tax bracket or reduce the amount that you can convert and still stay in a lower bracket. Also, if you don't Roth convert, will your RMDs push you into a higher tax bracket. Many delay to get larger SS check for their spouse when they die.

It would be very simple if you knew your expiration date. Probably better we don't know! But, it does make the age to collect more difficult. I'm Roth converting as fast as I can and have 10-1/2 months until I'm 70. The SS income will reduce our portfolio withdrawal rate to 1%. Where is the BTD thread? :LOL:
 
I would agree to use your numbers for the stock side - 6%. There's two sides to this because there's the SS side and the what if portfolio side.

I need people to show their work (including Kitches). He's not above the law! :)

here you go it’s all here .

and by the way if you live long enough you can actually beat that implied return on that portfolio by delaying.

the only problem is life statistics work against us as most won’t live that long

https://www.kitces.com/blog/how-del...ong-term-investment-or-annuity-money-can-buy/
 
here you go it’s all here .

and by the way if you live long enough you can actually beat that implied return on that portfolio by delaying.

the only problem is life statistics work against us as most won’t live that long

https://www.kitces.com/blog/how-del...ong-term-investment-or-annuity-money-can-buy/

As long as you live long enough to break even compressing your payments into a shorter timeframe to get a higher amount of cash flow is also attractive. We all know that SS is the best annuity money cannot even buy.
 
odds are the portfolio and early ss would compress the best results in to the shorter time frame ….however two short of a time would not be good for either
 
odds are the portfolio and early ss would compress the best results in to the shorter time frame ….however two short of a time would not be good for either

You need to reread that article you just handed me.


Delaying Social Security As The Best Long-Term Return Money CanBuy

Social Security, and the decision to delay benefits represents a unique form of “investment” –a return that is contingent not upon interest rates or market performance, but survival and longevity. Of course, it’s worth noting that because the value of the Social Security delay decision is contingent on how long someone lives, it is clearly not beneficial for those who are in poor health or are otherwise not optimistic about living a long time (though be certain to look at joint health and longevity in the case of couples planning for survivor benefits, not to mention other couples-specific strategies like File-and-Suspend that may further impact timing decisions).

Nonetheless, the decision to delay Social Security can be evaluated based on the implicit rate of return it creates by choosing to delay, and over longer time horizons – when clients may “need the money most” as they have more years of retirement expenses to cover in the first place – the return of the Social Security delay becomes quite compelling. In fact, the return is generally far superior to any risk-adjusted returns that can be achieved over comparable time periods by the available alternatives, whether investing in risk-free bonds, growth equities, or buying a commercially available annuity. And because the system is indexed to inflation, its real returns will be maintained even if inflation rises and will only become better if longevity continues to increase as well. In fact, ultimately the decision to delay Social Security delivers the best results when there is either unexpected inflation, unusually long longevity, or especially bad market returns, which are the exact three scenarios that traditional portfolios are the least effective at managing, making the decision to delay Social Security the ultimate form of “anti-fragile” triple hedge!
 
Last edited:
This is probably the number one question on this forum lol.

It's probably personal. A lot of the discussion does seem to center around "genetics and health" as that is the wager's attributes that actually moves the needle and financial outcomes.

The other part is probably when to file for the maximum "benefit" of the annuity/ssa.

That is personal for sure.

We don't know if that benefit amount could shrink somehow in the future. My guess is yes, but who knows when or how. That is probably another aspect that I see discussed a lot about SS. Most agree if the number is printed on the statement today, it might not be the same as when you ACTUALLY retire based on changing legislation.

What we DO know is that there are rules to the game. Sure the rules can change but we know today's rules so we play the game by today's rules...and maybe the best future assumptions we can derive. Inflation. Date of passing etc.

Rates of return could change too. So I run a what-if, assume I take the money early and get some phenomenal rate of return as well as super low inflation. SORR is no longer a factor as someone with more than one "leg" to the proverbial FIRE "stool" would have another leg to stand on with IRAs and such.

IF your return does not outpace inflation then you made the wrong bet...over the short term...BUT you had that money to enjoy. So its not ALL about the mathematical equation, I think QOL (Quality of Life) has something to do with it.

What is the function of money. Does it become less or more important as time becomes limited?

Lots of deep thinking outside of the actual dollar amounts.

My aunt took it as soon as possible after losing her spouse. My DF delayed until FRA and has more money than he knows what to do with. He didn't need it. I think ultimately its an easy thing to just delay if one doesn't actually need it.
 
Last edited:
You need to reread that article you just handed me.


Delaying Social Security As The Best Long-Term Return Money CanBuy

Social Security, and the decision to delay benefits represents a unique form of “investment” –a return that is contingent not upon interest rates or market performance, but survival and longevity. Of course, it’s worth noting that because the value of the Social Security delay decision is contingent on how long someone lives, it is clearly not beneficial for those who are in poor health or are otherwise not optimistic about living a long time (though be certain to look at joint health and longevity in the case of couples planning for survivor benefits, not to mention other couples-specific strategies like File-and-Suspend that may further impact timing decisions).

Nonetheless, the decision to delay Social Security can be evaluated based on the implicit rate of return it creates by choosing to delay, and over longer time horizons – when clients may “need the money most” as they have more years of retirement expenses to cover in the first place – the return of the Social Security delay becomes quite compelling. In fact, the return is generally far superior to any risk-adjusted returns that can be achieved over comparable time periods by the available alternatives, whether investing in risk-free bonds, growth equities, or buying a commercially available annuity. And because the system is indexed to inflation, its real returns will be maintained even if inflation rises and will only become better if longevity continues to increase as well. In fact, ultimately the decision to delay Social Security delivers the best results when there is either unexpected inflation, unusually long longevity, or especially bad market returns, which are the exact three scenarios that traditional portfolios are the least effective at managing, making the decision to delay Social Security the ultimate form of “anti-fragile” triple hedge!

of course i read it but you need to live long enough for ss to pan out and even collect if you delay as well as live long enough so the internal rate of return of ss equals that portfolio.

already at 71 had i delayed to 70 , our income would be less since the portfolio outpaced the increases in ss coupled with incoming ss checks

the spending down while delaying would have given us bigger ss checks but a smaller portfolio working for us.

if only we know how long we would live or what markets and inflation would be
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom