Blog Layout

File at 62 vs. Delay: At What Age Do I Break Even on Social Security?

Eric Sajdak, ChFC® • Jul 07, 2020
"If I delay my Social Security benefit, at what age would I breakeven versus simply filing at 62?"

We field this type of question frequently from retirees. The Social Security system allows you to file anytime between 62 and age 70. 

At first glance, filing at 62 seems to make the most sense. After all, there are 12 months in a year and eight years between ages 62 and 70—That's 96 months of monthly paychecks that you wouldn't be getting if you delayed. 

However, you get penalized for taking your benefit early. Below is a diagram showing the penalties and delayed credits for someone whose Full Retirement Age is 66:
Actuarial Reduction or Delayed Retirement Credits

Wow, a 76% difference in your monthly paycheck! If your benefit at 62 is $1,500 a month, at 70 it would be $2,640! So although you're missing out on those 96 months of monthly paychecks, your benefit will be significantly higher. 


So, at what age do you breakeven? The answer, 79. 


Age 79 is the first year in which delaying to 70 becomes your highest lifetime benefit value choice. That is when we plan for Social Security in a box, without considering your other assets. Your breakeven age is typically younger when we factor in taxes, Medicare decisions, withdrawal strategy and other key coordinating decisions. 


But let's keep this analysis simple for now. 


What is the likelihood that you live beyond age 79? Very good. 


Statistically speaking, everyone reading this article has a 50% or better chance of living beyond 79. In fact, if you are 65 years old, your life expectancy might be much longer than you think. 

Life Expectancy of a 65 yr old

The average 65-year-old male has a 50% chance of living beyond 87. A female has a 50% chance of living beyond 89. If you're married, there is a 50% chance one of you will live to 92 and a 25% chance one of you will live to 98!


Speaking of married couples, you may want to consider one more variable when calculating your breakeven age...


The Importance of Considering Spousal Survivorship Benefits


When talking with retirees (particularly men), an objection I hear is, "I've got a heart issue or high blood pressure or [insert health condition], there is no way I'm making it past 79."


When deciding on when to file for Social Security benefits, it's not all about you; it's about your spouse too. 


Let me give you a quick example of a fictional man named Dan. Dan was born in 1955 and is 65 years old. He owned a plumbing business for 40 years and made roughly $84,000 a year. His Social Security benefit at each age is: 



  • 62 - $1,539/mo - $18,468 per year
  • Full Retirement Age - $2,467/mo - $29,604 per year
  • 70 - $3,724/mo - $44,688 per year


*These numbers and the numbers to follow are inflation-adjusted according to the SSA guidelines


Between these filing ages, when does Dan break even. 


Age 75 is the first year Dan would be better off filing at his Full Retirement Age (age 66 + 2 months). 

The following year, age 76, is the first year that delaying to 70 overcomes the total benefit value of taking at 62. However, taking at Full Retirement Age is the winner. 

As we discussed above, age 79 is the breakeven age when delaying to 70 becomes the optimal choice. 

At the beginning of this section, however, we touched on survivorship benefits. Well, Dan is married to his high school sweetheart Diane. Dan was originally going to file at 62 and be done with it until we showed up how big of a disservice it would be to Diane.


If you married, at the death of a spouse, you can continue to take your benefit or switch to the higher of the two benefits. These are called survivorship benefits. 


Dan was the breadwinner of the house and we had Dan take a longevity quiz to get an idea of his life expectancy. He has a mild heart condition that lowered his life expectancy to 84. We showed the table below to Dan that instantly made him decide to delay to 70. 

One of the single most important things we hear from married retirees is, "If I pass away, I want to make sure my spouse never has to worry about running out of money."


Well, the #1 way to accomplish this is with Social Security. 


At Dan's passing at 84, if he took Social Security at 62, only $33,187 would pass on to Diane. If he delayed to 70, almost double would pass on to Diane, nearly $65,000 per year!


--------------------------------------------


These are just 2 of the 15 critical factors you must consider before deciding when to file for Social Security. Did this article make you pause and rethink your filing strategy?


Want to learn about the other 13 factors and how they may prevent you from making a costly Social Security mistake?

By Tony Hellenbrand 30 Jun, 2020
Lately I’ve been getting asked how I was able to “Call the Bottom” in late March. I want to make something clear: I didn’t. If you go back and look at the article from March 16th or read the email I sent out to subscribers on the 26th, (pure dumb luck), I ran a bad case, a best case, and a base case valuation on the S&P 500. I arrived at a base case valuation of 2,950, and at the time the S&P was hovering around 2,300, so we started recommending clients initiate buying plans. These plans did not mean “This is the bottom” or “Go all in.” Far from it. Many of our clients were buying several days before the precise bottom, and several days and weeks after. Regardless of how clearly I try to make this point (that we simply were buying something the math said was likely cheap) this morning my inbox is chock full of people asking what I think about valuations now. Are we in a bubble? Is the market ahead of the fundamentals? Are we going to double dip? Will the market crash? Will we need a second stimulus? Maybe. I have no idea. Here’s what I know, when you accumulate all of the available earnings estimates and make a conservative estimate of fair value, you end up with a fair value of about 3,060 on the S&P 500. As I type this we sit at 3,080. Regardless of whether the number is 2,950 or 3,060 or 3,080 or 3,150, any way you slice it, we’re at fair value, now. Analyst Earnings Estimates:
stealth taxes
By Eric Sajdak 28 May, 2020
It is your right as an American to (legally) pay the least amount in taxes that you owe—nothing more, nothing less. But in recent years, Congress has made a concerted effort to shift the IRS code and levy you with taxes you didn't even know you were paying. We call these "Stealth Taxes." These changes are never talked about by your congressman (or woman). They lie deep within the tax code and can potentially cost you significantly unless you learn about how to avoid them. In this article, we cover three of those "Stealth Taxes" and what you can do to minimize or avoid them altogether.
By Tony Hellenbrand 01 Apr, 2020
Greenwich, CT. May 2008. Feels like forever ago. Another life. Hard to believe it was just over a decade ago. My first “Real” job. Analyst for S.N. Phelps & Co., a firm that managed money for a bunch of insurance companies. In the open office environment, my boss, the firm’s proprietor, the late Stanford Phelps, sat directly across the desk from me. After exchanging pleasantries and sipping my coffee, Stan asked me a question: “What assets are risk free?” As with all of his questions, it was a test, a teaching moment and a trap, all rolled into one. I knew the academic answer of U.S. Treasuries wouldn’t cut it, here. My mind raced. I knew Stan was a well known student of George Patton and demanded fast answers, even if incorrect. “There aren’t any.” I answered, praying for my job. Thankfully I had a month-to-month lease. Please don’t fire me. Please don’t fire me. Please don’t fire me. He smiled “That’s an ok answer…” I exhaled. “But there’s a better one,” Stan continued, “EVERY asset is risk-free IF you buy it cheap enough. This building. If I bought it for a nickel, is there really any way I lose money on it? Even if I do, I lose a nickel. If I buy Manhattan for a buck, can that really hurt me?” “No.” I answered. “Even if it goes up and down in value 95% every day, it doesn’t matter.” Stan smiled and pounded the desk with glee, “That’s exactly right!” Will I make the case that stocks are risk-free at these levels? No. Definitely not. However, there is a price where they are so cheap that it’s difficult to lose. Is that level 20,000 on the Dow? No. But some individual names are already getting down to the point where someone beginning a buying plan from these levels that can stick it out for a few years is going to make generational wealth. “Buys of a lifetime.” According to Kyle Bass’s recent CNBC interview where he exclaimed “You can be a value buyer again!” This concept of price and risk can also work against you. Return-free risk. If you paid $1 Trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) for the device you’re reading this article on, there’s realistically a 100% chance you lose all the money. I would argue we’re seeing this in the market right now, in the form of bonds. As I type this, the 10 year Treasury is paying 0.63%. An investor buying a 10 year Treasury today is paying 158x earnings for an asset that can’t grow earnings for 10 years. If you own bonds today... Why? So-called “Safety” is ludicrously over-priced at these levels. How dangerous is a stalwart like Clorox (CLX)? The chart would say it’s not nearly as dangerous as the rest of the market, holding up well the last few weeks. You “only” have to pay 27x earnings and collect a 2.42% dividend, essentially 4x as good of a value as bonds. Not cheap enough? Diageo, one of the largest liquor distillers in the world, is currently at 19x trailing earnings. Put differently, Diageo, a large, stable, growing business, has an earnings yield over 5%. Why accept 0.86%? Not cheap enough? Let’s get real crazy. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is trading at 17x earnings. That’s a 5.9% earnings yield. Is more trouble ahead? Yes. Will some of them fall to zero? Yes. Is the bottom in? Who knows. (probably not.) All I know is if you can wait 10 years, I’ll take 5.9% over 0.63% every time.
More Posts
Share by: