OK, another question from me (LOL). While I have been reading finance blogs the past week, I came across a comment to someone's blog - I don't remember where - and the comment was short and sweet. It just said he had read that when it came to social security benefits, you would come out ahead by taking your benefits as soon as possible, and not waiting to apply for later, and then getting larger benefits.
This got me thinking. I always assumed it would be better to wait and then get larger payments. But as I have learned more about finance the past few months, I realized that getting money early could make a huge difference. (ie. read compound interest!)
Warning - math based analysis below...
So how could I prove this one way or another? I came up with a simplistic spreadsheet to work out the numbers.
Without getting into all of it, here is what I did. I took the payment numbers for retirement at 62, 65, and 70 from my most recent Social Security statement. I assumed simple interest compounded monthly.
OK, but how do I figure out the future worth of money? I decided to assume I had more money than needed, and I would invest all the social security money, just like I do a 401(k) now. And then I assumed a standard rate of return for all years (ok, very simplistic, but this is to get a ball park idea of the comparitive value of the payments). Using this idea, I then put together a spreadsheet that I could change the rate of return, and see at what point would be the break even point, that is ... I would get more from the later larger payments, instead of getting more money earlier.
And what I found surprised me. For the 62 vs. 70 payments, if I used a 4% RoR, the break even point would be 85 years old. In my mind, I figured 85 should be about the break even point. But 4% is supposed to be a very low rate of return! If I upped it to 6% (still on the low side), the break even age was 92! And if I used 8% (what most retirement calculators use as a default RoR)? There was no break even point, the numbers just kept diverging. And when I worked the numbers for age 62 vs. age 65 payments, the break even points were 83, 90, and again never breaking even. I always thought the rational break even age would be around 88 when taking an 8% RoR into account. Wow, was I wrong!
So where did this leave me? Well, its most likely I will want to spend at least some of the money I get when I retire. Also, this analysis doesn't take into account other factors, such as losing benefits if I work from 62 til 65 yeras of age, taxes, lost wages of not working those years, and other things I can't think of right now. Still... I guess this shows if I am laid off or lose my job in that range of age, I should apply for those benefits ASAP. I guess the Social Security people want me to apply for that money as fast as I can.
Am I supposed to retire early?
July 11th, 2006 at 03:18 am
July 13th, 2006 at 10:00 pm 1152824413
So the rule of thumb is to take the money and run as soon as it is available? According to your calculations, the older you get the less you receive? I guess the government banks on most of us dying before our 90s.
July 14th, 2006 at 03:35 am 1152844525
This was more of an exercise in computing present value on future SS payments, and finding out which payment schedule paid more up to your death under different RoI scenarios. Since most retirement calculations I've seen use 8%, I expected that with 8% RoI, there would be no difference in payouts at a median life expectancy (say around 90). Either the people working out the payments expect a lower RoI (possible), or they are hoping people will take the later payments to save the strain on the SS fund. I think SS payments also go up with Cost of Living adjustments, and that wasn't taken into account in my calculations either.
In any case, this was just something to consider.
July 14th, 2006 at 04:04 am 1152846277