Your financial advisor is wrong about Social Security: Claiming early at 62 may not be best for you.

Claiming Social Security early is often the WRONG financial strategy. But what if that is what your "financial advisor" has recommended? New research suggests that this advice may actually not be in YOUR best interests, but in the best interest of the advisor. Listen in as we discuss the bias that some financial people have when it comes to guiding people on Social Security.
Research paper discussed in this podcast: Biased Advice? THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS’ COMPENSATION AND SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT BENEFIT CLAIMING DECISIONS (Retirement Management Journal. Volume 12, Number 1, 2023) papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...
Dolphin Financial Radio is a fun and informative podcast on retirement planning issues. This is not financial advice. Please seek professional guidance before implementing these ideas or strategies:
www.dolphinfinancialgroup.com
Investment advisory services offered through Dolphin Wealth Management Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor in the state of Florida. Insurance products and services are offered through Dolphin Insurance Inc., Dolphin Wealth Management Inc, and Dolphin Insurance Inc. are affiliated companies doing business as Dolphin Financial Group.
For more information on this podcast:
www.dolphinfinancialgroup.com...

[@commonsense6967]

This channel is very enlightening.

[@stevebc957]

What percentage of financial advisors are advocating this, almost everyone I see says wait till FRA at a minimum.

[@Dolphinfinancialgroupfl]

A good question which this study doesn't answer. It does suggest how the advisor gets paid influences the Social Security recommendation.

[@kbrabson]

Everyone's situation is different of course. One thing that isn't spoken about much is quality of life at the point of break even. Money has less "value" if you're not able to get the maximum amount of utility out of it. Old age isn't kind to most people.

[@Dolphinfinancialgroupfl]

Spending early in retirement is definitely up on the priority list for many.

[@abr7192]

There are many people who are on the lower economic levels. They don’t have pensions and can’t afford financial advisors. They take social security at 62 because they need the money to survive! They don’t have alternative sources of income.

[@keithmachado-pp6fv]

Good video. I view SS as a deferred annuity that I have already paid for. I will defer to 70 for two main reasons. 1. A hedge/insurance. I took the lump sum pension instead of the annuity so if I defer SS and live a long life it offsets missing out on the pension annuity. If I die early my heirs get the lump sum pension. 2. Since at least 15% of SS is not taxable at the federal level and zero is taxed in my state, if I am in the 24% fed and 6% state, my total tax on other income is 30% vs 20% at most for SS, thus I want to maximize that monthly amount and the COLAs. 3. Deferring allows me to live off my 401k for the next 6 years, lowering future RMDs.

[@Dolphinfinancialgroupfl]

Your points are spot on. We go into detail on spending down a 401k to delay SS here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4GVYoWrmsSsmLssi=xCcYsP_shybunYjM

[@ptk7240]

Thats fine if you dont mind giving up 108,000 +

[@commonsense6967]

@@ptk7240How are you giving it up, unless you die early?

[@briand4000]

Take it early to take the heat off investments. Every day on this earth is a gift. Longevity is not a given. I'm taking at 62 or 63, with high earnings over my lifetime, it will still be mid $2k's for me.

[@southernc4919]

If you have a financial advisor you are being screwed, you just don’t know it. High fees, expensive funds, subpar performance, lots of trading and taxes

[@charleslemaire8137]

You mention your grandfather waiting until FRA in 1965. Note that DRCs were not introduced until 1972 and were only 1% until raise to 3% in 1977. Only person born after 1943 received the 8% DRC we have today. He likely made the correct choice not to delay for no benefit!

[@Dolphinfinancialgroupfl]

Very interesting point. Tony's grandfather turned 65 in the mid to late 80s, so he may have been eligible for some DRCs. I don't think he expected to live to 102 though!

[@charleslemaire8137]

@@Dolphinfinancialgroupfl - Yeah, but it is the 8% that kicks S&P, given risk. It would likely not be the better choice. My Father turned 65 in '65, so when I got close, it did a bit of research to see how it affected different ages.

[@randy74989]

Exactly, it requires multivariate analysis. 1) What is your health situation?; 2) What is your spouse's age?; 3) Are you still working?; 4) Have you saved enough money to live without a social security check?; 5) Do you have a pension fund plus a 401k account for your retirement?; and 6) You should at least wait until your full retirement age (FRA) or age 70, which will increase your benefit by 8% per annum after your FRA calculated monthly. And, lastly, if your spouse is 10 years or more younger than you, you should file and suspend to collect a higher payout, which your spouse will inherit when you die.

[@Dolphinfinancialgroupfl]

Great points. The "file and suspend" strategy was eliminated in 2015, but the idea of maximizing a survivor benefit by delaying is key.

[@randy74989]

@@Dolphinfinancialgroupfl I meant: If you are already entitled to benefits, you may voluntarily suspend retirement benefit payments up to age 70 for any reason including maximizing a survivor benefit.

[@charleslemaire8137]

@@randy74989 - If you intend to do Roth Conversions, SS income does add to the income pile.

[@stephendove2850]

Why is Tony Shore listed as with Dolphin Financial? He is just a paid facilitator who works with many people who call themselves FAs to promote their businesses and approach. I was recently in contact with a commission based FA (insurance agent) who uses him to promote the company line on a whole host of absurd insurance products and schemes to divert money to insurance companies and third party money management.

[@coastalhillbilly3419]

Taking social security asap before the grifters in charge reduce benefits, this threat becomes more realistic by the day as the trillions in debt accelerates

[@pilarskifamily899]

What is the average commission on AUM? We are paying 1.5 percent.

[@seanquigley6000]

1%

[@randy74989]

You are overpaying, period. Calculate that out over 20 years on $1,000,000 and see what you are paying. It's ridiculously high at ~$242,000. You should pay no more than 0.40% for only investment advice/portfolio management. If they are providing tax (including preparing and filing your taxes annually), estate planning, financial planning, and investment advice/management, then I "might" accept 1.5% as an AUM fee. Otherwise fugetaboutit.

[@jackyee1291]

Anyone with even a modest amount of savings or pension, should be cognizant of the fact that some future Republican Congress could use a means test of their benefits. Or reduce benefits using some other tricky method. I took mine at 62 and 1 month because of that fact. At least I am less dependent on the dysfunctional Congress to support me.

[@stephendove2850]

Simply because you took SS doesn’t protect you against potential means test of benefits in the future.

[@charleslemaire8137]

Given the way the Bend-Points and Tax on SS benefits work, it is already somewhat means tested. SS is part socialistic Welfare; old protester avoidance plan...

[@commonsense6967]

Joe Biden, a DEMOCRAT, has lawlessly mandated means testing on all kinds of wealth confiscation, beginning next year or in 2026.