FORTUNE -- Year-end festivities are approaching, with Hanukkah lights nearing their peak, Christmas lights going up, and the New Year's celebration almost upon us. So what better time than the season of light is there to talk about ... mortality?
No, I'm not raising this gloomy topic just to be contrarian at a time of widespread celebrations. I'm raising it in Fortune's Investor's Guide because one of the most interesting investment decisions that you may have to make (or may have already made) involves estimating how long you're likely to live.
This decision doesn't involve stocks or bonds. It involves Social Security retirement benefits.
Here's the deal, in grossly simplified form, which is the only way to deal with Social Security questions without bogging down. If you've got the requisite 10 years of employment (or have been married long enough to someone with the requisite 10 years), you can begin drawing Social Security retirement benefits at any time from ages 62 to 70. The earlier you begin taking money, the less money you get a year. The later you begin, the more you get.
For example, at 62, you get 75% of your normal retirement benefit. At 66, you get 100%. At 70 it's 132%. Each year you wait from 62 on increases your benefits by about 8%.
Social Security doesn't care when you begin taking your money, because people getting lower payments for longer periods cost the system the same as people getting a higher payment for shorter periods. But when you take your money can make a huge difference to you and your survivors, as you'll see.
There are drawbacks to taking benefits at 62 if you're employed. I discuss them and the assumptions on which this column is based at the bottom of the page. At 66, however, there are no penalties. That's when the decision becomes purely economic.
The conventional wisdom is to wait until you're 70 to draw benefits if you can afford to, because each year you wait increases your payments by about 8% -- think of waiting as longevity insurance. If you make it to your mid-eighties or longer, you would do better to wait. The rough math: If instead of getting 100% at 66 you start collecting 132% at 70, it takes 12½ years for that 32% difference to equal the four years of benefits you would have collected starting at 66.
So if you live to your mid-eighties or longer, you win big. But of course there's a risk: If you don't collect anything and die at, say, 69 and 11 months, you (and your survivors) get nothing. It's what's known in the insurance biz as mortality risk.
Once you're 66, it's hard to give up 8% a year, especially these days. But there's that pesky mortality risk: Both my parents died in their early seventies. So let me show you the middle path that my wife and I decided to follow. We began to collect Social Security two years ago, when I turned 67. (She's somewhat younger than I am.) So have we walked away from the prospect of higher income? Not totally.
We've been taking our monthly Social Security benefits and investing them, primarily in individual dividend-paying stocks. If we can earn 4% or 5% a year from these investments, it makes up for a good part of the 8% Social Security increase that we're forgoing. And who knows, maybe we'll earn even more. Meanwhile, it hedges our mortality risk and leaves our family better off if one or both of us don't make it to our eighties.
With luck, I'll be able to write a follow-up column 15 years from now and let you know how our hybrid Social Security strategy has turned out. But in deference to the season, I'll stop being depressing. Enjoy the year-end lights.
How it works
If you opt to take retirement benefits at ages 62 through 65 and 11 months, part of your benefit is deferred if you earn more than a certain amount -- currently $15,120 a year -- from working. Social Security defers one dollar from your benefit for every two dollars you earn above the threshold. The deferred amount goes to increase the benefits that you get starting at age 66 (or, under some circumstances, later).
There's a second earnings test, far more complicated than the first one, that applies to your earnings in the year that you turn 66. It involves how much you make in the months before your 66th birthday. I can't begin to explain it.
However, as long as you wait until you turn 66 (or later) to start taking benefits, neither test will pose a problem.
A further note: I can't help you straighten out any problems you might have with Social Security or help you understand what rules cover you. Please consult the Social Security Administration or an outside expert for help. This stuff can be very complicated, to say the least.
Here are the Social Security benefits that people born through Dec. 31, 1954 would get, as a percentage of their "primary insurance amount," by beginning to take retirement payments at ages ranging from 62 (the earliest allowable date) to 70 (the latest date).
In my column, I tried to keep things simple by saying that each year after 62 that you wait to collect benefits increases the benefit amounts by about 8%. Please note the "about." As you can see from the numbers above, it's not a straight line increase of 8% a year.
These numbers apply only to people born through the end of 1954. There are different numbers for people born in 1955 or later. The normal retirement age rises to 66 and 2 months for people born in 1955 and increases by two months annually until it reaches 67 for people born in 1960 and later.
Note: All the numbers here assume that Social Security's benefit formula remains unchanged. However, I expect the formula to change at some point for future recipients, and possibly even for current recipients like my wife and me, who are drawing maximum benefits for our category because my employers and I paid maximum Social Security tax for more than 35 years.
Source: Fortune, based on information from the Social Security Administration
A shorter version of this story appeared in the December 23, 2013 issue of Fortune.
It turns out that Americans in their sixties today have it better than any generation before them, but generations ahead have a less certain future.
FORTUNE – When the nation's financial system almost crashed back in 2008, it's easy to see why anyone approaching retirement would have panicked. They saw their lifelong savings plummet as home and stock prices spiraled. For 60-somethings, it seemed there wouldn't be enough time to make MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - May 20, 2013 5:00 AM ET
If it's fair to limit taxpayers' expense for retirement money being set aside by "the rich," it's vastly more fair to limit taxpayers' expense for Obama's own package.
FORTUNE -- It's a lot of fun to be able to make what you think are clear, simple points about the difference between what people in power propose for the likes of you and me, and what they get for themselves.
But every once MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - May 10, 2013 5:00 AM ET
BlackRock's CEO says that the U.S. may need to make retirement savings mandatory.
FORTUNE -- BlackRock Inc. chief executive Larry Fink said during a speech Tuesday that longer life spans and underfunded retirement plans are the defining challenge of our age, and went so far as to recommend that the U.S. consider making retirement savings mandatory.
Fink acknowledged that retirement under-funding is not a new issue, but times have changed and the MOREKatie Benner - May 7, 2013 2:20 PM ET
No one says the President doesn't deserve his benefits. But it's hard to get past his plan to limit savers to half the value of what he'll walk away with.
FORTUNE -- President Obama's proposal to limit the value of 401(k)s, pensions, and other tax-favored retirement accounts to about $3.4 million certainly sounds reasonable. After all, at a time of big budget deficits, we shouldn't subsidize "the rich" with tax breaks, MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - May 1, 2013 5:00 AM ET
Funds have underperformed at a time when they are drawing more and more money from middle class retirement accounts.Stephen Gandel, senior editor - Apr 19, 2013 11:51 AM ET
There's an upside to investing in property for the long haul. But beware the tax pitfalls.
By Janice Revell, contributor
FORTUNE -- With the housing market showing signs of stabilizing, investors are turning back to real estate. And an increasing number of affluent savers have been using their retirement accounts to purchase homes, rental apartments, and other properties. Done properly, such a strategy can generate good income with modest volatility. But MOREDec 18, 2012 5:00 AM ET
The nation's new president wants to roll the retirement age back to pre-Sarkozy days. Bon chance.
By Vivienne Walt, contributor
FORTUNE -- Though François Hollande has just unpacked his bags in the presidential palace since being voted into office, he might want to start planning for his life after. At 57, he is just shy of the retirement age he promised to implement. Generous public pensions have long been a French MOREJul 18, 2012 5:00 AM ET
Even the best plan can be drained dry by getting sick. Here's how to protect yourself with disability insurance.
By Janice Revell, contributor
FORTUNE – Let's say you're a diligent retirement planner, the type who maxes out his 401(k) and IRA. Odds are, however, that you devote little thought to protecting the value of your human capital -- that is, your ability to earn and save money. Ignore it at MOREJun 26, 2012 5:00 AM ET
Retirement plan providers have been overcharging investors for decades - creating a huge drag on returns. But new rules on fee disclosure should help drive down costs.
FORTUNE – If you're a typical 401(k) investor, perhaps you check your account now and then to see how your investments are doing. Or maybe you just let them ride. One thing is almost certain: You don't know how much you're paying in management MOREScott Cendrowski, writer - Jun 25, 2012 5:00 AM ET
|2 million Facebook, Gmail and Twitter passwords stolen in massive hack|
|Ron Paul: Bitcoin could 'destroy the dollar'|
|A new normal for government retirees|
|Pentagon to cut jobs, contracts by $1 billion|
|Top 10 U.S. cities for Chinese homebuyers|