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.
A plan that could stiff Social Security recipients to pay down U.S. debt isn't just stupid. It's downright Madoffian.
FORTUNE -- Do you think it would be a good idea for the federal government to act like Bernie Madoff? To take money from people for decades, only to say, "Sorry, I'm out of cash," when it comes time to pay them what they're owed?
It's hard to imagine anyone who would think MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Sep 27, 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
It seemed like a great idea at the time: sweeping tax cuts that would never go away because of an endless economic boom. The day of reckoning has come.
FORTUNE -- What seems brilliant today can come back to bite you in the butt tomorrow when the world changes. That's my major takeaway from the fiscal cliff soap opera.
It's a lesson that Republican tax-cutting zealots are now learning, painfully, as their MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Dec 21, 2012 5:00 AM ET
If we're going to cut benefits -- which is likely inevitable -- let's be careful to mitigate the impact on the less fortunate.
FORTUNE -- Well, there's at least one virtue to the depressing numbers that Social Security's trustees unveiled last week -- they prove that I was right in February when I wrote that the system's finances had deteriorated badly thanks largely to the energy price boosts created by Arab MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Apr 27, 2012 1:00 PM ET
It's an old trope: Tap the nation's wealthy to help the less fortunate in their autumn years. Too bad they're already tapped out.
FORTUNE -- It's almost time for one of Washington's rites of spring: the arrival of the new Social Security trustees' report. The report, which is usually issued in April, will show Social Security's finances deteriorating because of a higher-than-projected inflation adjustment for 2012. This is likely to touch MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Feb 29, 2012 5:00 AM ET
Inflationary fallout from the Arab Spring pushed up payouts to Social Security beneficiaries, leaving an already troubled system in even worse financial shape.
FORTUNE -- Washington was consumed for months by the debate of how to "pay" for this year's Social Security tax holiday, which cut the tax employees pay to 4.2% of their covered wages from the normal 6.2%.
But unnoticed amid the debate, Social Security's finances have deteriorated badly over MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Feb 23, 2012 9:19 AM ET
Social security tax cuts are probably a good idea, but we're going about them all wrong -- and our grandchildren will end up paying for it.
FORTUNE -- You know that life is getting very strange when something that you proposed as a joke becomes national economic policy. That's what has happened to an idea I tossed out years ago, in one of my more sarcastic moments, when I was arguing MOREAllan Sloan, senior editor-at-large - Dec 15, 2011 5:00 AM ET
Defense spending helped create today's fiscal problems. So why isn't it being considered seriously as a way to help fix them?
FORTUNE -- Throughout the drama that's stalled Washington lawmakers in raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit, there's been little talk of slicing military spending as Republicans call for big budget cuts. Reductions to Medicare, Medicaid and possibly Social Securityhave been the bigger focus.
The talks have reached a frenzy on Capitol Hill. MORENin-Hai Tseng, Writer - Jul 15, 2011 11:38 AM ET
Liberals don't want the White House to include Social Security cuts in the debt ceiling talks, but in 1972 they had a very different agenda when a Republican was president.
By Tory Newmyer, writer
FORTUNE -- Liberals on and off Capitol Hill have been howling since last Thursday, when word first leaked that the White House was open to Social Security cuts in a deficit reduction package.
Their objection to trimming benefits for MOREJul 13, 2011 11:25 AM ET
|Military retirees: You betrayed us, Congress|
|Instagram launches direct messaging|
|I work 4 jobs and I'm still struggling|
|Ford set for most aggressive expansion in 50 years|
|Don't fight it. Bitcoin has a bright future|