By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel generally agrees that the optimal Social Security claiming strategy is highly personalized and depends on various factors such as health, life expectancy, liquidity needs, spousal benefits, and individual investment returns. They also highlight significant risks, including sequence of returns, policy changes, and potential means-testing, which could erode the benefits of delaying Social Security.
Risk: Sequence of returns risk and potential policy changes, such as means-testing or benefit cuts, pose significant threats to the 'wait until 70' strategy.
Opportunity: Tax-arbitrage opportunities, such as Roth conversions during bridge years, can potentially outweigh the 8% actuarial boost from delaying Social Security.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
You know Suze Orman, right? She's a financial advisor who's sold more than 30 million books. She's also a two-time Emmy Award-winning television host and creator of the Women & Money podcast. Millions heed her words, and she recently pointed out some "bad advice" on social media.
That advice was that it's best to claim your Social Security benefits at age 62, the earliest age at which you can do so. That is good advice, but only for some people, such as those in poor health who might live a shorter-than-average life and those who simply need that retirement income as soon as possible.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now, when you join Stock Advisor. See the stocks »
Most of the rest of us, she argues, should wait until age 70 to claim our benefits -- to maximize them. (It will also maximize our nearly annual Social Security cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs).)
Ample research backs her up. For example, a 2022 report published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) noted: "More than 90% [of retirees] should wait till age 70 [to claim Social Security benefits]. Only 10.2% appear to do so." The researchers added that "... virtually all American workers age 45 to 62 should wait beyond age 65 to collect."
Orman also addressed a common fear regarding Social Security -- that its coffers are running dry. It's true. The Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, in their 2026 report, have noted that:
The OASI Trust Fund is projected to become depleted in the fourth quarter of 2032, one quarter earlier than projected in last year's report. Upon reserve depletion in 2032, projected income is sufficient to pay 78% of scheduled benefits. This percentage declines gradually to 62% by 2100.
Yikes, right? Rest assured that there are ways to fix Social Security, and Orman says, "Claiming early does not protect you from future benefit cuts."
Each of us would do well to read up on Social Security and to think through our eventual claiming decision carefully. Know, too, that there are ways to beef up your benefits, especially if you're still working.
If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income.
One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these strategies.
View the "Social Security secrets" »
The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Optimal Social Security claiming is highly personalized, and a blanket call to wait until age 70 oversimplifies liquidity needs, health, and policy risk that can make early claiming sensible for many households."
The piece markets Social Security claiming as a universal ‘wait to 70’ win and nudges readers toward a promotional service. In reality, optimal timing is highly personalized: health, life expectancy, liquidity needs, spousal benefits, and how you invest elsewhere matter far more than a blanket rule. It also glosses over policy risk (trust fund depletion dates depend on reforms) and treats the $23,760 figure as guaranteed rather than a marketing hook. From a markets view, large shifts in when people claim can tilt retirement spending and asset allocations more than straight-line benefit math.
True, delaying to 70 can boost lifetime benefits for many, but the article understates the value of liquidity today, health uncertainty, and bequest goals that make earlier claiming sensible for a non-trivial subset.
"The 'wait until 70' strategy is mathematically superior on paper but ignores the catastrophic portfolio depletion risk if market volatility strikes during the bridge years."
The article correctly highlights the mathematical benefit of delaying Social Security, but it ignores the 'sequence of returns' risk for retirees. Relying on a 70-year-old claiming age assumes a portfolio can sustain 100% of withdrawal needs for eight years without Social Security income. If a market correction hits during those bridge years, the retiree is forced to liquidate assets at depressed valuations, potentially destroying more lifetime wealth than the delayed benefit increase captures. Furthermore, the 2032 insolvency date creates a political 'tail risk' that could lead to means-testing, rendering the 'wait until 70' strategy suboptimal for high-net-worth individuals who might see their benefits clawed back.
Delaying benefits acts as a guaranteed, inflation-adjusted annuity that outperforms almost any market-based investment, effectively providing a risk-free 8% annual return for every year delayed past full retirement age.
"Waiting until 70 is optimal for high-income, long-lived retirees, but the article obscures that claiming strategy cannot hedge against the 2032 trust fund depletion and likely future benefit cuts."
This article conflates two separate issues: optimal Social Security claiming strategy and the solvency crisis. The 90% figure from NBER is real, but it assumes longevity and ignores sequence-of-returns risk—someone claiming at 62 and investing the difference beats delayed claiming if markets surge early in retirement. The 2032 depletion date is accurate per SSA trustees, but the article implies waiting to 70 solves this (it doesn't). The '$23,760 bonus' is clickbait—that's just the difference between claiming at 62 vs. 70, not a hidden strategy. The real issue: most Americans *can't* afford to wait, and policy changes (likely tax increases or benefit cuts) will hit regardless of claiming age.
If you're in the bottom income quartile with poor health outcomes and high mortality risk, claiming at 62 is mathematically superior and ethically defensible—the article's framing toward waiting until 70 may harm the vulnerable most.
"Delaying claims to 70 concentrates exposure to pre-2032 benefit reforms that the article dismisses as fixable without quantifying the probability of cuts hitting later claimants harder."
The article pushes delaying Social Security to 70 as optimal for most, citing NBER data showing over 90% should wait. This overlooks that the 8% annual delayed retirement credit assumes no major legislative changes before 2032 depletion. Retirees locking in later claims face concentrated political risk if Congress enacts across-the-board cuts or means-testing rather than revenue fixes. The piece also glosses over personal investment returns that could exceed the implicit 8% SS growth rate for those with diversified portfolios. Claiming at 62 provides optionality against both health and policy shocks the article treats as edge cases.
The NBER modeling already incorporates longevity distributions and shows the break-even favors delay even under moderate cut scenarios, so policy risk may be overstated relative to individual mortality variance.
"The '8% risk-free return' from delaying is misleading; its value depends on mortality, survivor benefits, and policy risks, not a guaranteed outcome."
Gemini overstates the safety of delaying Social Security by calling it an '8% risk-free return.' The actuarial increase in benefits is real, but it isn’t a guaranteed investment return: its value hinges on life expectancy, survivor benefits, and whether you live long enough to recoup the foregone cash flows. Sequence of returns risk, policy risk (means-testing, cuts), and spousal timing can all erode the supposed floor. Not a universal play; personalization remains essential.
"Strategic early claiming facilitates tax-efficient Roth conversions that can provide higher net-of-tax returns than the 8% delayed retirement credit."
Gemini and Grok are debating the '8% return' as if it exists in a vacuum. They miss the tax-arbitrage opportunity: claiming early allows for strategic Roth conversions during the 'bridge years' before RMDs kick in. By shifting taxable income to lower-bracket years, you can lower your lifetime effective tax rate. This tax-alpha often outweighs the 8% actuarial boost, especially for retirees with significant traditional 401(k) balances who face a future 'tax bomb' at age 73.
"Roth conversion upside depends on having investable assets and stable tax law—both assumptions the article's readers likely can't guarantee."
Gemini's Roth conversion arbitrage is real but assumes access to capital during bridge years—exactly what sequence-of-returns risk threatens. If markets crater at 62, that tax-alpha evaporates. Also, the tax-bomb logic assumes RMDs remain unchanged; if Congress means-tests or taxes Social Security benefits differently post-2032, the conversion math flips. This isn't a flaw in the strategy, but it's not the universal tax lever Gemini implies.
"Roth conversion tax-alpha during bridge years is vulnerable to the same post-2032 legislative changes that create political risk for delayed claiming."
Gemini's Roth conversion arbitrage during bridge years assumes stable tax rules and no means-testing after 2032, yet that directly collides with the political risk of benefit changes or revenue reforms. If Congress alters taxation of Social Security or imposes income cliffs, the tax-alpha evaporates precisely when liquidity is tightest. This makes the strategy more fragile than presented, especially for those with large traditional balances who face both market and legislative shocks simultaneously.
The panel generally agrees that the optimal Social Security claiming strategy is highly personalized and depends on various factors such as health, life expectancy, liquidity needs, spousal benefits, and individual investment returns. They also highlight significant risks, including sequence of returns, policy changes, and potential means-testing, which could erode the benefits of delaying Social Security.
Tax-arbitrage opportunities, such as Roth conversions during bridge years, can potentially outweigh the 8% actuarial boost from delaying Social Security.
Sequence of returns risk and potential policy changes, such as means-testing or benefit cuts, pose significant threats to the 'wait until 70' strategy.