A Crash Course in Social Security Maximization

Cost of living increases, claiming age, marital status and work history all complicate Social Security claiming strategies.

Art by Melinda Beck


The conventional wisdom about how someone should draw down their various assets to maximize retirement income—used by many of the big recordkeepers in their retirement tools and calculators—is that a person should take all their taxed money first until it’s gone, and only then draw down tax-deferred money. Then, a person should take the tax-exempt dollars.

According to William Meyer, founder and managing principal of Social Security Solutions, this rule of thumb is pervasive, but new analytical tools show this is actually typically the opposite approach of what would maximize lifetime wealth for a given individual.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Why is this? According to Meyer, when one retires, on average he will indeed drop into a lower tax bracket, because he is moving out of his prime earning years and instead starting to live off savings. But when this individual soon reaches and starts drawing full Social Security at 70—likely just a few years after retirement—that’s right about the time when required minimum distributions (RMDs) kick in. When that happens at age 72 1/2, many retirees’ income jumps pretty significantly, and as a result the Social Security benefits that they waited so patiently to claim will be taxed at potentially up to 85%, because this rate is based on overall income including withdrawals from tax-deferred retirement accounts, Meyer warns.

Given this fact, by instead first winnowing down the tax-deferred 401(k) or IRA assets, while waiting to file for full Social Security, this potentially reduces the lifetime impact of RMDs and reduces the taxes, potentially quite significantly, on the net income from Social Security.

As Meyer and others agree, Social Security claiming is always a complicated matter to discuss in the abstract, but there are some general rules and principles to know. The first consideration when it comes to maximizing Social Security income is to work for at least 35 years, as the benefit takes into consideration one’s highest 35 years of income history. The second, even more important consideration, is when to start taking Social Security. Benefits are reduced by up to 25% if an individual claims before full retirement age, but are increased by up to 35% if a person delays claiming past full retirement age, up to age 70. Roughly speaking, every year one waits to take Social Security, the benefit goes up by 8%.

Experts agree that the better one’s health and the longer the individual and spouse expect to live, the more it makes sense to take Social Security later—as long as they are not putting strain on investments. Another factor is employment. If someone plans to continue working, it may make sense to delay taking Social Security, as benefits are reduced by $1 for every $2 earned before full retirement age. This changes to $1 for every $3 earned at full retirement age for earnings over $45,360.

Recently, Edward Jones published an analysis that found that if a person decided to start taking Social Security early, at age 62, their first annual benefit would be $18,000. By age 80, adjusted for a 3% cost-of-living increase every year, that would reach $30,633. For a person whose full retirement age is 66 and starts Social Security that year, their benefits would start at $26,988 and rise to $40,812 by age 80. Someone starting their Social Security benefits at age 70 would receive $40,092 in the initial year and $53,783 by age 80.

Kimberly Blanton, author of the Squared Away Blog published by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, says one area where workers are not making the most of Social Security is the spousal and survivor benefits. She points to the fact that two out of three men and women in a recent survey by RAND were unaware of the fact that a divorced person who was married for at least 10 years is entitled to a deceased spouses’ survivor benefit. In fact, the divorced spouse would even get the benefit if the other spouse had remarried, Blanton notes.

“In the case of couples who were still married when the spouse died, the marriage had to last only nine months for the survivor to get the benefit,” Blanton says. “Fewer than half of the people surveyed by the RAND researchers were aware of this rule.”

According to Blanton, there is also little understanding that the Social Security survivor benefit is based on the higher-earning spouse’s work record. Today, this is still typically the husband, meaning that a wife who used to work and is collecting Social Security based on her work record is eligible to switch to her husband’s greater benefit after he dies.

“To make the switch in this particular case, the widow must file with the Social Security Administration either online or at a local office,” Blanton says. “If the wife never worked and is at retirement age, she will automatically start receiving her late-husband’s check.”

Blanton says that unmarried partners sometimes operate under a misconception too.

“Three out of four think, incorrectly, either that unmarried people can get the survivor benefit, or they don’t know,” she says. “One thing to note about this study is that Americans of all ages were surveyed, and it is not surprising that young adults would have little knowledge of program benefits intended for widows. But age doesn’t seem to bring wisdom. The results were equally dismal in a similar earlier survey of individuals who were at least 50 years old.”

Just over one-quarter of adults think they can live comfortably on Social Security alone, according to a survey by the Nationwide Retirement Institute. The survey shows 70% think they are eligible for full benefits before they actually are. On average, they incorrectly think they will be eligible for full benefits at age 63, and 26% think that even if they claim early and receive lower benefits, these benefits will rise once they reach full retirement age.

On average, retirees say they began collecting Social Security at age 62. The reason they gave for taking Social Security benefits early were to pay for living expenses (61%), to supplement their income (36%), or because they faced health issues (22%).

“Social Security is one of the most confusing retirement topics that America’s workers are facing today,” says Tina Ambrozy, president of sales and distribution at Nationwide. “Our survey reveals that fewer than one in 10 older adults know what factors determine the maximum Social Security benefit an individual can receive.”

Sixty-six percent of future retirees worry about Social Security running out of money in their lifetime. Forty percent think there will be cuts under the current administration, and 83% think the Social Security system needs to be reformed.

Nudging Participants to Rebalance Portfolios

For those plans where participants are left to make investment decisions on their own, experts agree, it is critically important for advisers to educate them about the proper diversification.

Art by Dalbert Vilarino


Retirement plan advisers may agree that pairing automatic enrollment with a target-date fund (TDF) as the default investment is the ideal way to ensure that participants’ assets are properly invested at the outset and continue to be so throughout the years. But the 2018 PLANSPONSOR Defined Contribution Benchmarking Report shows that less than half, 46.3%, of employers use automatic enrollment.

For those plans where participants are left to make investment decisions on their own, experts agree, it is critically important for advisers to educate them about the proper diversification.

“We have done studies on rebalancing and we have found that the first thing you have to get right is asset allocation because that drives 90% of returns,” says Mike Swann, client portfolio manager, defined contribution team at SEI Investments in Oaks, Pennsylvania.  “That is critically important and needs to be tied to your goal.”

This is why SEI strongly recommends target-date funds (TDFs) and automatic enrollment to the plans it serves, Swann says. To get participants to select an asset allocation that is right for their age and risk tolerance and to do periodic rebalancing to ensure the portfolio is tied to the participants’ original goals is nearly impossible, Swann says. He notes that the National Association of Retirement Plan Participants’ recent participant engagement study found that less than half of participants look at their retirement plan website or call into the call center.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

“Use participants’ inertia to their advantage by embracing automatic enrollment, auto escalation and TDFs,” Swann recommends. “TDFs automatically rebalance over years, and some even take participants through retirement. If an employer has a rich plan, custom TDFs are a great way to get there, and have become more cost-effective.”

For those plans without automatic enrollment and a TDF, balanced fund or managed account as the qualified default investment alternative (QDIA), it is incumbent on the adviser to help each participant determine what asset allocation is right for them, says Josh Sailar, a certified financial planner with Miracle Mile Advisors in Los Angeles. That doesn’t necessarily mean a 60/40 portfolio split between equities and fixed income, he says.


Rather, “it’s an individual decision that depends on how much you are saving overall, how much you are deferring into the plan, how long you have to save and when you are going to need the money,” Sailar says. Generally speaking, however, the longer the savings horizon, the greater the exposure to equities a participant should have, he adds. “For shorter periods of time, participants should dial back their equity exposure.”

Ken Catanella, managing director, wealth management at UBS in Philadelphia, agrees: “The need to set an asset allocation to meet one’s aging and, thus, becoming more risk-averse over time is at the core of a disciplined rebalancing and asset allocation program. Every client is different in seeking their financial goals. Considerations such as age, risk tolerance, financial status and time horizons all, together, make each individual’s situation very different.”

For these very reasons, Wintrust Wealth Management sits down with each participant to help him determine what should be his individual asset allocation, says Dan Peluse, director of retirement plan services at the practice, based in Chicago. “The allocation should be age- and risk-appropriate based on his goals,” Peluse says. “This is an individual discussion we have with participants, to review their individual circumstances.”

Once the proper asset allocations are determined, Miracle Mile Advisors educates participants about the need to periodically rebalance portfolios to rein them back into meeting initial goals, Sailar says. “Participants need to make sure the risk they want to take is actually the risk they are taking,” he says. “Certain asset classes can become over- or under-weight over time.”

Amr Hanafy, research associate at BCA Research in New York, says, “Rebalancing is definitely recommended for all investors, perhaps more so for retirement plan participants than others, as they are more likely to be concerned with capital preservation than capital appreciation.”

While a portfolio that is not rebalanced will have a greater allocation to equities during a bull market and, therefore, outperform a rebalanced portfolio, “all rebalanced portfolios outperformed an unbalanced portfolio during periods leading up to market corrections and recessions,” Hanafy says, citing a BCA Research study which looked at three main rebalancing scenarios of a simple 60/40 portfolio since 1973.

Rebalancing becomes even more critical once an investor reaches age 40 or 45, says Tina Wilson, head of investment solutions innovation at MassMutual in Enfield, Connecticut. “There are two main components to retirement plans: returns and the risk you take,” Wilson says. “By not rebalancing his portfolio, a participant could inadvertently take on too much risk, which would expose him to a market correction. This is important because, statistically, as participants reach age 40 to 45, how much risk they take on is far more important than how much they save. When you are young, the most important thing is how much you save.”

There are two main approaches a participant could take to rebalancing, Wilson says. One is time-based, and could be done on a quarterly, semi-annual or annual basis and be set up automatically through the recordkeeper. The second would be based on style drift, but because that would require participants to be proactive, Wilson views the former as preferable.

“For those participants who are engaged and working with an adviser, the percentage of portfolio methodology can be successful,” she says.

«