Financial guru Suze Orman offers a wealth of helpful, sometimes surprising insights for savings gearing up for retirement. Even if you’re not a big fan of Suze, her views and opinions are worth listening to, especially if you’re unsure as to when the perfect time to start receiving Social Security benefits.
In a prior piece, I highlighted Dave Ramsey’s view that retirees should opt to take Social Security at 62, the youngest age one can opt-in. Indeed, choosing not to delay gratification may be a rather aggressive move that’s not right for those with a low risk tolerance and a rather limited nest egg for their age. Ramsey’s points were pretty clear: taking Social Security sooner will allow one greater financial wiggle room and perhaps even a good shot at better returns compared to those who take Social Security at 70.
Most notably, investing one’s funds received at 62 in a passive investment product — think a mutual fund or index exchange-traded fund (ETF) — may just allow one to stay flexible and on the growth track. However, this strategy introduces significant sequence of returns risk, where a market downturn in the early years of retirement can permanently damage a nest egg. Furthermore, investing early benefits can trigger the “Social Security tax torpedo,” as the resulting dividends and capital gains raise provisional income and cause up to 85% of those benefits to become taxable.
An S&P 500 ETF that boasts a low expense ratio is more than enough to help retirees continue building their nest egg as they put their Social Security benefits to work as soon as possible. Additionally, I noted that skilled contrarian investors would likely be better off with the means to buy stocks on those inevitable market sell-offs that come one’s way.
I’d be more inclined to stick with Ramsey, who’s on the more aggressive extreme (take Social Security at 62), over Orman’s conservative extreme (who recommends waiting until 70 to receive the maximum benefit).
The case for taking Orman’s advice by choosing to opt into Social Security later
That said, if you’re a retiree or soon-to-be retiree who’s nervous about market volatility, it may make sense to take all market risk off the table by taking Social Security later rather than taking it sooner and investing the amount you won’t need in retirement. That’s when Orman’s strategy could be the better course of action.
Rather than viewing this as a rigid choice between age 62 and age 70, a viable alternative is the “bridge strategy.” Under this approach, retirees draw down traditional pre-tax retirement accounts, such as 401(k)s or IRAs, between ages 62 and 70. This creates a self-funded revenue stream that allows the core Social Security benefit to compound by 8% annually risk-free, while simultaneously shrinking pre-tax balances to lower future Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) and Medicare premium surcharges.
Either way, the “Social Security norm” for many is to take Social Security benefits once they’re officially retired. For some, it’s 62; for others, it’s closer to 70. Regardless, one opts into social security once they’re officially retired. Indeed, it’s a simple plan that makes sense for many people, especially since one needs the income supplement once they’re no longer on the job.
Suze Orman claims buying into the Social Security “norm” could be costly. She’s right.
Orman argues that subscribing to such a “norm” could cost retirees dearly, especially for those who retire in their earlier 60s and take benefits at 62. The standard 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) stands at 2.8%, bringing the average retirement benefit to $2,071, but rising healthcare costs—including a 9.7% spike in Medicare Part B premiums to $202.90—can quickly erode early benefits, supporting Orman’s push for a larger guaranteed baseline.
Furthermore, claiming early while continuing to work part-time or consult triggers strict statutory penalties. For individuals under full retirement age, the earnings clawback threshold is $24,480, meaning the government withholds $1 in benefits for every $2 earned over the limit, making early collection a mathematical blunder for the semi-retired.
By delaying Social Security benefits until 70, benefit amounts can rise in the ballpark of 8% annually. That’s a solid return, which Orman points out is risk-free. Sure, a retiree who takes benefits before 65 could score far better than 8% by investing the proceeds in the S&P 500 or individual stocks they deem as undervalued. However, such a return will entail bearing some degree of risk.
Though a lengthy investment horizon can help one mitigate some market risks, it’s still not free from risk. Sometimes, the smaller risk-free return is better than the superior risky return. And in the case of delaying Social Security benefits until 70, you’ll maximize your risk-free return.
Arguably, that’s the smart move for retirees who just aren’t comfortable with risk and would rather sleep comfortably at night knowing they’ll maximize their risk-adjusted returns.
Of course, if you retire at 62 and wait until 70 before opting into Social Security, you’ll be waiting a long time, perhaps too long, depending on your needs. In any case, Orman’s case for taking Social Security benefits makes a lot of sense when considering just how good a deal a high single-digit percentage risk-free return is.
Editor’s Note: This article was updated to include current financial figures regarding the cost-of-living adjustment and Medicare Part B premiums. It also expands on the market timing and tax risks associated with early investing strategies, outlines the mechanics of using pre-tax retirement accounts as a temporary income bridge, and details the current earnings test thresholds that penalize early benefit collection for semi-retired workers.
Top Gaining Stocks
Top Losing Stocks