Why wait with drawing social security?

[lund]

Be careful with outdated information on the net and elsewhere. The rules changed not so many years ago. I think that Tallguy and Teen persuation may be right as to the new rules.



Once reason for a married couple to take the higher SS at 70 and the lower SS at FRA for that spouse is to make sure that the surviving spouse has a decent income after a medical spend-down, aiming to avoid old-age poverty.

After a spend-down, before becoming widowed, the healthier spouse would be allowed to keep one house, one car and one ring, household items, pre-paid burials and plots (for both), a very small cash savings, and an income which is livable on a tight budget, at least as long as nothing unexpected happens.
Life insurance probably has to be cashed in if possible. Annuities may have to be cashed in too.
The money allowed to live on may not be enough to keep a life insurance policy (without any "cash value" or cashing-in options) for the sick spouse, nor long-term care insurance for the remaining spouse.

After becoming widowed, the surviving spouse probably would have the house, the car, the ring, one pre-paid burial including plot left, the highest of the couple's SS incomes, any pensions of the survivor's, any survivor pensions from the late spouse's pensions, and any "surviving" life insurance.

But pensions are becoming increasingly rare, and the savings/investments meant to replace them get spent in the spend-down. So it is quite possible that the surviving spouse will get the highest SS to live from, plus any equity from downgrading the home, if possible (the widowed person needs somewhere to live, and staying put may be a good option).

Also, costs tend to go up over time, so making sure that the "spend-down proof" income is as high as possible (hence the claiming of the lower SS at FRA) probably is a good thing.



(Using trusts where allowed may be one way to try to go around spend-downs. However, remember that there are illnesses where the sick family member is comparably young and has a good chance of survival, but the costs exceed the lifetime health insurance benefit. Under those premises, also a trust may be spent if possible.)

[plugginaway22]

I never read about married couples who have basically the same SS estimates like we do.  Guess none of the who dies first scenarios matter.

[phil5185]

'''I expect to live a long time, and figure I'll collect more by waiting for the bigger payout. But mostly I view it as insurance.'''

"collect more", yes. But that isn't the goal, the goal is to "have" more.   You need to add in the time value of money. And that 'time' gives you 8 extra years to grow your money.

Eg, $2265/m, invested at 10%, for 20 years, is $1.7M.  But $3790/m , for 12 years at 10%, is only $1.0 M.

If you extent it out to 30 yrs (and 22 years),  it is $4.9 M in 30 yrs, or  $3.6 M in 22 yrs.

IMO, (a) makes more sense no matter how long you live.  (I retired at age 59 and started drawing SS at age 62 - I am now age 80, 18 years into plan (a).  So far, so good.)

[haapai]

Nov 15, 2019 16:13:18 GMT -5 saveinla said:

Based on this thread, I went to ssa.gov to check my numbers - when I go to the retirement calculator and put zero earnings from now on, it still gives me the same estimate if it would if I work for the rest until retirement.

Anyone notice this? Is there a better calculator that I can use?

I've never checked out the retirement calculator that you speak of, (it has an evil reputation) but I was able to grab my earnings record and the appropriate index to use and build myself a spreadsheet that depressed the hell out of me.  There's a big gap between the benefits that I have already earned and what social security projects for me because of the way that they assume that you will continue working and earning the same amount as was most recently reported. 

That number might be accurate if you already have over 35 years of reported earnings and your most current reported year of earnings was lower than any of your 35 best years after indexing. 

If this is not the case, yup, you might want to keep looking for a better calculator or do a whole lot of reading and figure out how to do the math on your own. 

FWIW, I haven't done enough math to figure out what my benefit would be if I stopped working today but retired at various ages.  So far, I've only done enough math to figure out that there's a big gap.  Translating that number into actual social security benefits is on a long to-do list.  Sadly, I might actually get around to doing that math if only to be able to tell myself how much another year of slogging has earned me. 

ETA:  If you do find a better calculator, will you please share it?  It would be nice to avoid doing the math on my own, or just to check and see if I had done it right, if I ever get around to it. 

[MN-Investor]

Nov 17, 2019 11:52:22 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

'''I expect to live a long time, and figure I'll collect more by waiting for the bigger payout. But mostly I view it as insurance.'''

"collect more", yes. But that isn't the goal, the goal is to "have" more.   You need to add in the time value of money. And that 'time' gives you 8 extra years to grow your money.

Eg, $2265/m, invested at 10%, for 20 years, is $1.7M.  But $3790/m , for 12 years at 10%, is only $1.0 M.

If you extent it out to 30 yrs (and 22 years),  it is $4.9 M in 30 yrs, or  $3.6 M in 22 yrs.

IMO, (a) makes more sense no matter how long you live.  (I retired at age 59 and started drawing SS at age 62 - I am now age 80, 18 years into plan (a).  So far, so good.)

But that's assuming a 0% tax rate on your pre-age 70 distributions so you have the full amount to invest.

I ended up taking survivor's benefits when my husband passed away last year. It no longer made sense to wait until age 70. But, starting this year, I'll be filing using single taxpayer rates. Based on interest and dividends from my taxable accounts along with RMDs from an inherited IRA, I will be paying taxes on 85% of my social security benefits at a 22% single taxpayer rate. For federal tax purposes, I have an effective tax rate of 18.7% on my social security wages. And that doesn't include the high taxes I pay to Minnesota.

[tskeeter]

Nov 15, 2019 14:17:00 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Nov 15, 2019 14:02:02 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

I think that in most cases, people who take SS at 62 don’t have other investments.  So, there is no investment return to be gained from taking SS early.

A second consideration would be the impact of taking early SS vs withdrawing money from your IRA account.  Driving up the value of your IRA account could force you to take RMD’s that put you into significantly higher tax brackets.

Then there is the issue of Medicare surcharges on high income retirees.  If your RMD’s and other income are too high, you might be penalized for your financial success.

Lastly, it may be appropriate to factor in taxes on SS benefits into your payoff calculations.

There are so many moving parts to this calculation that it would be really difficult to include every variable that affects the calculation.  And even worse, some variables, such as tax rates and brackets, RMD rules, and the like, will probably change during your retirement.  About all you can do make a rough estimate using the variables that you think are most relevant for your situation and go with it.

While I agree with most of this, I think this part is probably an irrelevant piece to the puzzle.  Let's say that rather than taking the SS money early, we withdraw the same amount from our IRA account.  So from age 62 to 69, we would pull out 285K to meet the equivalent SS amount.  At the time we hit age 70, our RMD distribution period is 27.4, meaning we have to take 3.65% of our money out that year (70 1/2 I know, just making it easy).  The EXTRA money we end up taking in RMD that year then is 3.65%*285K, or $10,400.  That's not enough to push you into a "significantly higher tax bracket" when accounting for the way the tables work.

Ideally, our money in the IRA has grown beyond that, so we end up taking more money out than that because maybe that 285k has doubled in size through good investments.  Ok, even better!  We have to take out $20,800 which indeed might result in us paying more taxes...but that's a GREAT problem to have if we're paying more taxes because we made a lot more money.  We've already established that money is growing VERY slowly as an imputed interest rate if we just let it sit in unclaimed SS.  

It's a bit of a Catch-22 situation.  If you have SO much money in your IRA that you don't even need to take it out when you're at RMD age, because you don't need it to support yourself (which under your situation would mean you would want to wait on SS to deplete the IRA a little) then you're likely in a situation where you should actually ABSOLUTELY take the SS money early at 62, because you have enough money to invest more aggressively and try to grow that money.  On the flip side, you should be more likely to take the money at 62 if you are shorter on funds and therefore being much more conservative in your investments because you need the money in a shorter timeframe.  

You’re right about the Catch-22.  We’re finding that if your portfolio is IRA heavy, it doesn’t really take all that big a portfolio to put you in a income we don’t need situation at RMD time. 

[teen persuasion]

Nov 17, 2019 11:52:22 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

'''I expect to live a long time, and figure I'll collect more by waiting for the bigger payout. But mostly I view it as insurance.'''

"collect more", yes. But that isn't the goal, the goal is to "have" more.   You need to add in the time value of money. And that 'time' gives you 8 extra years to grow your money.

Eg, $2265/m, invested at 10%, for 20 years, is $1.7M.  But $3790/m , for 12 years at 10%, is only $1.0 M.

If you extent it out to 30 yrs (and 22 years),  it is $4.9 M in 30 yrs, or  $3.6 M in 22 yrs.

IMO, (a) makes more sense no matter how long you live.  (I retired at age 59 and started drawing SS at age 62 - I am now age 80, 18 years into plan (a).  So far, so good.)

The goal could be have more.  Or it could be have enough.  Then there's also have more left to spend (after taxes).

My view of taking the higher SS benefit later is partly so I have enough.

But waiting has another benefit: the opportunity to make incremental Roth conversions at a low income (zero or low taxes) for years before claiming SS.  This lets me shift our fully taxable tIRA balances to tax free Roth IRA balances, reducing future RMDs.  That will also possibly reduce the amount of our SS benefits that are taxed.  Even if I can't get the taxes on our SS benefits reduced (because of inflation eating away at the fixed $ SS tax bands), SS benefits are at max only 85% taxable, vs 100% taxable tIRA withdrawals.

Thus Roth converting and/or spending down tIRA balances before claiming SS will allow me to reduce our taxes owed in the future (when collecting SS plus RMDs), so we have more available to spend for the same income.

[saveinla]

Nov 17, 2019 12:33:12 GMT -5 haapai said:

Nov 15, 2019 16:13:18 GMT -5 saveinla said:

Based on this thread, I went to ssa.gov to check my numbers - when I go to the retirement calculator and put zero earnings from now on, it still gives me the same estimate if it would if I work for the rest until retirement.

Anyone notice this? Is there a better calculator that I can use?

I've never checked out the retirement calculator that you speak of, (it has an evil reputation) but I was able to grab my earnings record and the appropriate index to use and build myself a spreadsheet that depressed the hell out of me.  There's a big gap between the benefits that I have already earned and what social security projects for me because of the way that they assume that you will continue working and earning the same amount as was most recently reported. 

That number might be accurate if you already have over 35 years of reported earnings and your most current reported year of earnings was lower than any of your 35 best years after indexing. 

If this is not the case, yup, you might want to keep looking for a better calculator or do a whole lot of reading and figure out how to do the math on your own. 

FWIW, I haven't done enough math to figure out what my benefit would be if I stopped working today but retired at various ages.  So far, I've only done enough math to figure out that there's a big gap.  Translating that number into actual social security benefits is on a long to-do list.  Sadly, I might actually get around to doing that math if only to be able to tell myself how much another year of slogging has earned me. 

ETA:  If you do find a better calculator, will you please share it?  It would be nice to avoid doing the math on my own, or just to check and see if I had done it right, if I ever get around to it. 

This is an article on how the SS payments work - he has his own example (based on early retirement) and if you are interested, you can calculate approximately how much you may get. I have only 19 years of history, but even if I work 20 more years my benefit will not increase too much. 

Based on his calculations, the numbers may be right for me.

rootofgood.com/early-retirement-social-security/

[teen persuasion]

Has anyone tried Open Social Security ?

It doesn't figure out your PIA, you need that to input. It is to figure out your optimal filing strategy, especially for couples.

[haapai]

Nov 17, 2019 14:49:24 GMT -5 saveinla said:

Nov 17, 2019 12:33:12 GMT -5 haapai said:

I've never checked out the retirement calculator that you speak of, (it has an evil reputation) but I was able to grab my earnings record and the appropriate index to use and build myself a spreadsheet that depressed the hell out of me.  There's a big gap between the benefits that I have already earned and what social security projects for me because of the way that they assume that you will continue working and earning the same amount as was most recently reported. 

That number might be accurate if you already have over 35 years of reported earnings and your most current reported year of earnings was lower than any of your 35 best years after indexing. 

If this is not the case, yup, you might want to keep looking for a better calculator or do a whole lot of reading and figure out how to do the math on your own. 

FWIW, I haven't done enough math to figure out what my benefit would be if I stopped working today but retired at various ages.  So far, I've only done enough math to figure out that there's a big gap.  Translating that number into actual social security benefits is on a long to-do list.  Sadly, I might actually get around to doing that math if only to be able to tell myself how much another year of slogging has earned me. 

ETA:  If you do find a better calculator, will you please share it?  It would be nice to avoid doing the math on my own, or just to check and see if I had done it right, if I ever get around to it. 

This is an article on how the SS payments work - he has his own example (based on early retirement) and if you are interested, you can calculate approximately how much you may get. I have only 19 years of history, but even if I work 20 more years my benefit will not increase too much. 

Based on his calculations, the numbers may be right for me.

rootofgood.com/early-retirement-social-security/

Thank-you!  I'm only a couple of paragraphs in and I'm loving it.  I'm much closer to possibly doing those calculations now. 

[Ombud]

Nov 15, 2019 1:26:51 GMT -5 Tiny said:

I'm thinking for someone who has enough income above and beyond SS .... I don't think there's a one size fits all "correct" answer as to when to take SS. You need to know your numbers ...

In fact no one has mentioned the scenario where a COLAd pension (military or other Gov't) is enough to live comfortably. I'm taking it at 70 just to save for LTC as I'm self-insured.

[hoops902]

Nov 15, 2019 22:41:20 GMT -5 schildi said:

Nov 15, 2019 9:04:23 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

If we use 90 and expect 0% return, we should take the payout at 70.  That holds true from 0-2.5% returns.  If we expect 2.6%-5.2% then we should take it at full retirement (66).  Anything higher we should take it at 70.

If we use 95 as an appropriate age, we should take the payout at 70 if we expect 0-3.7% returns.  If we expect 3.8%-5.9% then we should take it at 66.  Anything higher we should take it at 70.

Hoops, you meant "at 62" for the numbers in bold above, right?

Yes, good catch!  

[hoops902]

Nov 15, 2019 22:48:08 GMT -5 schildi said:

Hoops, did you use the numbers from the article for your calculations?

I deleted my spreadsheet from yesterday that included returns, but with 0 returns, the cut even is at about age 82 with having received a total of $540,000 or so.

In case of a spouse that didn't work, how does waiting help in the event of an early death of the breadwinner vs. taking the money early and investing it? (I am trying to get more and more educated about this)

Yes, I am assuming the money is not needed before age 70, I should probably have mentioned that in the OP. My plan would be to retire somewhere between age 55 - age 60, so even before the age of 62.

Ideally, I would have enough to never need SS, so my calculation is to max what we get for those who are benefiting after me and my DW are gone.

Yes, I used the numbers from the article.

In the case of a spouse that didn't work, the spouse who doesn't work (and on average, I would assume that's largely female, and largely younger than the person who has significant benefits) it means the non-working spouse can collect the SS the higher-earning spouse earned...and assuming they're younger it means they can collect it even longer.  If you take it before 70, you're locking in the non-working spouse to a lower payment for THEIR life (so it modifies the calculation since the life expectancy would be longer if you're getting "free years" based on how much younger the non-working spouse is.

[TheHaitian]

Here is my post from the thread I started from around this time last year using the numbers I got from social security:

Dec 2, 2018 23:42:25 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Do you include it in your overall calculations? I never do because I don’t want to have to depend on it but it will be nice to have ...

So after talking to someone I decided to add it up. My current social security #’s:
1) 62 - $1,859/month
2) 67 - $2,688/month
3) 70 - $3,334/month

So if I live to 95 using these numbers (all my grandparents passed away between 85 and 95 so always put 95 as worse case scenario) that means I would have collected:

1) $758,472
2) $935,424
3) $1,040,208

That is A lot of money (if still around).... and If I live anytime past 78 I am better off waiting till 67 to collect:

1) 78 - $379,236
2) 78- $387,072
3) 78 - $360,072

And if I live past 82, I am better off waiting till I am 70 to collect
1) 82 - $468,468
2) 82 - $516,096
3) 82 - $520,104

So 62 being 29 years away... who has the magic 8 ball for me to use? Help me then make a decision...

And now to those that are retired and receiving social security:
1) how much of your total monthly expenses does it cover?
2) would you be able to live off it only?
3) does it or did it make a difference?
4) has it helped you preserve more of your savings?

Ex: if I wait till 70 and get $40,008... that is the equivalent of 1Million in assets and withdrawing 4%/year.

The 70 number of course looks good but a lot depends. I work with a few people that are early 60’s (62-64); all waiting for 65 Medicare to retire. They seem in pretty good shape to me and I work with some that are older (70+).

I don’t plan on needing social security (you know what they say about man planning and God laughing) and based on our individual retirement accounts we are pretty well set and on track.

I say it depends on my health when I reach that age and how I like my job. Now at 34 turning 35 next year I decided to start focusing on my health more before it is too late.

-> 62 : I hate my job or poor health and insurance does not cost an arm and leg : will take then
-> 67 : that is my retirement age (per social security) and may be the optimal time for me to take it.
-> 70 : I will have to really really LOVE my job and get some sort of fulfillment out of it (currently not the case) or really down on my luck and needing the money badly.

[teen persuasion]

Argh! Retiring (quitting your job forever) and claiming SS are two separate actions. They do not need to be linked.

You can quit working and live off investments until you take SS years later. You can also file for SS while still working (though it might not be the best idea if most/all of it gets clawed back before FRA, or if the combined income pushes you in a higher tax bracket, or it it locks you into a lower SS payment for life).

Look at each action on its own! Just because I plan to have DH (higher earner) wait until 70 to claim doesn't mean he has to work until 70. Maybe 55-58 if my plans go well.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Nov 18, 2019 13:35:15 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Argh! Retiring (quitting your job forever) and claiming SS are two separate actions. They do not need to be linked.

You can quit working and live off investments until you take SS years later. You can also file for SS while still working (though it might not be the best idea if most/all of it gets clawed back before FRA, or if the combined income pushes you in a higher tax bracket, or it it locks you into a lower SS payment for life).

Look at each action on its own! Just because I plan to have DH (higher earner) wait until 70 to claim doesn't mean he has to work until 70. Maybe 55-58 if my plans go well.

All of this!  

It isn’t just about the money, but what the SS income does to your taxes when you add it to your RMD.  This also affects what you pay for Medicare.

If you have 2 professional incomes, income from other sources and have to take RMDs, it has the potential to cause IRMAA to kick in for BOTH Medicare benefits.  

It isn’t always about the $$ but the timing of receiving it and your sources of income.  

[TheHaitian]

Nov 18, 2019 13:35:15 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Argh! Retiring (quitting your job forever) and claiming SS are two separate actions. They do not need to be linked.

You can quit working and live off investments until you take SS years later. You can also file for SS while still working (though it might not be the best idea if most/all of it gets clawed back before FRA, or if the combined income pushes you in a higher tax bracket, or it it locks you into a lower SS payment for life).

Look at each action on its own! Just because I plan to have DH (higher earner) wait until 70 to claim doesn't mean he has to work until 70. Maybe 55-58 if my plans go well.

To you they may not be to be linked ... to me they are.

If I am still working at 62, 65 or 70 I have no intentions (health and finances willing) of filling for social security.

But if I retire, I prefer (at this time) to draw social security and let my money (what I have saved already) keep growing until I need it.

So to me they are linked because I see social security as replacing once source of income ( JOB / Employment) with another (social security).

And no I do not plan (currently) to retire at 62 and file at 70... rules would have to really change or someone magically create something that tells me when I am going to die. Until that happens, the current plan is quit working today, file for social security soon after-ish... ~30 some odd years down the road.

[TheHaitian]

Nov 18, 2019 14:10:21 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Nov 18, 2019 13:35:15 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Argh! Retiring (quitting your job forever) and claiming SS are two separate actions. They do not need to be linked.

You can quit working and live off investments until you take SS years later. You can also file for SS while still working (though it might not be the best idea if most/all of it gets clawed back before FRA, or if the combined income pushes you in a higher tax bracket, or it it locks you into a lower SS payment for life).

Look at each action on its own! Just because I plan to have DH (higher earner) wait until 70 to claim doesn't mean he has to work until 70. Maybe 55-58 if my plans go well.

All of this!  

It isn’t just about the money, but what the SS income does to your taxes when you add it to your RMD.  This also affects what you pay for Medicare.

If you have 2 professional incomes, income from other sources and have to take RMDs, it has the potential to cause IRMAA to kick in for BOTH Medicare benefits.  

It isn’t always about the $$ but the timing of receiving it and your sources of income.  

Since my wife and I are born 2 weeks apart, and if we are still married when that happens... we will probably be around the same age when we decide to retire and do it together. While she plans on working forever (yeah right); she has recently corrected herself and said “she does plan to work forever but not for money”.... Volunteering, helping our kid(s) out, basically stay busy vs just being home and being a homebody.

But again man plan and God laugh.

[gambler]

I took mine at 62 I wanted to enjoy/travel while I was in good enough shape to enjoy. Figure when I am in late 70 if I make it I will be payed up in some home eating mush and swallowing pain pills

[Bluerobin]

My accountant advised me to take it at 62.  Best check with yours. 

[lynnerself]

We retired at 61. Took both of our SS at 62. 2 Social security checks plus one pension meet our basic needs. So only need to touch retirement accounts for travel, luxuries, home improvements etc.

The emotional feel of withdrawing from savings for that first year was enough to convince us we were doing the right thing.

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 19, 2019 15:50:56 GMT -5 gambler said:

I took mine at 62 I wanted to enjoy/travel while I was in good enough shape to enjoy. Figure when I am in late 70 if I make it I will be payed up in some home eating mush and swallowing pain pills

I just celebrated my 75th birthday at the Taj Mahal. Trying to decide where to celebrate my 80th. Maybe Istanbul

[gambler]

Family's history says I will be lucky to make it to 72. Genetics play big,big part in how long your living. If I make it to 75 I beat the odds

[Tired Tess]

collect more", yes. But that isn't the goal, the goal is to "have" more. You need to add in the time value of money. And that 'time' gives you 8 extra years to grow your money.

Phil, where do you get a secure 10% investment?

I'm taking SS at 62.

[phil5185]

""" Phil, where do you get a secure 10% investment?"""

I use the SP500 Index Funds, both Vanguard & Fidelity.  The SP500 Index has a longterm average return of about 11%/yr.

politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2006/12/sp-500-at-your-fingertips.html#.XdVvK9VlCUl

[hoops902]

Nov 17, 2019 11:52:22 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

'''I expect to live a long time, and figure I'll collect more by waiting for the bigger payout. But mostly I view it as insurance.'''

"collect more", yes. But that isn't the goal, the goal is to "have" more.   You need to add in the time value of money. And that 'time' gives you 8 extra years to grow your money.

Eg, $2265/m, invested at 10%, for 20 years, is $1.7M.  But $3790/m , for 12 years at 10%, is only $1.0 M.

If you extent it out to 30 yrs (and 22 years),  it is $4.9 M in 30 yrs, or  $3.6 M in 22 yrs.

IMO, (a) makes more sense no matter how long you live.  (I retired at age 59 and started drawing SS at age 62 - I am now age 80, 18 years into plan (a).  So far, so good.)

If you are assuming that in retirement you'll be making long-term investment returns of 10%, then yes, it doesn't matter how long you live because the rate of return is sufficiently high it likely won't matter.  I doubt that many retirees are 100% invested in long term 10% returning investments though.  

It's also worth noting that the specific calculations you lay out are only valid if you're literally taking the money only to invest it.  You're not spending any of that money to live on.  Also not likely how most people are using it.  Most people are either spending some of it, or they have some distributions of money to live on from their investments.

To your point though, if your intention is "I have enough money, I'm just going to grow this money for the next generation", you should pretty much take all money as early as possible and grow it at the highest rate you can (assuming that not taking it restricts your ability to grow it).

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 20, 2019 12:00:03 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

""" Phil, where do you get a secure 10% investment?"""

I use the SP500 Index Funds, both Vanguard & Fidelity.  The SP500 Index has a longterm average return of about 11%/yr.

politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2006/12/sp-500-at-your-fingertips.html#.XdVvK9VlCUl

The S&P500 is not "secure". 

Every fund has a disclaimer stating that returns are not guaranteed.

[hoops902]

Nov 20, 2019 19:32:41 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Nov 20, 2019 12:00:03 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

""" Phil, where do you get a secure 10% investment?"""

I use the SP500 Index Funds, both Vanguard & Fidelity.  The SP500 Index has a longterm average return of about 11%/yr.

politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2006/12/sp-500-at-your-fingertips.html#.XdVvK9VlCUl

The S&P500 is not "secure". 

Every fund has a disclaimer stating that returns are not guaranteed.

What are you calling "secure" then?  I mean, it's pretty secure...but there's always an argument to make that anything you name isn't "secure" I suppose.  

[Gardening Grandma]

Nov 20, 2019 21:18:17 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Nov 20, 2019 19:32:41 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

The S&P500 is not "secure". 

Every fund has a disclaimer stating that returns are not guaranteed.

What are you calling "secure" then?  I mean, it's pretty secure...but there's always an argument to make that anything you name isn't "secure" I suppose.  

Is your question for me or Phil?

If your question is for me, I probably should have used the term “guaranteed” instead of secured.
I have funds in a CD earning a guaranteed 3%. The funds are guaranteed by the gov’t.
I also have funds in several VG accounts. They’ve earned 13% this year, but that return is not guaranteed, nor are those funds secured.

There is no safe, secure 10% investment. But you already know that.

[hoops902]

Nov 20, 2019 22:03:35 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Nov 20, 2019 21:18:17 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

What are you calling "secure" then?  I mean, it's pretty secure...but there's always an argument to make that anything you name isn't "secure" I suppose.  

Is your question for me or Phil?

If your question is for me, I probably should have used the term “guaranteed” instead of secured.
I have funds in a CD earning a guaranteed 3%. The funds are guaranteed by the gov’t.
I also have funds in several VG accounts. They’ve earned 13% this year, but that return is not guaranteed, nor are those funds secured.

There is no safe, secure 10% investment. But you already know that.

It was for you.  There's no guaranteed 10% investment.  I think "secure" is a pretty wide scale, so I was just curious if you don't consider an index fund to be "secure"...whether you consider anything secure (or to your clarification, were you using it more like guaranteed where you consider the federal government secure but anything less to not be).  

Along with scale, I tend to think "secure" changes with the audience.  I'd probably tell people on this board that it's secure, but maybe not someone with 0 experience investing in real life.