@msf Excellent. Great information and clarification. Thanks again!
I know that a Roth conversion is a taxable event, of course. But, does it also count as unearned income, as it pertains to LTCG tax treatment. Or is it more of a "unique" event?
I've thought about delaying anywhere from 6 months to 24 months. And using that time to cash out some LTCG positions, perform Roth conversions and/or spend down some (taxable?) accounts.
I am playing with some tax calculators, trying to see what works best. Our spending needs will drop off significantly in 2026. We have been spending on home improvements, automobile upgrades, education, medical/dental, all in preparation for retirement over the past 6-7 years. All of that will be behind us at the end of this year.
We are about 62% tax-deferred, 5% Roth and 33% taxable. Our taxable accounts hold a great deal of LTCG and cash.
A few articles/calculators that I have squirreled away on retirement taxation:
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/t037-c032-s014-tax-efficient-retirement-withdrawal-strategies.html
https://www.irscalculators.com/tax-calculator
https://www.schwab.com/ira/ira-calculators/roth-ira-conversion

Lots of trader comments which just brings stress to my thinking. I just bought 2 CDs at 4 and 4.2% at my local bank, while they are available. Money Market rates are falling pretty quickly now and don't expect any of them to make 4% much longer. Lots of comments about SD and Sharpe on bond oefs, but the last 3 years can produce misleading expectations going forward.

If I am reading it correctly (probably not), my spouse still gets more than her current benefit (claimed at 65 and much lower earnings), when I claim at FRA and she switches to spousal benefits, just not as much as it might've been had she also waited until FRA. We are about the same age. Is that correct interpretation?
Yes.
And the spousal benefit is half of my PIA, regardless of when I claim. Though she cannot switch to spousal, until I start my benefits? In layman's terms her spousal benefit is already fixed/determind before I decide to claim?
Yes. When you claim (as opposed to when you stop working) affects when she can switch to spousal benefits but doesn't affect the amount of those benefits.
Though the longer you work, potentially the larger your PIA becomes, since it is based on your highest 35 years of earnings. And a larger PIA makes her spousal benefits larger. So to maximize spousal benefits, claim early (to start those benefits earlier) but continue working (to increase PIA).
Survivor benefits work the opposite way. The longer you wait before claiming (up to age 70) the larger your own benefits become. Consequently the larger her survivor benefits become (if/when you predecease her).
Having a spouse complicates life :-)
Also, it appears that the SSA is using the terms "FRA" and "normal retirement" interchangeably?
That's certainly what it looks like. Here's an SSA table with a column labeled "Full (normal) Retirement Age". If I'm wrong about the NRA don't shoot me (ouch!).
the specter of cut SS benefits is not unrealistic. So, another unknown variable. And that suggests one should take the money and run.
If the government doesn't reduce benefits, you'll reach the break even point in about 14 years, i.e. at the end of 2039. If nothing is done, the government is predicted to cut benefits by about 1/4 after 2033. So for the last 6 years (2034-2039) you'll be catching up only 3/4 as fast as originally planned.
So rather than taking another six years after 2033 to catch up, you'll need another 8 years (4/3 x 6) to catch up. That makes your break even point the end of 2041 instead of 2039. Whether that extra two years tips the scales is up to you to decide.
The fact that SS is inflation adjusted makes the calculation above simple. It's all in real dollars so you don't have to worry about inflation or depreciating future dollars or present value. It's already baked in.

@WABC. my sense of humor is such that I am wondering if the hiatus will be longer than my days. I am old enough that my wife and I spent 3 years sailing the sea of Cortez and saving money because double digit interest rates on our savings more than covered beer, food and insurance.

Nice coincidence. I remember San Felipe very fondly. Amazing tides, like the Bay of Fundy.

@WABC. my sense of humor is such that I am wondering if the hiatus will be longer than my days. I am old enough that my wife and I spent 3 years sailing the sea of Cortez and saving money because double digit interest rates on our savings more than covered beer, food and insurance.

His perspective is primarily on dollar differences; breakeven points are almost incidental. If one is focused on breakeven points, one ignores nominal dollars altogether. His "Level 2" adjustment just straightens out the green nominal dollar line (almost invisibly concave up) into the straight red (constant dollar) line.
http://danielamerman.com/Images/Resources/BenefitAge/BenefitsL9.jpg
(image doesn't seem to display inline)
The Britanica graph above already uses constant dollars and shows the same breakeven point - its red and green lines cross (breakeven point) between 80 and 81, the same point where Amerman's red line crosses the x axis.
The COLA adjustment for SS was 0.0% in 2016, as it was in 2010 and 2011. That did trigger the Medicare Part B hold harmless provision as he described for 2016. The question is whether any of this is material now. Do people expect inflation to run near zero over the next few years?
Even if Medicare premiums rise significantly on a percentage basis, the dollar increase is going to be less than the dollar increase in most people's SS COLA adjustments. SS payments are so much larger than Medicare premiums that a small (but non-zero) increase in SS will more than cover the dollar increase in Medicare premiums.
The people most likely to benefit from the hold harmless provision are those beneficiaries who receive small SS checks. Those are the same people who are most likely to be taking SS early - not because they come out better, but because they need the cash now.
Which gets us back to what I was concluded with before - the main factors to consider are cash flow needs and expected longevity. (Marital status also comes into play if one is strategizing to optimize expected benefits.) IMHO most other considerations are secondary.

The ages you posted suggest that you'd come out better waiting.
The breakeven point (assuming one gets the same after tax returns with investing as with inflation adjusted, state-exempt SS) is around 81, give or take, depending on which two ages are being compared. From Britanica:

Since you expect to live at least to the breakeven point, and possibly several years longer, waiting seems like a heads (long life) you win, tails (short end of expectations) you break even choice.
Having a larger income stream going forward (which can be viewed as either a bond or a cash investment) allows you to allocate more in your taxable account to equities. Thus returns are improved (over the 60/40 used in the Kitces piece); tax efficiency is also improved. The "bonds" (SS income stream) is state-exempt; another bonus.
The key seems to be the last sentence: "waiting would make me anxious, I think."
I don't dismiss such concerns. There's a reason why "Spock" was used as the prototype for "Case 2" in the cited piece. But one can still ask: anxious about what?
It sounds like you won't need the cash flow (you'll be investing it). If you die at, say, age 75, you leave a bit less cash to wife. OTOH, wife gets a larger survivor benefit income stream to partially compensate. And if wife outlives you by several years, with that greater cash stream she could actually come out better. This is why, for some couples, it is suggested that the lower earner claim at 62 and the higher earner wait until 70. Then the augmented SS income stream survives until both partners are deceased.

My situation seems simple. FRA is 66 and 10 months. My employer will be in no need of my services at almost precisely that time. I also subscribe to the notion that by taking SS, one can let investments grow, as Crash suggested. And the wife, who took her benefits at 65, gets a bigger (spousal) benefit at the same time. My state does not tax retirement benefits, either. And I will be retiring mid-year, so less earned income.
Life expectancy is an unknown. Dad lived to be 96. Mom lived to 81. I think my situation may be closer to my mother's. Split the difference and it would be around 88.
I could delay benefits and use taxable funds, paying lower LTCG. Or make bigger Roth conversions during those years. Splitting it in the middle ( 62 - 70) seems like a decent choice. Maybe not the optimal choice. But waiting would make me anxious, I think.

So Gretchen Morgenson wound up at NBC. For many years she was a muckraking business reporter at the NYTimes. Mostly excellent, though IMHO she occasionally latched onto something so much that she went over the top. There's some of that here.
TIAA has been under pressure for a couple of decades to retain assets and improve profits. Like many employer plan providers, it began offering retirement plan advice once the Dept of Labor opened up the floodgates in 2006.
Of course TIAA's advisors steer participants into more expensive plans. An irony in the report is that it holds Vanguard out as a model of what should be done, when Vanguard just settled with the SEC for failing to "disclose to clients that its advisors had financial incentives to funnel them into certain managed accounts."
There are no white hats in this industry.
I largely agree with yogi that the article exhibits poor understanding of fixed annuity fees. But Morgenson knows better and does not lack for understanding. Her complaint here is over the top. One does not ask a bank what its expense ratios are on its CDs; the profits are built into the rates it offers. Likewise, one does not ask an insurance company what its expense ratios are on its fixed annuities.
Why not ask Vanguard what the "expense ratios" are of the underlying bonds in its MMF portfolios? Just how much does the Treasury make on its T-bills?
To nitpick, it looks like PTTRX (the only Pimco offering) and RERGX (the only American Funds offering) are only in RI's 457 plan, not the 401(a) plan that's the subject of the article.
https://www.tiaa.org/public/tcm/ri/view-all-investments

20/20 hindsight: Someone who claimed benefits at 62 eight years ago and remained invested in the S&P500 through thick and thin (2018, 2020, 2022, etc.) will likely do a whole lot better than a similarly aged person who waited until this month to start receiving benefits. Probably pushed the "breakeven point" way past age 89. The next seven years? Not so sure . . . .

Can SEQUX be far behind? It's up to 215~
Sequoia a whole 'nuther beast. While all OEFs can redeem in kind, Sequoia actually does this. As they wrote to the WSJ in 2016:

For many years Sequoia Fund has clearly disclosed that we can and do pay large redemptions with securities rather than cash ...
We redeem with shares to benefit our continuing shareholders, who might otherwise pay capital-gains taxes on the sale of appreciated stock that might be required for redemptions. By redeeming in kind, our 20,000 continuing Sequoia shareholders will pay lower capital-gains taxes in the future. Our goal is always to be tax-efficient and to do what is right for continuing shareholders. For a departing shareholder, there is no tax or other consequence to receiving stock instead of cash, aside from the minor inconvenience of having to sell a security upon receipt. We take care to always deliver stocks that trade in sufficient volume so that the exiting shareholder can sell them immediately without depressing the market for a particular security.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sequoias-redemption-with-securities-is-tax-efficient-1460583731

I don't think they do it that way all the time anymore. :-D
Maybe it will become an issue for my heirs, but I doubt it.

This bar chart is a few years old, but shows what people do considering all of pros and cons of taking Social Security early or late.

Can SEQUX be far behind? It's up to 215~
Sequoia a whole 'nuther beast. While all OEFs can redeem in kind, Sequoia actually does this. As they wrote to the WSJ in 2016:

For many years Sequoia Fund has clearly disclosed that we can and do pay large redemptions with securities rather than cash ...
We redeem with shares to benefit our continuing shareholders, who might otherwise pay capital-gains taxes on the sale of appreciated stock that might be required for redemptions. By redeeming in kind, our 20,000 continuing Sequoia shareholders will pay lower capital-gains taxes in the future. Our goal is always to be tax-efficient and to do what is right for continuing shareholders. For a departing shareholder, there is no tax or other consequence to receiving stock instead of cash, aside from the minor inconvenience of having to sell a security upon receipt. We take care to always deliver stocks that trade in sufficient volume so that the exiting shareholder can sell them immediately without depressing the market for a particular security.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/sequoias-redemption-with-securities-is-tax-efficient-1460583731

With SS benefits to be cut in 2033, unless more money is found to finance it, may also play into your plans for when to take SS
This is discussed in the piece as one of several risks in deferring:
https://www.kitces.com/blog/discount-rate-delaying-social-security-benefits-retirement-planning/#policy-risk
And here:

The possibility that policymakers could reduce benefits after someone has already forgone years of payments to maximize their age-70 benefit triggers what Sandman might call extreme outrage: the outcome is controlled by others (politicians), morally relevant (breaking societal promises), and unfair (changing rules mid-game).

https://www.kitces.com/blog/discount-rate-delaying-social-security-benefits-retirement-planning/#regret-risk
One way to read this piece is to skip to the bottom where two case studies are presented.
One is a case study of a couple with limited resources. They might take SS earlier and make better use of their smaller nest egg in their 60s while they can enjoy it.
They are also somewhat irrational (i.e. human). They would more regret the loss of SS income from dying early than they would enjoy getting extra from SS should they live long and prosper (more on that in Case 2). Especially since they don't anticipate a long life span (based on heredity).
https://www.kitces.com/blog/discount-rate-delaying-social-security-benefits-retirement-planning/#case-study-claiming-early-with-limited-assets
Case 2 is Mr. Spock and spouse. Larger nest egg easier so easier to fund expenses until drawing deferred SS. Long life expectancy, entirely rational. No regrets on what might have been - probabilities are just that.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/discount-rate-delaying-social-security-benefits-retirement-planning/#case-study-claiming-later-with-a-tips-strategy
Some people need to draw SS as soon as it's available because they need the cash flow. Others, like Spock, can make entirely cold, calculated decisions. Many people fall somewhere between the two (closer to case 1).

A Siting from a 2024 Journal of Financial Planning article, Smith and Smith conclude: Our calculations do not support the presumption that the vast majority of people who choose to start their Social Security retirement benefits before age 70 are making a mistake. For example, … with a 4 percent real return, a person has to live to 89 for it to be beneficial to delay the start of benefits from age 67 to 70. However, 77 percent of 67-year-old males die before 89 as do 65 percent of 67-year-old females. Age 70 is not the most financially rewarding age to initiate benefits unless an individual has a low discount rate and/or is confident they will live several years past their life expectancy.
From the Author of the linked article at Kitces' website: Ultimately, the key point is that we need to move beyond simply thinking in terms of portfolio risk when assessing Social Security claiming analysis discount rates. Ideally, we should be thinking more in terms of utility and factoring in all risks, which changes the calculus significantly.

delaying-social-security-benefits-retirement-planning/?

'Tis that time of year again! Some preliminary estimates are now available. As in years past, please alphabetize your funds. To make it easier for readers post (new) next to your additions to differentiate it from your older existing posts. Be sure to check the entire page for other various posts with possible links. Thanks to everyone who contributes and posts their information! Please keep in the mind that it is early, and the estimates posted are tentative.
1290 Funds:
https://secure.alpsinc.com/MarketingAPI/api/v1/Content/1290funds/1290funds-comm-20251118.pdf
AB Funds:
https://www.alliancebernstein.com/content/dam/alliancebernstein/us-retail/us-retail-pdfs/tax-center/Final_GEN-5796-0925.pdf
Abrdn Funds:
Funds:
https://www.aberdeeninvestments.com/docs?editionId=931def41-161f-48c8-8c9f-b09701494978
ETFs:
https://www.aberdeeninvestments.com/docs?editionId=5e9e5fb4-6a81-48af-9324-b3950138c02c
Aegis Value Fund:
https://www.aegisfunds.com/assets/pdfs/AVALX-Distributions-Estimate-2025.pdf
Alger Funds:
Funds:
https://www.alger.com/AlgerDocuments/Distrib_FUNDS.pdf
ETFs:
https://www.alger.com/AlgerDocuments/Distrib_ETFs.pdf
Allspring Funds:
https://www.allspringglobal.com/globalassets/assets/public/pdf/product-alerts/20251010-productalert.pdf
American Beacon:
Funds:
https://americanbeaconfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-Estimated-Year-End-Distributions-Mutual-Funds.pdf
ETFs:
https://americanbeaconfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025-Estimated-Year-End-Distributions-ETFs.pdf
American Century Funds:
https://www.americancentury.com/plan/tax-center/estimated-distributions/
AMG Funds (has all the fund families or see individual links below):
https://media.amg.com/content/dam/amgfunds/documents/2025 All Distribution Estimates.pdf
Arbitrage Funds:
https://arbitragefunds.com/news/2025/10/28/arbitrage-funds-2025-year-end-distribution-estimates
Aristotle Funds:
https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/642414d0e893bb9d9596f597/68e030213999274f4b50fe92_Capital Gains_9.24.25_Final.pdf
Artisan Partners Funds:
https://www.artisanpartners.com/individual-investors/resources/tax-center/distributions.html
Baillie Gifford Funds:
https://www.bailliegifford.com/literature-library/funds/mutual-funds/estimated-capital-gain-distribution/
Baird Funds:
https://www.bairdassetmanagement.com/siteassets/pdfs/distributions/2025-estimated-capital-gains.pdf
Baron Funds:
https://www.baroncapitalgroup.com/tax-center
Blackrock Funds/ETFs:
Funds:
https://www.blackrock.com/us/financial-professionals/literature/fact-sheet/blackrock-funds-distribution-estimates.pdf
ETFs:
https://www.ishares.com/us/capital-gains-distributions
BNY Funds:
https://www.bny.com/investments/us/en/individual/products/lt.html#year-end-distributions
Boston Common Global Impact Fund:
https://media.amg.com/content/dam/amgfunds/documents/AMG Boston Common Estimates as of 10.10.25_distribution.pdf
Boston Partners Funds:
https://www.bostonpartners.com/uploads/2025/11/b15ac374201c51486acab7203763117a/bp-funds-estimated-cap-gain-dist-10_31_2025.pdf
Bridgeway Funds:
https://bridgewayfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/11/2025-Distribution-Estimates-for-Website.pdf
Brown Advisory Funds:
https://www.brownadvisory.com/sites/default/files/2025-10/2025-Capital-Gain-Distribution-Update.pdf
Brown Capital Management (new; look for distribution link to access - ouch! small company):
https://www.browncapital.com/investmentstrategies/smallcompanyfundinv/
Buffalo Funds:
https://buffalofunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Final-Cap-Gains-Estimates.pdf
Calamos Funds:
https://www.calamos.com/globalassets/media/documents/tax-center/2025-calamos-estimated-capital-gains.pdf
Cambiar Funds (new):
https://cambiar.com/capital-gains-2025-estimates/
Capital Group:
https://www.capitalgroup.com/individual/service-and-support/tax-center/2025-year-end-distributions.html
Causeway Funds (new):
https://www.causewaycap.com/wp-content/uploads/2025_Causeway-Funds-Prelim-Distributions.ppt
Centerstone Investment:
https://centerstoneinv.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Prelim-Estimates-9.30.2025-Centerstone2_STAMPED.pdf
Champlain Investments:
https://cipvt.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Champlain-Estimated-Yr-End-Distributions-2025-vr2-93025.pdf
Clipper Fund:
https://clipperfund.com/funds/distributions
Cohen & Steers Funds:
https://assets-prod.cohenandsteers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/09145741/Open-end-Funds-2025-Distributions-Estimate-September-30.pdf
Columbia Threadneedle Funds:
https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/binaries/content/assets/cti/public/2025-year-end-cap-gain-08.31.24-estimates---mutual-funds.pdf
Conestoga Funds:
https://conestogacapital.com/capital-gains-information/

The biggest problem with funds that held well years ago.
* Market conditions in the future can be different. 2020 was different than 2022.
* Funds that were great in meltdown, can have bad performance after that. That's a mistake that many investors do by relying on the past and miss 1-2-3 years of great performance.
* Managed funds keep changing their asset allocation, duration, and risk. You can't predict the future
* Diversification doesn't guarantee better performance or risk.
* The only solution is to be flexible and invest in what works best/better currently.
If I told you that HOSIX would make close to 9% annually for 3 years with SD just over 1, you would laugh...but it did.
There are funds that do well in most markets
Examples: CBLDX, RSIIX(riskier).
Sometimes, simplicity is just right.
Disclaimer: I don't own any of the funds above.

I always used HDD.
Several years ago I changed everything to SSD other than my 1TB HDD for backups.
My laptop recently started spewing SSD messages that it may be failing.
I never knew SSD has limited use, apparently there are only so many read/write operations
SSD can do before wearing out.
I know HDD can fail but I've never had one fail in 30+ years.
SSD's don't last forever , who knew!

SSDs can fail over time after numerous read/write operations.
For general consumer use (and possibly commercial use?),
SSDs tend to have lower failure rates than HDDs according to many sources.
On my PC, I use an SSD (Intel 520 Series¹) as the primary drive
where the operating system and applications are installed.
This PC is 12 or 13 years old and is usually powered on 24x7 and used daily.
I've had no issues with the Intel SSD.
The optional Intel Solid-State Drive Toolbox utility was installed to check/maintain SSD health.
The Drive Summary indicates that the estimated life remaining is ~95%
A Quick Diagnostic Scan was just executed.
The Read Scan and Data Integrity operations both completed successfully.
Over an approximately 28 year period, I've experienced several HDD failures.
I still have a few dead IBM Deskstar (aka Deathstar²) HDDs that need to be disposed.
¹ Research indicated Intel SSDs were extremely reliable.
² https://dfarq.homeip.net/the-death-star-that-killed-ibms-hard-drive-business/

To be fair, my laptop was over 7 years old, powered on 24x7 and used everyday I was home.

I always used HDD. Several years ago I changed everything to SSD other than my 1TB HDD for backups. My laptop recently started spewing SSD messages that it may be failing. I never knew SSD has limited use, apparently there are only so many read/write operations SSD can do before wearing out. I know HDD can fail but I've never had one fail in 30+ years. SSD's don't last forever , who knew!

Yeah. For routine/casual use, SSDs are great ... but if you really pound them they will fail quicker simply by nature of the electronic way they read/write/store things. So for long term storage, backups, or archives, HDDs ('spinners') are best. Sure, they can fail too, but at least you stand a better chance of recovering data from a classic drive than a SSD.