I like Tampa Bay's advice. The key thing is not to blow that early money. It needs to start working for you. Came in handy for us (at age 62) to pay taxes on a Roth conversion near market bottom in '09. I get killed by taxes both state and federal. So a Roth is golden. Also allowed us to defer taking any IRA distributions for many more years, pay off the balance on an auto loan, etc. etc.
If you'd rather not have to put that $$ to good work for you ... than by all means hold off on taking it early. Deferring to the future is generally not a bad idea. And, those stats from Schwab are probably right - but they don't take into account what you might earn had you invested the early proceeds.

http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security
The amounts are so much higher when you wait, seems like a no-brainer if you can swing it from other resources and are unlikely to die soon.

Check out Junkster's post above about his friend.
Also, when computing when do take SS it isn't only what is mentioned in their article.
When you delay taking SS; you have to take into consideration the opportunity cost of using your $ for expenses.
So, using the schwab example, if a single person could get $2,000/mo or $24K/year from SS but use their money the interest or capital appreciation would have to be added to the years to break even.
e.g. 10% interest = 2,400 x 5 year delay = 12,000
Divide the 12,000 by the SS they would get per month at 67 for the number of months. Let's say 2,600. Then you have to add 4.6 months to the break even point.
Other factors you have to take into account:
-Opportunity cost above - compounding of int/cap gains, add more time for that? .
-401K mandatory withdrawals, if you take SS later + you have 401K withdrawals you may pay more taxes than taking SS early + the 401K because your tax base would be lower- add more time for that?
e.g. 600/month x 12 = 7,200 higher base x tax rate 20% =1,400/2600 = .5 month every year 15? = 7.5 months.
4.6 opportunity cost
.4 compounding interest
7.5 extra taxes
12.5 months.
So deferring may not be financially advisable. In the Schwab example the break even is between 15-16 years - Between 77 and 78
If you want to do the calculations I'd help in reviewing them for you.

Joe Bradley, Towle's head of client relationships and my contact with the adviser, writes: "Thanks for asking. We take pride in having a true team effort, meaning all five guys are viewed as portfolio managers rather than having an analyst/PM hierarchy you see elsewhere. We work together to build consensus around all decisions and all members of the team have input. The young guys have been there less that five years, but Peter’s been managing the portfolio with Woody for 14+ and Chris has been doing it for 20+. We believe we have refined the Towle “process” and are not dependent on any one individual."
On the question of benches, Towle has one strategy and five guys. Huber has three strategies and six guys (four PMs, two analysts), according to the Hubercap website.
For what interest that holds,
David

It takes 12 years to break even if you don't take SS early, figure it out...I did....
I have made very good use of my Gov. Checks for last 4 years 62 to 66yo, the money is well invested to make much more money (income) in the future, While late collectors 66/70 are still trying to get even.....go figure

I was told not to wait. Take SS at 62. That source told me that if you wait until 66, it will take 8 years to make up what you left on the table, as opposed to starting at 62. I've signed into the SS.gov thing and saw my "account." At 62, I'd be due a bit over $1,000.00 per month, gross. But SS is taxed in MA. And I might just move far away where it's warm. Then there is the cost of medical insurance. This old dog does indeed consume multiple scripts. What is all this stuff about Medicare Part A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J.... ???
("M-I-C------ K-E-Y......... M-O-U-S-E.")

>> Are you seriously suggesting that this poor fellow put $100,000 into a single bond offering issued by this company?
Sure. Have you slogged through the details of many corporate bond prospectuses?
Thanks for the official rating info, and yes, I agree it is best to forget it for someone 'very cautious, conservative' to that degree.
>> signing away any bankruptcy rights
Usually the case, no? I lost quite a bit of money with very safe Lehman bonds, so yeah, I am aware they're not like a bank CD.
My thinking was that SC, with all of its contracted gov work (DoD housing), is not about to die in the next five years, Cruz or no Cruz (not gonna happen, but someone almost as bad is a possibility, I suppose).
And not a poor fellow by my standards :)

@Dex - thanks for being diligent and forthright with the numbers. ACA often does cost some people more money (though not as much as they may think, because health care/insurance rates were rising so fast anyway that part of the increase was inevitable).

The subsidy could influence me on when I take SS. For years 61 and 62, I may be able to get the subsidy. If, I took SS on the earliest date June of my 62nd year I probably would lose the subsidy for years 62, 63, 64. So in year 62 it might make some sense to delay taking SS so that I still get a subsidy. Based upon what I know now the subsidy is in the area of $3,000 per year of non taxable money. My income would need to be less then 4X of the poverty base for the year.
Now, considering my net worth - my getting a subsidy doesn't make much sense.
Also, after seeing how his subsidy thing works, I don't think OC will be repealed. Too many people are getting something out of it.

.........well, not much in happy land in many places during the recent days........the last week or so with softness in equity and bonds. 'Course, such a broad statement does imply that there are not areas that are somewhat happy; but not unlike a young person or an adult who sometimes states that they are going to run away from home.........likely from having a bad day, etc. :)..........even "investors" have periods when they want to "run away from investments", yes?
Well, your house (investments) is also likely getting its "clock cleaned" from recent market actions.
Some equity market areas during the past month had about 8% down moves and then flattened for a short period of time. But, this has reversed again. India being an example of a big run in the last 12 months +, then down about 8%, but further down May 6 dropping another 2.5% or so. Aussieland also found a large drop (>2%), reportedly due in part to poor earnings in the banking sector.
All investor returns will be different, of course; but the consideration is in place for this house to reduce equity holdings today (May 6) to protect very pleasing returns so far this year from investments in particular in HEDJ. Some healthcare may also be reduced; although the gains from these holdings has been from a period of years and not months.
Ya, I know; don't be a trader or time the markets. I'll have to name this as intuition.
Broad drawdowns will likely not be more than 10%, yes? Or you best guess.
At times, I recall a portion of information displayed upon the "old" hometown movie theatre screen before the main movie............."Preview of coming attractions". Attempting to determine the "coming attractions related to investments".
Well, just some early morning (1 cup of coffee) jabber.
NOTE: this write was started and planned to be posted on May 5, but other schedules changed this.
Regards,
Catch

FYI: After more than two years in pilot and $17B in assets, Personal Advisor Services ready to take on the expanding field.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150505/FREE/150509967?template=printart

Re msf's question:
JohnC is correct that "funds-of-funds" should be viewed differently and might warrant a higher allocation. One of these, RPSIX, currently comprises my largest holding at just over 14%.
1. I prefer to view money management decisions in terms of percentages (not in dollar sums).
2. I don't have set limits. However, I become uncomfortable when any one fund exceeds about 20% of total assets. With equity funds, 10% in any single fund is enough.
3. I believe it's wise to diversify (fairly evenly) among at least 3 different fund houses or other custodians.
-
Added: The above reflects the thinking of a 70+ year-old, 15-20 years into retirement, already in the distribution stage. Were I younger, I'd have a higher risk tolerance and would be much more concentrated in a few good growth funds.

I can say that VWENX is my largest holding at just under $100,000, but that's because I've reinvested dividends for several years. As a result, the fund has grown to that amount coupled with capital gains of course. But I would never just drop $100,000 on one fund at this time. As I said, I'm a bit apprehensive given the current market valuations.

"They are not reduced if you start them at age 62. Of course, if you take them earlier, you're spreading them over more years, so the rate at which you receive your benefits is reduced."
The cynical side of me begins to wonder if all these media spots that tell you to wait on SS is being run by the govt in hopes that there will be less payout? I cannot be the only one that has noticed we are inundated with this idea.

The calculation I'm familiar with views SS as an annuity. Suppose you start SS at age 62. The question asked is: If you bought a private annuity with the checks you receive from age 62 to age 70, would that annuity be able to make up the difference between the checks you're getting and the checks you would have gotten by deferring until age 70? If not, then deferring benefits gives you "extra value".
For example, if you'd get $900/mo at age 62, and $1600/mo starting at age 70, would you be able to replace that extra $700 with a private annuity for the cost of the $900 checks that you received for eight years? The answer is no.
But as this FA Magazine page points out, "the reason that SS annuities are a better deal than those in the private markets is that SS can offer a product that is actuarially fair - the y are based on the life expectancy of the average person ... and SS does not have to worry about marketing costs or profits." Sort of like Vanguard, except Vanguard pays marketing costs.
Another reason aside from profits that private annuities cost more is adverse selection. People who buy annuities tend to have longer life expectancies, so the insurers have to charge more simply to cover that cost.
With SS, those people should be deferring benefits. But with 3/4 of people not only not deferring, but actually taking benefits before FRA, it's clear that many people are making the "wrong" decision - lots of people with personally long life expectancies are going for the earlier checks. (They often have other reasons, such as cash flow, for taking early benefits.)
Thus rather than costing SSA money, its seems that so many people starting benefits early actually saves the government money, statistically speaking. Thank you very much.

"They are not reduced if you start them at age 62. Of course, if you take them earlier, you're spreading them over more years, so the rate at which you receive your benefits is reduced."
The cynical side of me begins to wonder if all these media spots that tell you to wait on SS is being run by the govt in hopes that there will be less payout? I cannot be the only one that has noticed we are inundated with this idea.

>> If OC was the law before my retiring I may have had second thoughts.
Dex, when you were running the numbers at 51 for healthcare costs until Medicare, what did you plug in and what did you base them on? Was your nonjob private insurance inexpensive somehow?

In 2008, I paid $205.83/month from BC/BS I was able to keep it in the 240 range until OC. Then it went to 335 same BC/BS policy but OC adds increased it. Next year they are canceling the policy so I have to go full OC. Which will be close to $600/mo the last time l looked.
I'm still very OK financially. Part of this is because I'll get Medicaid in 5 years and Georgia does not tax retires' dividends/interest/SS/Pensions after 62(?). However, I am feeling less flush due to OC. I won't be changing my spending habits.
However, if I knew about the OC costs, I may have not stopped working or delayed it for a couple of years. It is just too much of an unknown for 14 years. Spending $2,400 Vs $7,200 and an unknown future is disconcerting.
This is just another reason why I don't think many will be able to do what I did in the future.

“The REIT market is very volatile, down 75% between 2007 and 2009 — which was terrific if you were in a re-balancing situation — and then up 400% from that bottom,”
I wanted to create a picture of the above quote using a personal investment ( I experienced this with VGSIX). I wanted to highlight the recover time (shown in the form of a triangle).
It is this the period of time (recovery from maximum Draw Down or MAXDD) an investor wants to shorten if possible. Six years was a long time to wait in my opinion.

I'm 50 years old with more than $100,000 sitting in banks and credit unions earning about 0.50 % in interest.

While you are considering the many options in the various posts to this thread, you can easily double your interest from the 0.50% you are getting in "banks and credit unions".....by going with an internet only FDIC insured bank that pays about 1% interest on a savings account.
Just for example, Ally bank pays 0.99%, FDIC insured, savings acct, without locking your money up at all, and several others pay 1% or even very slightly higher. These are name banks (well known), also FDIC insured
You can also get 2.25% in FDIC insured 5-year CD's at several internet banks (e.g., Synchrony Bank).
One strategy several Bogleheads are using is to do this at a bank with a low early withdrawal fee. I believe there is an FDIC insured internet bank with only a 90 day interest early withdrawal penalty, so many Bogleheads are going that route, figuring that paying a 90 day interest rate penalty in the event that rates rise significantly and they want out of their 5-year 2.25% interest CD is not too bad.

>> If OC was the law before my retiring I may have had second thoughts.
Dex, when you were running the numbers at 51 for healthcare costs until Medicare, what did you plug in and what did you base them on? Was your nonjob private insurance inexpensive somehow?
Lots of impressive early retirees here! Way to go. I am delaying taking SS until 70, two years off, chiefly on principle, but have shaky confidence of living to wherever the lines cross, like 82 or whatever. Hope so. The best way to think of reduced vs max benefits is to look at the lines, as msf implies; see here, halfway down the page:
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security
I have had a lot of arthritis surgeries under Medicare with supplement, also an umbrella managed Medicare plan w rx (forget what this is called, Preferred maybe), so it seems (seemed) like a wise idea to me, though I have not run the numbers. I am now cash at the dentist, though. Maybe I should look into going without supp.

Edit: I am paying then around $3600 annually for health insurance. But that is still far cheaper than the close to $7000 I was paying before Medicare kicked in. And that private policy had a $2500 deductible.

Thanks, I currently have $8,500 budgeted for Health Insurance in 5 years when I'm 65. I might be able to reduce that some - maybe down to 6,000. But, I have to update my budget for years 61 - 64.

Neither the best written nor the best read article. The underlined phrase is just part of the sentence. Notice that it is set off by commas. I'll emphasize the effect of that punctuation by replacing the commas with parentheses:

Of course, the best way to maximize Social Security is to delay claiming benefits until full retirement age (which is climbing gradually to 67) or beyond.

That is, the "or beyond" applies to "the best way to maximize SS" is to wait until FRA or beyond. The parenthetical remark simply clarifies what FRA is - it does not assert that FRA is rising beyond age 67.
The title is misleading, because actuarially speaking, benefits (on a constant dollar basis) are the same regardless of when you start taking them. They are not reduced if you start them at age 62. Of course, if you take them earlier, you're spreading them over more years, so the rate at which you receive your benefits is reduced. (There are ancillary benefits, like spousal payments that are indeed reduced if you claim before FRA.)
@Junkster - New medicare supplemental policies starting in 2020 will not cover 100% of what Medicare doesn't pay. (You're grandfathered in, but Dex is not.) Specifically, "Under the doc-fix law, Medigap plans will no longer cover the annual Part B deductible for new enrollees ($147 this year). That will mean changes for Medigap "C" and "F" plans, the two most popular plan choices and the only ones that cover Part B deductibles. Starting in 2020, seniors would have to pay it themselves. "
That's from M*: What the Medicare 'Doc Fix' Means for Your Pocketbook
It's actually rather debatable whether Medicare supplemental insurance is even worth it (given that part A is 100% covered without it). Here's a column suggesting that these policies are cash cows for insurers. He overstates his case, but the numbers seem sound. IMHO, the main virtue of these policies is for catastrophic insurance (i.e. they cap out-of-pocket expenses).

I didn't add in the COLAs.
I retired at 52. I also started work at age 15. For a lot of people, 35-40 years of work is enough. If you have saved all your life it is time to enjoy the fruits of your labor.