Here are a few scenarios that can help you guide your clients' decisions.
Ever since Congress voted to eliminate some key Social Security claiming strategies last fall, financial advisers have been writing to me with questions about how to adapt their clients' retirement plans.
Here are a few scenarios that should be familiar to advisers. I hope the answers can help you guide your clients' decisions.
Lee Revolinski, an adviser and partner at the Summit Planning Group in Green Bay, Wis., asked what his clients, a married couple, should do now.
The wife claimed Social Security benefits on her own earnings record in September 2014 when she was 63. Her husband turns 66 in September 2017 and had planned to file and suspend his benefits. At that point, his wife would step up to a larger spousal benefit amount and he would delay claiming his maximum retirement benefits until he turned 70 in June 2021.
“Can this still work under the current law?” Mr. Revolinski asked. “If not, what is their best strategy going forward?”
“I'm afraid not,” I responded. “The husband is too young to file and suspend under existing rules. He must be 66 and file and suspend by April 30, 2016, in order to trigger benefits for his wife while his own benefits continue to grow up until age 70.”
Requests to file and suspend made on or after May 1, 2016, will no longer permit other family members to collect benefits during the suspension.
Instead, I suggested, the husband could file a restricted application for spousal benefits when he turns 66 next year and collect half of his wife's full retirement-age amount (even though she collected reduced benefits early). At 70, he could switch to his own maximum retirement benefits.
Under the new law, anyone who was 62 or older by the end of 2015 (including anyone who turned 62 on Jan. 1, 2016) retains the right to claim spousal benefits only when they turn 66. Younger people lose this right.
Once he begins collecting benefits, his wife could step up to a larger spousal benefit if it is bigger than her existing benefit.
However, if he dies first, her survivor benefits would be worth 100% of what he collected, or was entitled to collect at the time of his death, including any delayed retirement credits that could boost his benefits by up to 32%.
Zack Clark, an adviser with Coates Financial Planning in Louisville, Ky., had a question about a married couple where there is a larger age difference.
“I have a client couple, currently 59 (wife) and 66 (husband),” Mr. Clark wrote. “Our plan for them, validated by our planning software, has been for her to file as soon as she reaches 62 and for him to defer until 69.5, then file a restricted application for spousal benefits.”
“In light of the coming April deadline to file and suspend benefits, I was reminded to consider this for all clients,” Mr. Clark said. “But because the wife will never be able to file a restricted claim for spousal benefits under the new law, it means that having him file and suspend doesn't do her any good,” he explained.
Mr. Clark asked, “Does filing and suspending restrict his ability to later file a restricted application for spousal benefits?”
“Yes, if he files and suspends before April 30, 2016, it gives him a lump-sum payout option that will disappear for new file-and-suspend requests beginning May 1,” I replied. “But if he files and suspends, he cannot later claim spousal benefits only by filing a restricted application. It's one or the other. Not both.”
It's a tough choice, I conceded. Since the husband is so much older than his wife, there is real value in his delaying until age 70 to maximize his retirement benefit as well as a survivor benefit. If he were to file and suspend, a decision to request a lump-sum payout of suspended benefits would be in lieu of the delayed-retirement credits.
So the bottom line is which is more important to the client: maximizing survivor benefits by delaying until 70 or having the potential option of collecting a lump sum by filing and suspending before the April 30 deadline?
If a bigger survivor benefit is paramount, Mr. Clark probably should stick with his original plan. However, if he likes the idea of collecting a lump sum, he should file and suspend before the April 30, 2016 deadline. The tradeoff is a potentially smaller survivor benefit.
Mary Beth Franklin is a contributing editor to InvestmentNews and a certified financial planner.
