According to a February 2024 study published in the Journal of Financial Planning, when you account for a realistic investment return on the money used to fund the delay period, 77 percent of men and 65 percent of women never live long enough to break even on waiting from age 67 to age 70 to claim Social Security. That finding, from researchers Gary Smith and Margaret H. Smith, is not a fringe view. It appears in peer-reviewed research and rests on straightforward math that most Social Security calculators quietly omit.
The advice to delay has real logic behind it. An 8 percent annual credit for each year past full retirement age is a statutory increase that no market investment can promise. The standard advice to “wait until 70” is not wrong, exactly. It is just incomplete, because it rests on one assumption almost no one states out loud: that the money you spend while waiting costs you nothing. If you are drawing down your 401(k) or IRA to cover living expenses during the delay period, you are implicitly assuming those dollars earn zero return while they sit in your account. A 60/40 portfolio has historically earned roughly 4.89% per year in real terms, according to analysis published by Kitces.com in September 2025, though historical returns do not indicate future results. When you plug a realistic return into the break-even calculation, the math changes substantially.
The goal of this guide is not to tell you to claim early. It is to give you the complete picture, including the evidence on both sides, so that deciding when to take Social Security becomes a real decision grounded in your specific situation, rather than a default.
When Should You Take Social Security? The Question Most Advisors Ask Wrong
The conventional advice to delay Social Security until age 70 has a real logic behind it. Delayed retirement credits increase your monthly benefit by approximately 8 percent for each year you wait past your full retirement age (FRA). For those born in 1960 or later, FRA is age 67. Credits stop accruing at age 70. The total spread between claiming at 62 and claiming at 70 is roughly 77 percent in benefit size, according to the Social Security Administration. That is a genuinely significant difference.
The logic sounds persuasive because it is, in a narrow sense, correct. A larger monthly benefit is better than a smaller one. The question is whether “maximize the monthly benefit” is the right frame for the decision at all.
Social Security is not a benefit to be maximized in isolation. It is an income floor — the base layer of income that continues regardless of market conditions, as long as you live. The claiming decision determines how much floor you have, when you start building it, and what you give up to get it. Those tradeoffs interact with your other income sources, your portfolio, your taxes, your Medicare premiums, and your spouse’s benefit structure.
The more useful question is not “when do I get the biggest check?” What does it cost you to wait?
Social Security at 62 vs. 67 vs. 70: What the Numbers Show
The Social Security Administration provides concrete examples of how benefits change by claiming age. Using current SSA figures, the comparison looks like this:
| Claiming Age | Monthly Benefit | Annual Benefit | Face-Value Break-Even vs. Age 67 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62 | $2,969 | ~$35,600 | — |
| 67 (FRA) | $4,152 | ~$49,800 | — |
| 70 | $5,181 | ~$62,100 | ~age 82–83 |
Source: SSA.gov benefit examples (as of 2026). Individual benefits vary based on your earnings record. FRA of 67 applies to those born in 1960 or later.
Note: The break-even calculation above assumes no investment return on funds used during the delay period. The next section explains what changes when that assumption is relaxed.
These numbers are real and worth understanding. Claiming at 62 locks in a permanent reduction of approximately 30 percent compared to your FRA benefit. Waiting to 70 produces a benefit roughly 24 percent higher than FRA, or 77 percent higher than the age-62 amount. At face value, if you live to approximately age 82 or 83, the higher benefit from waiting to 70 has paid back what you gave up by not claiming at 67.
The face-value break-even calculation is where most Social Security advice stops. It is not where the analysis should stop.
One additional note: Social Security’s benefit structure is subject to future legislative change. Any long-range claiming analysis carries uncertainty about whether current rules will remain in place.
What Break-Even Analysis Misses: The Opportunity Cost of Waiting
As the opening of this post showed, that assumption (that delay costs nothing) is doing a lot of work in the conventional break-even calculation. The research quantifies exactly how much.
September 2025, Kitces named the problem precisely. Standard Social Security break-even analysis uses a 0% real discount rate, which is appropriate only if the investor has no better use for the bridging dollars. The correct discount rate is the investor’s expected portfolio return (the opportunity cost of the assets liquidated to fund the delay gap). At a historical 60/40 real return of 4.89% (from 1901 through 2022), the break-even math changes substantially. At discount rates of 6 to 8 percent, which may be appropriate for growth-oriented portfolios, early claiming wins on an expected-value basis.
Smith and Smith’s February 2024 Journal of Financial Planning study put numbers to this directly. At a 4% real discount rate, a retiree must survive to approximately age 89 for delaying from 67 to 70 to pay off. According to their research, 77 percent of men and 65 percent of women do not reach age 89. That means, at a realistic discount rate, the majority of retirees who delay to 70 never reach the break-even point.
A December 2025 SSRN working paper (not yet peer-reviewed) found that early claiming is optimal for households with up to $800,000 in initial retirement wealth. For households with $1 million in initial wealth, the model recommended claiming at age 65, not 70. This threshold encompasses the majority of Americans approaching retirement. The model incorporates consumption timing preferences, source-dependent utility, and simultaneous retirement-and-claiming behavior, so its applicability depends on whether those assumptions match your situation. Because this is a working paper that has not yet completed peer review, it should not be treated as settled science, but it corroborates the direction of the peer-reviewed research above.
A 2025 Vanguard analysis examined 10,000 Monte Carlo scenarios and found that median projected wealth was higher for retirees who claimed at 62 compared to those who claimed at 70, a difference sustained through age 88. Vanguard identified specific conditions driving that result: portfolio preservation from reduced early withdrawals, and the tax efficiency of spreading Social Security income across more years.
To make this concrete: consider a retiree eligible for approximately $4,243 per month at FRA (age 67) who decides to delay until 70. The following is a hypothetical illustration for educational purposes only. Actual results depend on your earnings record, portfolio allocation, and individual circumstances.
Bridging three years without Social Security requires drawing from savings to replace approximately $152,748 in foregone benefits ($4,243 per month times 36 months). At a 4.89% real return, those dollars carried an opportunity cost. The incremental monthly benefit from waiting is approximately $938 ($5,181 minus $4,243). (These figures are drawn from the SSA benefit examples used in this guide; your actual incremental benefit will differ based on your earnings record.) Whether that incremental benefit justifies the cost of the bridge depends heavily on how long the retiree lives and what return those bridging assets would otherwise have earned.
One more variable: Social Security benefits are not inheritable. The delayed benefit, once claimed, provides income for your lifetime but does not pass to your estate or your beneficiaries when you die. For single claimants, the non-inheritability is absolute. The higher monthly benefit dies with the claimant. For married claimants, the survivor benefit partially addresses this. The next section covers how a spouse can claim on the deceased worker’s record, including any delayed retirement credits that worker earned. For both groups, the delayed benefit belongs in the spending layer of your retirement plan, not the legacy layer.
This analysis is notably absent from much conventional financial advice. A 2023 study in the Retirement Management Journal, by David Blanchett and Jason J. Fichtner, found that advisors compensated as a percentage of assets under management have a structural financial incentive to recommend delayed claiming. Delayed claiming keeps more assets invested for longer. For AUM-compensated advisors, a larger portfolio means a larger fee. The authors note that these advisors “may be biased” toward delay. Fee-only advisors, whose compensation does not grow with your portfolio balance, do not face this particular incentive. The finding is a correlation, not a universal statement about any individual advisor. It is a structural reality worth understanding when evaluating the advice you receive.
How Spousal and Survivor Benefits Change the Calculation
The opportunity cost argument in the previous section applies most directly to single claimants and to the lower-earning spouse in a couple — but for the higher earner, a different consideration often points the other direction.
Everything above applies to a single person making a solo claiming decision. For married couples, the decision is never that simple.
Each spouse has their own earnings record and their own claiming age. The choices interact across two benefit streams, two life expectancies, a joint period while both are alive, and a survivor period after one spouse dies. Getting this right requires thinking about all four phases at once.
Here is how the SSA rules work. The spousal benefit allows a lower-earning spouse to receive up to 50% of the higher earner’s primary insurance amount (PIA) (50% of what the higher earner would receive at their FRA, not 50% of any delayed benefit including credits for waiting past FRA). A critical point: the spousal benefit does not increase if the higher-earning spouse delays past FRA. The spousal benefit cap is 50% of PIA regardless of when the higher earner claims.
Deemed filing applies to all Social Security claimants born after January 1, 1954. Under deemed filing, when you apply for either your own retirement benefit or a spousal benefit, you are automatically deemed to be applying for both. You receive whichever is higher. You cannot claim one and deliberately delay the other to maximize each separately.
Survivor benefits work differently. When a spouse dies, the surviving spouse is entitled to between 71.5% and 100% of what the deceased worker was receiving, depending on the survivor’s age at the time of claim. At the surviving spouse’s FRA, the survivor benefit equals 100% of what the deceased worker received, including any delayed retirement credits the deceased worker earned by waiting past FRA. Survivor benefits are not subject to deemed filing. The surviving spouse can claim the survivor benefit while allowing their own retirement benefit to grow, or vice versa.
This structure has a clear implication for couples: the higher earner’s delayed benefit passes to the surviving spouse at full value. Michael Kitces analyzed this dynamic in a 2015 piece on Kitces.com and found that for traditional couples, the higher earner should generally delay to maximize the survivor benefit, while the lower earner should claim early. The lower earner’s benefit functions as what Kitces calls a “first-to-die annuity.” Once the surviving spouse claims the higher worker’s benefit, the lower earner’s separate benefit stops providing value to the couple.
A December 2025 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Financial Planning by Brian J. Alleva analyzed over 9,000 potential monthly claiming age combinations per couple and confirmed that for traditional couples — where the husband is the older, higher earner — optimal strategies nearly always involve the husband delaying (usually to 70) and the wife claiming early (around 62). For non-traditional couples, Alleva found that optimal strategies are “highly variable.”
An important complication exists. Alleva (2025), citing demographic projections from Iams (2016) in the Social Security Bulletin, noted that over 80% of married women now entering retirement receive benefits on their own earnings record. When both spouses have comparable earnings histories, the simple “husband delays, wife claims early” heuristic may not apply. The optimal strategy depends on the specific benefit amounts, the age gap between spouses, and each person’s health and life expectancy.
Consider this hypothetical example (provided for illustrative purposes only; actual benefits depend on individual earnings records):
Maria (age 58, projected Social Security benefit of approximately $3,200 per month at FRA) and James (age 62, projected benefit of approximately $1,900 per month at FRA) are evaluating a split claiming strategy. Under this approach, Maria delays to age 70 to maximize the benefit that would pass to James as a survivor benefit if she predeceases him. James claims at 62 or 63. His lower benefit functions as a first-to-die income stream — it ends when Maria’s higher benefit becomes available to James as a survivor. The couple captures income early while preserving the larger long-term survivor benefit.
This is a hypothetical illustration for educational purposes only. Benefit projections depend on individual earnings records available through SSA.gov. Actual optimal strategies require analysis of both spouses’ complete benefit structures, health histories, and retirement income architecture. In this scenario, James’ benefits depend on Maria’s age at death (if she passes before 70, he would not get the age 70 amount. Also, James’ benefit would be subject to a reduction if he files the survivor benefit before his FRA.
One more underappreciated point: a lower-earning spouse’s own benefit never exceeds 50% of the higher earner’s PIA through the spousal benefit, regardless of how long the lower earner delays their own claim. Delaying the lower earner’s benefit in hopes of increasing the spousal benefit is often a misconception.
For married couples, the question is never just “when should I claim?” The real question: what is the optimal combination of claiming ages across two benefit streams, two life expectancies, and both the joint period and the survivor period?
When Delaying Social Security Does Make Sense
We want to be direct about the counterevidence, because it is substantial.
A January 2023 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Financial Planning by Wade D. Pfau and Steve Parrish examined Social Security claiming strategies across historical scenarios for retirees with significant assets. For a single person with $1 million in retirement savings, delaying to 70 produced a larger net legacy wealth in 76.3 percent of historical scenarios tested. For a couple with $3 million, delayed claiming outperformed in 77.1 percent of historical scenarios.
That finding deserves to be stated clearly and not minimized: the historical record, across most scenarios tested, favors delay for long-lived retirees with substantial assets. The 23.7 percent of scenarios where early claiming wins is not a reason to dismiss delayed claiming as generally wrong. It is a reason to determine which scenario you are in because the answer differs based on your portfolio size, your health, and how your income is structured.
Michael Kitces identified a compelling structural argument for delay in a 2014 piece on Kitces.com. Delayed Social Security provides what he calls a triple hedge (against longevity risk, inflation risk, and poor market returns simultaneously). The delayed benefit grows in real terms over time. It is indexed to inflation. Its value increases relative to portfolio income when investment returns are low. A 2012 Kitces analysis found the real return on delayed Social Security historically approaches approximately 5 percent by age 90 and approaches 6 percent by age 94, outperforming commercially available immediate annuities for long-lived retirees. Historical returns do not indicate future results, and Social Security’s benefit structure is subject to future legislative change.
Four specific situations where delay tends to make sense:
Long life expectancy. If your personal health is excellent and your family routinely lives into their late 80s and 90s, the break-even math shifts in delay’s favor. At realistic discount rates, the case for waiting strengthens meaningfully when the survival horizon extends into the 90s.
No bridge assets. The opportunity cost argument requires having assets that could be invested instead of liquidated to fund the delay. If there are genuinely no qualified accounts or investment assets to draw from during a delay period, the opportunity cost argument does not apply. The claiming decision differs fundamentally for someone with a pension covering expenses versus someone who must liquidate their only savings to bridge the gap.
Survivor benefit maximization for higher earner. If the higher-earning spouse is significantly older or in better health than their partner, and the surviving spouse may collect the delayed benefit for 20 or more years, the survivor benefit case for the higher earner delaying to 70 can be strong. This is the scenario where the Pfau and Parrish findings are most directly applicable.
Social Security as the only inflation-adjusted income stream. A retiree who has a pension already has an inflation-adjusted income floor. If Social Security is the only income source with built-in inflation protection, the triple hedge value Kitces identified becomes more compelling. The higher the reliance on Social Security relative to other income sources, the stronger the case for maximizing the benefit.
As noted earlier, Social Security’s benefit structure is subject to future legislative change. Any long-range analysis should acknowledge that the current rules may not remain in place indefinitely, which adds a layer of uncertainty to projections extending decades forward.
How Social Security Fits Into an Income Plan
The most important reframe: Social Security is not a standalone optimization problem. It is one component of a retirement income architecture, and the claiming decision cannot be evaluated in isolation from everything else.
Many retirement income plans are organized around three distinct layers: income the household needs regardless of market conditions (the floor), growth assets for long-term wealth and inflation protection, and reserve assets for large or unexpected needs. Social Security, along with any pension income, forms the natural foundation of that income floor. Its value as longevity insurance, inflation protection, and a market-independent income source is most clearly visible when you see it as part of that architecture rather than as a benefit to maximize in isolation.
When you view Social Security as the floor, the claiming decision shifts. The question is no longer “how do I maximize my lifetime Social Security benefit?” Instead: how does my claiming age interact with my required portfolio withdrawals, my Roth conversion strategy, my Medicare premiums, and the sequencing of my other income sources?
One interaction that surprises many retirees: Social Security benefits may themselves be partially taxable. Up to 85% of your Social Security benefits are included in taxable income if your combined income (adjusted gross income plus nontaxable interest plus half of your Social Security benefits) exceeds $34,000 for individuals or $44,000 for married couples filing jointly. Claiming Social Security earlier, while also drawing from other accounts, can push some retirees over these thresholds and increase the taxable portion of their benefit. Claiming later may reduce this overlap in some situations. The right answer depends on how all income sources are sequenced — another variable that a comprehensive income plan, not a Social Security-only calculation, is designed to address.
The Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (IRMAA) is a related interaction. Claiming Social Security early can affect the income figure used to calculate Medicare Part B and Part D premiums. Retirees whose income crosses IRMAA thresholds can pay meaningfully higher premiums, which reduces the net income benefit from any claiming strategy. This is one more reason the claiming decision belongs inside a full retirement income analysis rather than outside it.
Social Security is also a consumption asset, not a legacy asset. The monthly income it provides is spent, not accumulated and passed to heirs. This places it clearly in the spending layer of the income plan. Legacy goals are better served by portfolio assets (which are inheritable) than by maximizing a government benefit that terminates at death.
Common Questions About When to Take Social Security
What is the break-even age for delaying Social Security from 67 to 70?
At face value (comparing cumulative benefits received without any adjustment for investment returns), the break-even age for delaying from 67 to 70 is approximately age 82 to 83. That is the point at which the higher monthly benefit from waiting has paid back the benefits you did not collect during the delay period. However, when you account for a realistic investment return on the money used to fund the delay period, the break-even age rises substantially. Smith and Smith’s February 2024 Journal of Financial Planning study found that at a 4% real discount rate, you must survive to approximately age 89 for the delay to pay off. Most people do not reach that age.
Social Security at 62 vs. 67 vs. 70: which is better?
There is no universal answer to when to take Social Security benefits. The right claiming age depends on your health, your other assets, your marital status, and how your income is structured. The comparison table earlier in this guide shows the benefit amounts at each age. For households with up to $800,000 in initial retirement wealth, a December 2025 SSRN working paper (not yet peer-reviewed) found early claiming is generally optimal in the model tested — though whether the model’s assumptions match your situation requires individual analysis. For married couples, a split strategy (where the higher earner delays and the lower earner claims earlier) tends to outperform both spouses claiming at the same age, according to a December 2025 Journal of Financial Planning study analyzing over 9,000 scenario combinations.
If I claim Social Security early, can I still receive my spouse’s benefit?
The spousal benefit allows a lower-earning spouse to receive up to 50% of the higher earner’s primary insurance amount (PIA). Deemed filing rules mean that when you apply for your own retirement benefit, you are automatically deemed to be applying for the spousal benefit as well. You receive whichever is higher, but you cannot claim one and delay the other. An important point: the spousal benefit does not increase if the higher-earning spouse delays past FRA. The cap is 50% of the higher earner’s PIA regardless of when they claim. Survivor benefit rules are different and allow independent claiming decisions.
Should one spouse claim Social Security early while the other waits until 70?
For many traditional couples, this split claiming strategy is close to optimal: the higher earner delays to maximize the survivor benefit that will pass to the surviving spouse, while the lower earner claims earlier. Michael Kitces analyzed this structure in 2015 and explained that the lower earner’s benefit functions as a first-to-die income stream. It ends when the surviving spouse claims the higher earner’s benefit, so its long-term value to the couple is limited. A December 2025 Journal of Financial Planning study confirmed the split strategy across over 9,000 scenario combinations. That said, the strategy is highly variable for non-traditional couples and for the growing proportion of married women — demographic projections cited by Alleva (2025) suggest over 80% of married women now entering retirement claim on their own earnings records — for whom the split strategy requires individual analysis.
How does when I take Social Security affect my taxes?
Up to 85% of Social Security benefits may be included in taxable income depending on your combined income (AGI plus nontaxable interest plus half of your Social Security benefits). Individual filers with combined income above $34,000, and married couples above $44,000, may have up to 85% of benefits included in taxable income. The claiming age affects when Social Security income layers on top of other retirement income sources, which can influence your tax bracket and the taxable portion of your benefits. Deciding when to take Social Security is part of a broader income sequencing decision, not an isolated calculation.
Key Takeaway
Social Security claiming is one of the highest-impact decisions in retirement, and it is also one of the most interaction-dependent. The conventional advice to wait until 70 rests on a break-even calculation that ignores the opportunity cost of the assets used to fund the delay. When that variable is included, at realistic portfolio return rates, early claiming often produces better outcomes for the majority of retirees. For married couples, the analysis becomes a two-stream optimization problem with no universal answer.
None of this means delay is always wrong. Long life expectancy, no bridge assets, and survivor benefit maximization are all legitimate reasons to wait. The goal is to make a deliberate choice, with the full picture, rather than to follow a default.
If you would like to work through how your claiming age fits into your overall income plan, we are glad to run the analysis with you. The answer is specific to your situation — which is exactly where it should start.
If you’d like to explore how any of this connects to your own financial picture, we’d be glad to talk.
Sources
- SSA. “Starting Your Retirement Benefits Early.” Social Security Administration. https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/agereduction.html
- SSA. “Delayed Retirement Credits.” Social Security Administration. https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/delayret.html
- SSA. “If You Were Born in 1960 or Later, Your Full Retirement Age Is 67.” Social Security Administration. https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/1960.html
- Bystry, Dawn. “Do You Qualify for Social Security Spouse’s Benefits?” Social Security Matters (blog), July 11, 2024. https://www.ssa.gov/blog/en/posts/2024-07-11.html
- SSA. “Filing Rules for Retirement and Spouses Benefits.” Social Security Administration. https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/claiming.html
- Iams, Howard M. “Married Women’s Projected Retirement Benefits: An Update.” Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 76, No. 2, May 2016. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v76n2/v76n2p17.html
- SSA. “What You Could Get from Survivor Benefits.” Social Security Administration. https://www.ssa.gov/survivor/amount
- Hounsell, Cindy. “Survivor Benefits: Four Tips Widows Need to Know.” Social Security Matters (blog), May 27, 2022. https://blog.ssa.gov/survivor-benefits-four-tips-widows-need-to-know/
- Tharp, Derek. “Why Delaying Social Security Benefits Isn’t Always the Best Decision.” Kitces.com (Nerd’s Eye View), September 25, 2025. https://www.kitces.com/blog/discount-rate-delaying-social-security-benefits-retirement-planning/
- Kitces, Michael. “Why It Rarely Pays for Both Spouses to Delay Social Security Benefits.” Kitces.com (Nerd’s Eye View). https://www.kitces.com/blog/why-it-rarely-pays-for-both-spouses-to-delay-social-security-benefits/
- Alleva, Brian J. “The Social Security Claiming Decision for Married Couples.” Journal of Financial Planning 38 (12): 70–87, December 2025. https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/learning/publications/journal/DEC25-social-security-claiming-decision-married-couples-OPEN
- Pfau, Wade D., and Steve Parrish. “Which Social Security Claiming Strategy Generates the Highest Legacy Value?” Journal of Financial Planning 36 (1): 68–84, January 2023. https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/learning/publications/journal/JAN23-which-social-security-claiming-strategy-generates-highest-legacy-value-OPEN
- Tharp, Derek. “Revisiting the Social Security Claiming Puzzle: Behavioral Preferences as Rational Explanations for Early Claiming.” SSRN Working Paper, December 18, 2025. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5943355
- Smith, Gary N., and Margaret H. Smith. “It May Be a Mistake to Delay Social Security Retirement Benefits.” Journal of Financial Planning 37 (2), February 2024. https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/learning/publications/journal/FEB24-it-may-be-mistake-delay-social-security-retirement-benefits-OPEN
- Kitces, Michael. “How Delaying Social Security Can Be the Best Long-Term Investment or Annuity Money Can Buy.” Kitces.com (Nerd’s Eye View), April 2, 2014. https://www.kitces.com/blog/how-delaying-social-security-can-be-the-best-long-term-investment-or-annuity-money-can-buy/
- Kitces, Michael. “The Asymmetric Value of Delaying Social Security Benefits as the Ultimate Hedge.” Kitces.com (Nerd’s Eye View). https://www.kitces.com/blog/the-asymmetric-value-of-delaying-social-security-benefits-as-the-ultimate-hedge/
- Blanchett, David, and Jason J. Fichtner. “Biased Advice? The Relationship Between Financial Professionals’ Compensation and Social Security Retirement Benefit Claiming Decisions.” Retirement Management Journal 12 (1): 54–64, 2023. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4749066
- Passman, James. “Social Security: For Some, Early Claiming Is Better.” Vanguard Research, February 27, 2025. https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/articles/social-security-for-some-claiming-early-better.html
- SSA. “What Is the Maximum Social Security Retirement Benefit Payable?” Social Security Administration. https://www.ssa.gov/faqs/en/questions/KA-01897.html
Lifeworks is a registered investment advisor. Information presented is for educational purposes only and does not intend to make an offer or solicitation for the sale or purchase of any specific securities, investments, or investment strategies. Investments involve risk and, unless otherwise stated, are not guaranteed. Be sure to first consult with a qualified financial advisor and/or tax professional before implementing any strategy discussed herein. Past performance is not indicative of future performance.
Past performance is not indicative of future results. Any indices referenced are unmanaged and cannot be invested into directly. Index returns do not reflect fees, expenses, or sales charges. All data is believed to be from reliable sources; however, we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.