This is the paper that launched the kerfuffle:
Why Delaying Social Security Benefits Isn’t Always the Best Decision

By John H. Robinson, Financial Planner (September 2025)
On September 17, the above-referenced/linked paper was published on Kitces.com’s Nerd’s Eye View blog. The author, Derek Tharp, PhD, CFP, is a highly regarded academic researcher and financial planning industry thought leader. He is particularly recognized for his work in developing the concept of dynamic retirement spending, which is widely regarded as the current leading edge of spending optimization research (see article link below).

Derek Tharp: An Alternative Approach to Calculating In-Retirement Withdrawals

As the titled suggest, Tharp’s latest paper challenges the prevailing orthodoxy that most American consumers should delay claiming social security to age 70. This financial planning dogma is rooted in the research efforts of Michael Finke, David Blanchett, and Wade Pfau. Like Tharp, these gentlemen are all PhD’s. Through their prolific research production, the triumvirate has attained something akin to rockstar status within the financial planning community. All three of these gentlemen, along with renowned Boston University professor and Social Security planning software maker, Larry Kotlikoff, seem to be generally in agreement that most Americans claim Social Security retirement benefits too early. A sampling of their publications is provided below:

How Much Makes Someone Wealthy, and Why It Can Pay to Delay Social Security
Delayed Claiming of Social Security Retirement Benefits: Almost a Free Lunch?
Why Advisors Should Never Recommend Social Security Claiming at 62
Which Social Security Claiming Strategy Generates the Highest Legacy Value?
The Value of Delayed Social Security Claiming for Higher-Earning Women

In his paper, Tharp challenges some of the assumptions and methodologies used by his esteemed colleagues and suggests that the number of retirees for whom claiming at 70 is optimal may be smaller than the number they suggest. He also had the audacity to call out his fellow researchers by name. I suspect that that this may have been what set off the fireworks as much as the substance of the article. Either way, the paper generated a swift blowback, as exemplified by the following response from David Blanchett.

“I take significant issue with how my thoughts and research on this specific topic, and
my other research around retirement more generally, are discussed (and honestly
miscited) in this article by Derek. I think it’s an incredibly poor look and borderline
unprofessional.”

Wade Pfau, provided a lengthy rebuttal that was generally more measured and diplomatic than Blanchett, but it seemed obvious that his feathers were ruffled as well. As of this writing, Professors Finke and Kotlikoff have not chimed in.

The Heart of the Debate

The two sides’ perspectives on the optimal age for claiming are not as disparate as they might appear. Both sides agree that there are plenty of scenarios when delaying to age 70 is a sound choice, such as to preserve maximum income for a widowed spouse who has little or no social security earnings of her/his own and for people seeking to fill up lower tax brackets with partial Roth conversions. Both sides appear to acknowledge that there are even times when claiming at 62 may be appropriate, particularly instance of terminal illness or other life-shortening health conditions.

According to Tharp, where they differ is in how they regard the concept of expected utility. He suggests that his researcher colleagues do not adequately account for the fact that retirees value early years in retirement more than later years. He also suggests that they do not adequately account for perfectly legitimate behavioral factors that cause some retirees to elect to claim early. Specifically, the decision to claim at FRA (or at any time before 70) may be a rational hedging strategy by the client to ensure that they get back at least some of the money they contributed in the event that the end up being on the wrong half of the life expectancy median.

J.R.’s Two Cents

Of the five researchers involved in this debate, it is worth mentioning that only one is actually engaged in the business of giving financial planning advice to real world consumers – Derek Tharp. My first impression when I read the paper was that this is a refreshing perspective from someone who is actually having conversations on this topic with retirees. It occurred to me that he has picked up on important nuances of retirees’ thought processes that are either overlooked or dismissed as naïve by those in the academic camp.

I agree that the academic community does not fully account for the degree to which retirees value the fun/travel years of early retirement relative to the later years when income and investments are consumed by care costs. I also agree that the delay-to-70 crowd does not appreciate the conscious rational decision consumers make to claim before 70 in order to ensure that they get some of the money they paid into Social Security back in retirement. According to the Social Security Administration, the median life expectancy for a 67 year old male is 83. This means that 50% of 67 year old males will die before 83 and some will pass much earlier. From this perspective, claiming at FRA seems like a rational, informed hedge.

Beyond these, I believe the current age-70 paradigm completely discounts the very real bequest motive of many retirees. According to their advice, retirees’ interests would be better served by spending down their retirement savings to allow them to gain greater lifetime wealth from their Social Security benefits. However, spending assets now obviously reduces the amount that may be left for heirs. The death benefit to heirs from Social Security is a paltry $250. Lastly, the impending prospect of a roughly 20% reduction in Social Security retirement benefits benefits caused by the depletion of the Social Security Trust fund sometime around 2033 would also seem to be a valid reason for retirees desire to grab what they can today.

Parting Thoughts

I commend Derek Tharp for having the courage to publish this perspective. Spirited debate advances the profession, and it is disheartening to see the petty, defensive response from his researcher peers, particularly the comments from David Blanchett. However, I am not entirely surprised, as it seems in keeping with Blanchett’s character. In the past, he has suggested that financial planners who do not adopt his views on certain issues may be guilty of professional “malpractice.” Over the years I have
witnessed him belittle advisors who disagree his views and react with great indignation when his perspectives are challenged. That said, he is a competent and prolific researcher whose contributions have advanced financial planning. Methinks he just admires is own work a little too much.

In my opinion, the biggest contribution of this paper is that it gives credence to the idea that claiming a FRA is not necessarily a mistake, and it raises awareness in the financial planning community of some of reasons why claiming at FRA may be a rational choice for some larger subset of retirees.

In closing, I also wish to raise awareness of the slew of disastrously bad social security claiming that propagating across social security like an insidious weed. I am specifically referencing guidance that is directing everyone to claim social security benefits at age 62. It is difficult to articulate just how misguided an uniformed this blanket advice truly is. Popularity and an attractive camera presence are not a litmus test for financial planning competency.