Taking Social Security at 62

[RetiredScientist]

I can’t find any reason not to take Social Security at 62. If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%. If you do take it at 62 and get 1 check, you are ahead. By 72, you will have gotten 120 checks. Then you could use your own money to make up the difference.
Why would you use your own money before 72 when using Social Security at 62, probably gives you the best annuity you can have.

[longinvest]

I can’t find any reason not to take Social Security at 62. If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%. If you do take it at 62 and get 1 check, you are ahead. By 72, you will have gotten 120 checks. Then you could use your own money to make up the difference.
Why would you use your own money before 72 when using Social Security at 62, probably gives you the best annuity you can have.

RetiredScientist, one can safely spend more at age 62 by delaying Social Security to age 70, assuming one doesn't have bequest motives. Here's a historical thread about it.

[billfromct]

Why would you even consider taking SS at age 72 since after age 70, your monthly SS amount does not increase if you wait to start SS payments.

Are you confusing IRA required minimum distributions (RMDs),which must start at age 72, with SS payments?

bill

[KlingKlang]

The latest age to wait to take Social Security is 70, not 72.

If you are single you are correct that the expected value of your future payments is actuarially the same no matter what age you claim at. If you have a spouse with a lower earnings record there are advantages to waiting until 70.

[samsoes]

I agree wholeheartedly. I am single, late 50's, FIRE'd a couple of years ago. I am going to take SS as soon as it is available to me. If I croak early, all that SS money which me and my employers paid vaporizes. I'd rather spend that money instead of my own, so in the event of the aforementioned croak event, more will be left to pass along to extended family and charity.

[TheTimeLord]

I can’t find any reason not to take Social Security at 62. If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%. If you do take it at 62 and get 1 check, you are ahead. By 72, you will have gotten 120 checks. Then you could use your own money to make up the difference.
Why would you use your own money before 72 when using Social Security at 62, probably gives you the best annuity you can have.

Why is a 78 year-old asking about taking SS at 62? Or are you 79 or 80 now?

I am 78 with portfolio over two million. I have no debts and retirement income about 160K a year. I want to buy a Tesla Sedan (@$80,000). I cannot justify this purchase other than I want it. Some thoughts?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=327051

[samsoes]

Why is a 78 year-old asking about taking SS at 62? Or are you 79 or 80 now?

I am 78 with portfolio over two million. I have no debts and retirement income about 160K a year. I want to buy a Tesla Sedan (@$80,000). I cannot justify this purchase other than I want it. Some thoughts?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=327051

Perhaps OP is asking on behalf of another person and is being kind in passing along our sage advice.

[JoeRetire]

I can’t find any reason not to take Social Security at 62. If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%.

If you do take it at 62 and get 1 check, you are ahead. By 72, you will have gotten 120 checks. Then you could use your own money to make up the difference.
Why would you use your own money before 72 when using Social Security at 62, probably gives you the best annuity you can have.

You seem not to understand that delayed retirement credits accrue only until 70, not 72?
And perhaps you don't understand that the checks you get starting at 70 are much larger than the ones starting at 62?
And perhaps you aren't clear on how long a 62 year old could expect to live?
Did you know that social security benefits are guaranteed and inflation protected?
Do you have a spouse with lower benefits? If so, have you considered the impact of social security survivor benefits?

If you require the money at 62 to get by, there is no choice to be made. If you don't need the money, use https://opensocialsecurity.com/

[TheTimeLord]

Why is a 78 year-old asking about taking SS at 62? Or are you 79 or 80 now?

I am 78 with portfolio over two million. I have no debts and retirement income about 160K a year. I want to buy a Tesla Sedan (@$80,000). I cannot justify this purchase other than I want it. Some thoughts?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=327051

Perhaps OP is asking on behalf of another person and is being kind in passing along our sage advice.

Could be.

[Jack FFR1846]

I'm 65, still working full time with a wife still working full time. We are not taking social security and are strongly considering both retiring this year. If we were to have taken social security at 62, some part of it would have been taxed. By waiting, we'll be able to throttle our income so that none of it is taxed. This added to the extra (about) 8% per year that we gain has kept us from taking it. I'm 65, by the way. FRA is 66 and 6 months.

You could use Piper's calculation tool or even build yourself an excel spread sheet. I built a spread sheet and figured out where the break even age was. For me, if I remember correctly, it was 82 or 85. And yes, I dropped payments to 80% in 2034, when the SS trust fund runs out. It would make more sense for me (I don't expect to live to 85) to take SS now or at my FRA but the lack of need and the added tax has kept my decision to wait to 70 in place. I do have over 50 times expected spending in savings at the moment. With the recent market drop, it's teetering on 50 times but DW is about to collect an inheritance (I'm helping her with the executor duties) and I just dropped a pension lump sum into my IRA, so we'll stay strongly over 50. Even if I go buy a Porsche.

[tibbitts]

I can’t find any reason not to take Social Security at 62. If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%. If you do take it at 62 and get 1 check, you are ahead. By 72, you will have gotten 120 checks. Then you could use your own money to make up the difference.
Why would you use your own money before 72 when using Social Security at 62, probably gives you the best annuity you can have.

Why is a 78 year-old asking about taking SS at 62? Or are you 79 or 80 now?

I am 78 with portfolio over two million. I have no debts and retirement income about 160K a year. I want to buy a Tesla Sedan (@$80,000). I cannot justify this purchase other than I want it. Some thoughts?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=327051

Maybe it's a theoretical question, although the OP needs to come back and edit the original post to reflect the correct maximum age for claiming SS. It would be interesting, though, to know how many Bogleheads would wait until 72. It would sort of make sense to set the maximum SS claiming age to the RMD age, which of course was supposed to be 75 by now, but for some reason seems to be stuck at 72 for the immediate future.

[jebmke]

Longevity insurance

[Tom_T]

There is a thread with pages and pages of discussion on this topic, and guess what: there is no consensus. However convinced you are that you are correct, there is someone else who disagrees completely and can give perfectly logical reasons why. It's a personal decision. For me, claiming at 62 would be a monumentally stupid financial decision.

[jebmke]

There is a thread with pages and pages of discussion on this topic, and guess what: there is no consensus. However convinced you are that you are correct, there is someone else who disagrees completely and can give perfectly logical reasons why.

there shouldn't be consensus since everyone has different circumstances

[jhawktx]

Why is a 78 year-old asking about taking SS at 62? Or are you 79 or 80 now?

I am 78 with portfolio over two million. I have no debts and retirement income about 160K a year. I want to buy a Tesla Sedan (@$80,000). I cannot justify this purchase other than I want it. Some thoughts?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=327051

Perhaps OP is asking on behalf of another person and is being kind in passing along our sage advice.

Except taking SS at 62 is not sage advice

[Tom_T]

There is a thread with pages and pages of discussion on this topic, and guess what: there is no consensus. However convinced you are that you are correct, there is someone else who disagrees completely and can give perfectly logical reasons why.

there shouldn't be consensus since everyone has different circumstances

That's correct. So when I read another post that says "I can't understand why anyone would not claim at 62", I think "here we go again!"

[Silk McCue]

I can’t find any reason not to take Social Security at 62. If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%. If you do take it at 62 and get 1 check, you are ahead. By 72, you will have gotten 120 checks. Then you could use your own money to make up the difference.
Why would you use your own money before 72 when using Social Security at 62, probably gives you the best annuity you can have.

The Google search box is your friend if you are actually wanting an education. If you aren’t looking for an education …

Cheers

[TheTimeLord]

There is a thread with pages and pages of discussion on this topic, and guess what: there is no consensus. However convinced you are that you are correct, there is someone else who disagrees completely and can give perfectly logical reasons why.

there shouldn't be consensus since everyone has different circumstances

That's correct. So when I read another post that says "I can't understand why anyone would not claim at 62", I think "here we go again!"

There are 3 reasons I can think of to take SS @ 62.
1) Financial need
2) Expectation of a shortened lifespan
3) Off limit topic

There could be more but those are the ones that pop to mind.

[jebmke]

There is a thread with pages and pages of discussion on this topic, and guess what: there is no consensus. However convinced you are that you are correct, there is someone else who disagrees completely and can give perfectly logical reasons why.

there shouldn't be consensus since everyone has different circumstances

That's correct. So when I read another post that says "I can't understand why anyone would not claim at 62", I think "here we go again!"

There are 3 reasons I can think of to take SS @ 62.
1) Financial need
2) Expectation of a shortened lifespan
3) Off limit topic

There could be more but those are the ones that pop to mind.

also a behavioral need. Some people have the need to see a steady external income stream coming in financial need notwithstanding.

[DesertDiva]

“If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%. “
However if you die, you won’t need the money.
You risk more by taking SS early, living longer than you expect and running out of money.

[tibbitts]

“If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%. “
However if you die, you won’t need the money.
You risk more by taking SS early, living longer than you expect and running out of money.

You don't necessarily take on more risk, you just take on different risks with each approach.

[privateID]

I have always liked the idea of annuitizing part of my money. Longevity insurance for the last spouse to die is certainly one of the reasons. I believe delaying SS till 70 instead of 62 is better than any annuity I can buy myself. Now, should the lower earner of a couple delay, that is another question that I think, if doing Roth conversions at that time period, is more complicated than many here believe.

[teen persuasion]

Let's see - if DH and I wait until 70, we'd get $33k in combined SS, or less than $20k at 62.

So we'd need an extra $13k per year to be equal. Twenty-five times $13k is $325k to generate the difference at a 4% SWR.

But we could instead spend $33k for the eight years from 62 to 70 from that $325k, and still have some left over when we begin SS at 70 for $33k/year.

When one of us passes away, the survivor payment will be $24k, instead of $13k.

[260chrisb]

I can’t find any reason not to take Social Security at 62. If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%. If you do take it at 62 and get 1 check, you are ahead. By 72, you will have gotten 120 checks. Then you could use your own money to make up the difference.
Why would you use your own money before 72 when using Social Security at 62, probably gives you the best annuity you can have.

If we only knew when we were going to die!! Not sure why you would wait until 72 as the longer you wait the more you challenge the longevity numbers. For me, I'm going to wait as I won't need the money but not longer than 67 as again over the long run you challenge the longevity numbers. Being as this is a math problem, try what I did; run the numbers for 20 year periods (hoping/projecting to live until 87) beginning at 62 for each year until 67 and ending at 87. Then add the difference of years in the earlier period (in other words 5 years worth of SS for the period beginning at 62, 4 for 63 etc.). The difference is significant but not significant if you wait until 70 as it seems to me the efficiency is right at 67. If you need the money then yes, take it. If you don't think you'll live a long life then yes, take it. Otherwise, holding off may be a better thing!

[quattro73]

Rob Berger just did a YouTube on this:

https://youtu.be/cJw5X2s_czg

[Jack FFR1846]

If we only knew when we were going to die!!

Oh, I figured that out. It's on my "life" spread sheet.

[Kenkat]

Let's see - if DH and I wait until 70, we'd get $33k in combined SS, or less than $20k at 62.

So we'd need an extra $13k per year to be equal. Twenty-five times $13k is $325k to generate the difference at a 4% SWR.

But we could instead spend $33k for the eight years from 62 to 70 from that $325k, and still have some left over when we begin SS at 70 for $33k/year.

When one of us passes away, the survivor payment will be $24k, instead of $13k.

This is the math behind my thinking to delay until 70 as well. I have enough to fund the gap between retirement and social security at 70. I would also add it’s often beneficial for the lower earning spouse to claim at 62, so that is a potential “middle ground” option.

I also see claiming social security as a lever I can pull if something goes south. Portfolio crashed and in ruins? Claim social security. You can plan to wait until 70, but it’s not an irrevocable decision.

[teen persuasion]

Let's see - if DH and I wait until 70, we'd get $33k in combined SS, or less than $20k at 62.

So we'd need an extra $13k per year to be equal. Twenty-five times $13k is $325k to generate the difference at a 4% SWR.

But we could instead spend $33k for the eight years from 62 to 70 from that $325k, and still have some left over when we begin SS at 70 for $33k/year.

When one of us passes away, the survivor payment will be $24k, instead of $13k.

This is the math behind my thinking to delay until 70 as well. I have enough to fund the gap between retirement and social security at 70. I would also add it’s often beneficial for the lower earning spouse to claim at 62, so that is a potential “middle ground” option.

I also see claiming social security as a lever I can pull if something goes south. Portfolio crashed and in ruins? Claim social security. You can plan to wait until 70, but it’s not an irrevocable decision.

There's also the better taxation of SS vs ordinary income. Taxable income on $33k SS plus for example $23.5k in RMDs would be very near zero for MFJ over age 65. But use $20k SS plus $13k makeup income plus same $23.5k RMDs (same gross total), and taxable income is $17k greater.

You net more with a higher proportion of SS vs ordinary income.

[jebmke]

^^ plus many states do not tax SS income

[samsoes]

Why is a 78 year-old asking about taking SS at 62? Or are you 79 or 80 now?

I am 78 with portfolio over two million. I have no debts and retirement income about 160K a year. I want to buy a Tesla Sedan (@$80,000). I cannot justify this purchase other than I want it. Some thoughts?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=327051

Perhaps OP is asking on behalf of another person and is being kind in passing along our sage advice.

Except taking SS at 62 is not sage advice

Let's agree to disagree.

[samsoes]

Duplicate post

[beyou]

This argument amazes me considering all the threads about I bonds.
Everyone is excited to get 7% return on i bonds and loading up the truck, yet each year you wait on
SS is getting you a similar 8% return for waiting.

Also for those with higher assets in high tax states such as mine, one might spend down assets to drop below
the threshold for estate taxes. We have a cliff in NY, so spending my own assets to stay below the cliff saves tons of taxes for my heirs. OTOH if I live many years and risk the opposite, running out of money, will be glad to have a larger SS check.

I see the counter arguments but they are making a pessimistic assumption of dying young.
If I had a very high risk family I would consider SS earlier, but as my relatives all live to ripe old ages,
seems a bad bet to take SS early. I even had a grandmother who had a disease that should have killed her decades before she passed, and in my late 50s I have parents in their early 80s who seem pretty healthy (without trying - never exercise).

[Norwegianwood]

Longevity insurance

+ 1

[Stuckinmn]

This argument amazes me considering all the threads about I bonds.
Everyone is excited to get 7% return on i bonds and loading up the truck, yet each year you wait on
SS is getting you a similar 8% return for waiting.
).

I see this argument sometimes and honestly don't think it's a correct comparison.
It's not a flat easy 8% return, you're paying for that 8% return by giving up the early years of income. For example, if you're 65 and want to wait until 66, the cost of waiting until 66 isn't free, you're giving up a year of income at 92% of full retirement amount in exchange for that. Much different than just waiting a year on an existing investment and forgoing the gains for a bit and still getting the exact same principal, just more gains.

From a bogleheads point of view, I bet it makes sense more often than not to claim early. The system is designed to break even on total payouts between claiming early and late when you reach late 70s, but that assumes no real return. If you don't really need the money and are just going to invest it, if you get a 4% real return,the break even goes well into the 80s. Push it to 6% real return and claiming late never catches up.

So the tldr version, if you don't really need the money and are comfortable with stock market risk, claiming early makes sense IMO. I imagine that describes the majority of bogleheads

[tj]

This argument amazes me considering all the threads about I bonds.
Everyone is excited to get 7% return on i bonds and loading up the truck, yet each year you wait on
SS is getting you a similar 8% return for waiting.

There is no 8% return, trading a year's worth of payments for an 8% higher payment the next year.

That's completely different from interest rates on an i bond purchase.

[Dottie57]

I can’t find any reason not to take Social Security at 62. If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%. If you do take it at 62 and get 1 check, you are ahead. By 72, you will have gotten 120 checks. Then you could use your own money to make up the difference.
Why would you use your own money before 72 when using Social Security at 62, probably gives you the best annuity you can have.

So if you die at or before 70 you won’t care - because dead.

[260chrisb]

If we only knew when we were going to die!!

Oh, I figured that out. It's on my "life" spread sheet.

Would you mind sending me a copy??

[Nowizard]

Personal circumstances are important, as well. If a person does not need the SS for current expenses and determines that in their opinion investing the SS, combined with returns pushes the "get even" date further out than taking the SS at 70, that is a choice that can be made.

Tim

[beyou]

This argument amazes me considering all the threads about I bonds.
Everyone is excited to get 7% return on i bonds and loading up the truck, yet each year you wait on
SS is getting you a similar 8% return for waiting.

There is no 8% return, trading a year's worth of payments for an 8% higher payment the next year.

That's completely different from interest rates on an i bond purchase.

Point is

1) savings bonds are a good deal if you are in the market for bonds.

2) Total Stock ETF (or Fidelity 500 zero fund) are good deals if you want equities.

3) Social security is a good deal if you want an annuity. If you don't want one then taking the smallest one possible at 62 makes sense.
If you are interested in annuities, you get a larger annuity by waiting, still with no commissions to an insurance salesman.

Yes it's not free to buy more (wait to 70) but still a good relative value without an insurance salesman involved. if you take the SS annuity at 62 and later realize you need a larger cash flow, take the SS payments you received and buy another annuity but it will be more costly due to insurance company profits. By not waiting for 70 you are losing an opportunity at a larger government subsidized annuity much like you lose an opportunity for bond income with above average rates by not buying your max annual savings bonds. Use it or lose it benefit that will cost more to replace later if you change your mind.

So many people who have cash, are now scrambling to take advantage of I bonds relative advantage, people who did not historically included. I have been buying savings bonds for almost 20 years now to plan ahead using what is clearly an above average financial product. As an annuity, SS is an above avg financial product ( has inflation adjustments too and no commissions). Back up the truck for both.

Now if you are sure you will dies soon, who cares how much you earn over the next 20-30 years on either financial instrument ?
I know I wouldn't care.

[bob60014]

Just goes to show, one size does not fit all and nobody knows nuttin!

[secondopinion]

Point is

1) savings bonds are a good deal if you are in the market for bonds.

2) Total Stock ETF (or Fidelity 500 zero fund) are good deals if you want equities.

3) Social security is a good deal if you want an annuity. If you don't want one then taking the smallest one possible at 62 makes sense.
If you are interested in annuities, you get a larger annuity by waiting, still with no commissions to an insurance salesman.

Yes it's not free to buy more (wait to 70) but still a good relative value without an insurance salesman involved. if you take the SS annuity at 62 and later realize you need a larger cash flow, take the SS payments you received and buy another annuity but it will be more costly due to insurance company profits. By not waiting for 70 you are losing an opportunity at a larger government subsidized annuity much like you lose an opportunity for bond income with above average rates by not buying your max annual savings bonds. Use it or lose it benefit that will cost more to replace later if you change your mind.

So many people who have cash, are now scrambling to take advantage of I bonds relative advantage, people who did not historically included. I have been buying savings bonds for almost 20 years now to plan ahead using what is clearly an above average financial product. As an annuity, SS is an above avg financial product ( has inflation adjustments too and no commissions). Back up the truck for both.

Now if you are sure you will dies soon, who cares how much you earn over the next 20-30 years on either financial instrument ?
I know I wouldn't care.

When I think about this, it does make a lot of sense. I love I-bonds (I wish I knew of them earlier) as a great safety net and as a tax-deferred investment. The fact one can get free annuity bump if they wait is always a good offer. I plan on working until it is unadvisable to work (my goal is to be a helping hand to my community every day by what I know best: software, mathematics, and money). I will touch SS once I reach 70 or if I cannot work; if I die before breaking even, I guess some other retirees will have more security of their SS. Chances are that waiting until maximum age is the most profitable (longevity is a strong trait in the family, despite serious illness and/or disability). I do carry long-term disability because the odds are unfavorable in the family.

[secondopinion]

Just goes to show, one size does not fit all and nobody knows nuttin!

We may not know the result, but we should know our risks; these risks are not the same as everyone. I firmly oppose the saying "nobody knows nuttin" because it is not true (and it is a double negative which is even worse); we do know something: ourselves and, hopefully, the risks we need to manage.

[FrugalInvestor]

I'm waiting until 70 because my income was substantially higher than my wife's and she is quite a bit younger than me. It will insure that we, and then likely she through her survivor benefit, will have a substantially larger and inflation protected stream of income in the future.

Also, since both of us retired early, not having the additional income in the interim has allowed us to get our ACA health insurance at a substantially lower cost. Having our taxable account invested very tax efficiently (in VTSAX) also helped reduce our ACA premiums as well.

I like the idea of relying more heavily on Social Security for income as we age because it will help to simplify our finances. Although simplicity is always good, I think it is even more valuable as we enter our later years.

[squirm]

Some people might want to use the ss money early for many reasons. They may want to donate it, give it to their kids, etc while they can. Or they may be in a starting state of cognitive decline and want to enjoy it while they can.

[chitownguy]

The guys who do the Allworth Money podcast have an interesting take on this. Their opinion is based on their feeling that there is legislative risk in receiving your full benefit if you are high income. So they say:

If you don't need social security you should take it since they believe it will be reduced in the future

If you do need Social security you should defer and let it grow so you get the maximum benefit

I trust their opinion on this and am considering taking it early.

[Monster99]

This argument amazes me considering all the threads about I bonds.
Everyone is excited to get 7% return on i bonds and loading up the truck, yet each year you wait on
SS is getting you a similar 8% return for waiting.
).

I see this argument sometimes and honestly don't think it's a correct comparison.
It's not a flat easy 8% return, you're paying for that 8% return by giving up the early years of income. For example, if you're 65 and want to wait until 66, the cost of waiting until 66 isn't free, you're giving up a year of income at 92% of full retirement amount in exchange for that. Much different than just waiting a year on an existing investment and forgoing the gains for a bit and still getting the exact same principal, just more gains.

From a bogleheads point of view, I bet it makes sense more often than not to claim early. The system is designed to break even on total payouts between claiming early and late when you reach late 70s, but that assumes no real return. If you don't really need the money and are just going to invest it, if you get a 4% real return,the break even goes well into the 80s. Push it to 6% real return and claiming late never catches up.

So the tldr version, if you don't really need the money and are comfortable with stock market risk, claiming early makes sense IMO. I imagine that describes the majority of bogleheads

I tend to agree with you - it is not straight forward.
The opportunity cost needs to calculated compared to where the bridging funds withdrawn from - If you draw from bonds to bridge the gap the cost will be different than withdrawing from VTI. It really depends on the risk profile you want to deal with and your personal situation.

[JoeRetire]

From a bogleheads point of view, I bet it makes sense more often than not to claim early.

I'd take that bet.

So the tldr version, if you don't really need the money and are comfortable with stock market risk, claiming early makes sense IMO. I imagine that describes the majority of bogleheads

You completely disregard the guarantee factor in social security benefits? The tax favorability? The inflation protection? The survivor benefit?

[celia]

If you have been living as a Boglehead for at least 10 years, you likely have a large tax-deferred account that will spit out large RMDs starting at age 72 and get bigger each year. I feel comfortable in saying most Bogleheads with large tax-deferred accounts would prefer to use the age 62-70 years to do Roth conversions to help level out their taxes during their remaining years instead of having a few low/no income years (in early retirement) followed by many more higher-than-expected tax years.

They would use the space in their tax brackets before they turn 70 for the conversions instead of SS. Besides, when they **DO START** SS, their monthly payout would be almost twice as much compared to the age 62 amount.

[dh]

You seem not to understand that delayed retirement credits accrue only until 70, not 72?
And perhaps you don't understand that the checks you get starting at 70 are much larger than the ones starting at 62?
And perhaps you aren't clear on how long a 62 year old could expect to live?
Did you know that social security benefits are guaranteed and inflation protected?
Do you have a spouse with lower benefits? If so, have you considered the impact of social security survivor benefits?

If you require the money at 62 to get by, there is no choice to be made. If you don't need the money, use https://opensocialsecurity.com/

Thank you, JoeRetire. I haven't firmed up my plan as to when to take social security, yet I appreciated your comments in this thread. You highlight the key factors in the decision.

Some of you might be interested in Chapter 6, "Social Security," in Wade Pfau's Retirement Planning Guidebook.

[celia]

…If you require the money at 62 to get by, there is no choice to be made. If you don't need the money, use https://opensocialsecurity.com/

Thank you, JoeRetire. I haven't firmed up my plan as to when to take social security, yet I appreciated your comments in this thread. You highlight the key factors in the decision.

First you should decide if you need to do Roth conversions since none of the SS calculators I know of will take that into account. So you would be solving a minor question while ignoring the “elephant in the room”.