Bad Advice on Rent vs. Buy and Social Security is All Over the Internet – Find Out Why It’s Wrong.
Somewhere on Instagram right now, someone is watching a video that tells them renting is always smarter than buying a home. Someone else is watching a different video insisting they should claim Social Security at 62. Both videos probably have hundreds of thousands of views. Both are giving advice that could permanently damage a retirement plan.
This is the inaugural episode of Terrible Takes — a new recurring Simon Says segment where genuinely bad financial advice gets the scrutiny it deserves.
What Is a “Terrible Take”?
The concept comes from ESPN’s “Horrible Takes” segment, where sports commentators get called out for the most embarrassingly wrong predictions and statements of the week. The financial internet has no shortage of equivalent material — and unlike a bad sports prediction, a bad financial take absorbed by the wrong person at the wrong moment can have consequences that last decades.
Two viral videos caught our attention recently. Both are instructive. Neither should be trusted.
Terrible Take #1: You Should Always Rent Instead of Buy
The first video features a man with a chalkboard making what he presents as a simple mathematical case: take the money you would have used as a down payment on a house, invest it in the stock market instead, and over 30 years you will always come out ahead.
The math looks impressive until you look at his assumptions.
His lowest return scenario assumes 12% annually — which he casually describes as “just a little bit better than what the market does anyway.” His middle scenario assumes 15%. His top scenario, for the “savvy investor” who has “access to certain things,” assumes 17% annually over 30 years.
Let that sink in for a moment.
The S&P 500’s long-term average annual return is roughly 10% before inflation. Most professional fund managers — people who do this for a living, managing billions of dollars with teams of analysts — cannot beat the S&P 500 consistently over time. That is not an opinion. It is one of the most thoroughly documented facts in all of finance.
This gentleman is telling the average person watching his Instagram video that 12% is a conservative assumption, 15% is reasonable, and 17% is achievable if you are simply “savvy.” At 17% compounded over 30 years, a $200,000 down payment becomes $22.2 million.
There is no polite way to say this: that is not financial analysis. That is a number pulled from thin air and dressed up with a chalkboard.
What the Rent vs. Buy Decision Actually Involves
To be clear — there are legitimate circumstances where renting makes more sense than buying. If you are early in your career, likely to relocate, carrying significant debt, or in a market where purchase prices are dramatically out of line with rental costs, renting can be the right call for now.
But “for now, in your specific situation” is a completely different statement from “always, for everyone, mathematically.” The latter is what this video claims. And it earns its place in the Terrible Takes hall of fame by using fabricated return assumptions to make a predetermined conclusion look like arithmetic.
Terrible Take #2: Claim Social Security at 62
The second video comes from someone who describes himself as a former financial advisor. He seems personable. His content on credit cards and banking is reportedly reasonable. But when he ventures into Social Security strategy, the advice becomes dangerous.
His argument goes roughly like this: if you claim at 62 instead of waiting until 70, the crossover point — where the higher lifetime benefit from waiting finally outweighs the eight years of checks you collected early — doesn’t arrive until age 79. Given a life expectancy of around 83, he reasons, waiting until 70 only gets you three extra years of higher benefits. And besides, a dollar at 62 is worth more than a dollar at 82, because at 62 you are healthier, more active, and have more things to spend money on.
There is a surface logic here that makes the argument feel reasonable. It is still wrong — and in practice, it costs people real money.
Why Waiting Almost Always Wins
Every year you delay claiming Social Security past your full retirement age, your benefit grows by 8% — simple interest, guaranteed, inflation-adjusted, for life. There is no investment available to most people that offers an 8% guaranteed annual return with no market risk. Waiting from 62 to 70 doesn’t just add years of higher checks. It permanently resets your baseline benefit upward for every year you live past the crossover point.
Here is something you will not hear on most financial channels: in more than 30 years of working with clients through retirement, through later life, and through estate settlement, not one client has ever said they wished they had taken Social Security at 62. Not one. The opposite has happened — clients who claimed early have expressed regret. More than once.
The Costs That Keep Rising in Later Life
The “you’re more active at 62” argument ignores two of the fastest-rising cost categories in the American economy: healthcare and long-term care. Yes, you may travel less at 82. You will almost certainly spend significantly more on medical expenses, prescription costs, and potentially long-term care. Those costs have been rising well above general inflation for decades and show no sign of slowing.
The higher monthly Social Security benefit you secured by waiting doesn’t just fund vacations. It funds the years when costs are highest and earning capacity is gone.
The Spouse Nobody Mentions
There is one more reason to wait that rarely gets discussed in these viral videos — and it may be the most important one for married couples.
If you are the higher earner in your household and your spouse has a longer life expectancy than you — whether due to age difference, gender, or health history — your Social Security benefit doesn’t end when you do. Your surviving spouse receives it. Claiming early locks in a permanently lower survivor benefit for your spouse. Waiting until 70 is not just planning for yourself. It is one of the most meaningful financial gifts you can leave a partner who will likely outlive you.
A Note on AI and Longevity
One more variable worth putting on the radar: longevity itself is changing. Advances in medical technology — including AI-assisted diagnostics and drug discovery — are extending healthy lifespans in ways that actuarial tables from even a decade ago didn’t anticipate. The case for maximizing a guaranteed, inflation-adjusted lifetime income stream gets stronger, not weaker, as life expectancy increases. The people most likely to be affected by this are the affluent, health-conscious investors in their 50s and 60s who are already making these decisions today.
Why This Matters
Bad financial advice has always existed. What has changed is distribution. A single Instagram video with fabricated return assumptions or flawed Social Security math can reach millions of people in 48 hours — many of whom have no way to evaluate whether the logic holds up.
That is why Terrible Takes exists. And if you come across something that looks like a candidate — advice that seems off, math that doesn’t add up, confident claims about investing or retirement that feel too simple — send it to Dave at dave@1pwm.com. No promises, but if it’s genuinely dangerous to someone’s financial health, it may well appear in a future episode.
Get Advice That’s Actually Built for Your Situation
Social Security timing, rent vs. buy decisions, investment return assumptions — these are not questions with universal answers. They depend on your assets, your income, your health, your spouse’s situation, your tax picture, and your goals.
If you are within ten to fifteen years of retirement and you are not certain your current plan accounts for all of those variables, that is worth a conversation. Give us a call at 636-214-1005 or visit our contact page — no obligation, just a straightforward look at where things stand.
