Alicia H. Munnell () (Center for Retirement Research at Boston College) Steven A. Sass () (Center for Retirement Research at Boston College) Mauricio Soto () (Center for Retirement Research at Boston College)
Additional information is available for the following
registered author(s):
The same issue keeps reappearing. How to deal with the risk associated with equity investments when evaluating the financial health of retirement systems? Some experts argue that retirement plans holding equities can make smaller funding contributions than those invested primarily in bonds. After all, stocks yield 7 percent, after inflation, and bonds only 3 percent. Nonsense, say others. The higher expected returns on equities reflect their greater risk. Any serious financial evaluation of retirement arrangements must “risk-adjust” these returns. After accounting for risk, the contribution needed today to fund future pension obligations is the same regardless of whether the fund is invested in equities or bonds. Is it possible to reconcile these two views? How should individuals, governments, and employers account for the expected additional returns from equity investment in pension funds? How should they account for the additional risk? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, how does this relate to the debate about creating private accounts with equity investments for Social Security? To sort out these difficult questions, this brief does three things. First, it describes how equities have performed over the last 75 years. Second, it explains how economists, accountants, and actuaries handle the high returns/high risks associated with equities in the real world. Finally, it explores the implications of the risk discussion for evaluating Social Security reform proposals. The conclusion is that the treatment of the high returns/high risks associated with equity investment depends on the extent to which the entity can manage the risk and the purpose of the calculation. In the case of Social Security reform proposals, evaluations tht focus solely on the expected return to equities, without adjusting for risk, overstate the contribution of private accounts to retirement income security.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Center for Retirement Research in its series Issues in Brief with number
ib27.
Find related papers by JEL classification: E22 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomics: Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Capital; Investment; Capacity D91 - Microeconomics - - Intertemporal Choice and Growth - - - Intertemporal Consumer Choice; Life Cycle Models and Saving H55 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Social Security and Public Pensions
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Martin Feldstein & Jeffrey B. Liebman, 2001.
"Social Security,"
NBER Working Papers
8451, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)
Other versions:
Feldstein, Martin & Liebman, Jeffrey B., 2002.
"Social security,"
Handbook of Public Economics,
in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 32, pages 2245-2324
Elsevier.
[Downloadable!] (restricted)