IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/crr/issbrf/ib-2.html

What Stock Market Returns To Expect For The Future?

Author

Listed:
  • Peter A. Diamond

Abstract

Over the long term, stocks have earned a higher rate of return than Treasury bonds. Therefore, many recent proposals to reform Social Security include a stock investment component. In evaluating these proposals, the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Actuary(OACT) has generally used a 7.0 percent real return for stocks (based on a long-term historical average) throughout its 75-year projection period. For the return on Treasury bonds, it currently assumes some variation in the initial decade followed by a constant real return of 3.0 percent. Therefore, its current assumption for the equity premium, defined as the difference between yields on equities and Treasuries, is 4.0 percent in the long run. Some critics contend that the projected return on stocks—and the resulting equity premium—used by the OACT are too high. It is important to recognize that there are two different equity-premium concepts. One is the realized equity premium, measured by the rates of return that actually occurred. The other is the required equity premium, which is the premium that investors expect to receive in order to be willing to hold available amounts of stocks and bonds. These are closely related but different concepts and can differ significantly in some circumstances. Over the past two centuries, the realized equity premium was 3.5 percent on average, but it has increased over time. For example, between 1926 and 1998, it averaged 5.2 percent. The increase is mainly due to a significant decline in bond returns, since long-term stock returns have been quite stable. The decline in bond returns is not surprising given that the perceived risk of federal debt has dropped substantially since the early nineteenth century. Based on an initial look at historical trends, one could argue for a somewhat higher equity premium than the 4.0 percent used by the OACT. Critics argue, however, that the OACT’s projections for stock returns and the equity premium are too high. These criticisms are based on three factors: (1) recent developments in the capital market that have reduced the cost of stock investing and led to broader ownership; (2) the current high value of the stock market relative to various benchmarks; and (3) the expectation of slower economic growth in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter A. Diamond, 1999. "What Stock Market Returns To Expect For The Future?," Issues in Brief ib-2, Center for Retirement Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:crr:issbrf:ib-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/what-stock-market-returns-to-expect-for-the-future/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Diamond & Jean Geanakoplos, 1999. "Social Security Investment in Equities I: Linear Case," NBER Working Papers 7103, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Arthur B. Kennickell & Martha Starr-McCluer & Annika E. Sunden, 1997. "Family Finance in the U.S.: Recent Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances," Federal Reserve Bulletin, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), vol. 83(1), pages .1-24, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John Sabelhaus, 2005. "Alternative Methods for Projecting Equity Returns: Implications for Evaluating Social Security Reform Proposals," Risk Management and Insurance Review, American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 8(1), pages 43-63, March.
    2. Marco Taboga, 2002. "The Realized Equity Premium has been Higher than Expected: Further Evidence," CeRP Working Papers 29, Center for Research on Pensions and Welfare Policies, Turin (Italy).
    3. Axel Börsch‐Supan & Florian Heiss & Alexander Ludwig & Joachim Winter, 2003. "Pension Reform, Capital Markets and the Rate of Return," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 4(2), pages 151-181, May.
    4. Brown, Jeffrey R. & Liang, Nellie & Weisbenner, Scott, 2006. "401(k) matching contributions in company stock: Costs and benefits for firms and workers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(6-7), pages 1315-1346, August.
    5. Axel Börsch‐Supan & Alexander Ludwig & Joachim Winter, 2006. "Ageing, Pension Reform and Capital Flows: A Multi‐Country Simulation Model," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 73(292), pages 625-658, November.
    6. Eugene F. Fama & Kenneth R. French, 2002. "The Equity Premium," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(2), pages 637-659, April.
    7. John Stephenson & Grant Scobie, 2002. "The Economics of Population Ageing," Treasury Working Paper Series 02/04, New Zealand Treasury.
    8. Weller, Christian E., 2001. "Programs without alternative: Public pensions in the OECD," ZEI Working Papers B 15-2001, University of Bonn, ZEI - Center for European Integration Studies.
    9. John Sabelhaus & Joel V. Smith, 2003. "Alternative Methods for Projecting Equity Returns: Implications for Evaluating Social Security Reform Proposals: Technical Paper 2003-08," Working Papers 14678, Congressional Budget Office.
    10. Dean Baker, 2000. "The Supply-Side Effect of a Stock Market Crash," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 107-117, September.
    11. Marco Taboga, 2004. "The equity premium in the long-run," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(9), pages 645-650.
    12. Brian McCulloch & Jane Frances, 2001. "Financing New Zealand Superannuation," Treasury Working Paper Series 01/20, New Zealand Treasury.
    13. Srichander Ramaswamy, 2012. "The sustainability of pension schemes," BIS Working Papers 368, Bank for International Settlements.
    14. Jeffrey R. Brown, 2000. "How Should We Insure Longevity Risk In Pensions And Social Security?," Issues in Brief ib-4, Center for Retirement Research.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeremy Berkowitz & Richard Hines, 1998. "Bankruptcy exemptions and the market for mortgage loans," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 1998-07, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    2. Andrew B. Abel, 2001. "The Effects of Investing Social Security Funds in the Stock Market When Fixed Costs Prevent Some Households from Holding Stocks," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 128-148, March.
    3. Julio J. Rotemberg, 2007. "Minimally altruistic wages and unemployment in a matching model," Working Papers 07-5, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    4. Baxter, Marianne, 2002. "Social Security as a financial asset: gender-specific risks and returns," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 35-52, March.
    5. Bernardino Adao & Andre C. Silva, 2017. "Sub-optimality of the Friedman rule with distorting taxes," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp623, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    6. Tom Krebs & Moritz Kuhn & Mark L. J. Wright, 2015. "Human Capital Risk, Contract Enforcement, and the Macroeconomy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(11), pages 3223-3272, November.
    7. Fabio Panetta & Dario Focarelli, 2003. "Are Mergers Beneficial to Consumers? Evidence from the Italian Market for Bank Deposits," CEIS Research Paper 10, Tor Vergata University, CEIS.
    8. Albanesi, Stefania, 2007. "Inflation and inequality," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 1088-1114, May.
    9. Assaf Razin & Efraim Sadka, 2003. "Privatizing Social Security Under Balanced-Budget Constraints: A Political-Economy Approach," CESifo Working Paper Series 1039, CESifo.
    10. Lisa A. Keister, 2000. "Family Structure, Race, and Wealth Ownership: A Longitudinal Exploration of Wealth Accumulation Processes," Macroeconomics 0004051, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Arthur Kennickell & Annamaria Lusardi, 2004. "Disentangling the Importance of the Precautionary Saving Mode," NBER Working Papers 10888, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Lisa A. Keister, 2000. "Family Structure, Race, and Wealth Ownership: A Longitudinal Exploration of Wealth Accumulation Processes," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_304, Levy Economics Institute.
    13. Calomiris, Charles W. & Longhofer, Stanley D. & Miles, William, 2013. "The Housing Wealth Effect: The Crucial Roles of Demographics, Wealth Distribution and Wealth Shares," Critical Finance Review, now publishers, vol. 2(1), pages 049-099, July.
    14. James Poterba, 1998. "Estate and Gift Taxes and Incentives for Inter Vivos Giving in the United States," NBER Working Papers 6842, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Moritz Kuhn & José-Víctor Ríos-Rull, 2025. "Income and Wealth Inequality in the United States: An Update Including the 2022 Wave," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2025_708, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    16. Yuh, Yoonkyung & Hanna, Sherman & Phillips Montalto, Catherine, 1998. "Mean and pessimistic projections of retirement adequacy," Financial Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 175-193.
    17. Tobias J. Moskowitz & Annette Vissing-Jørgensen, 2002. "The Returns to Entrepreneurial Investment: A Private Equity Premium Puzzle?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 745-778, September.
    18. Fatma El-Hamidi & Cem Baslevent, 2013. "Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) in Urban Economies: A Comparative Study of Egypt and Turkey at the Province Level," Working Papers 761, Economic Research Forum, revised Jun 2013.
    19. Reichenstein, William, 1998. "Calculating a family's asset mix," Financial Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 195-206.
    20. Susann Rohwedder & Steven J. Haider & Michael D. Hurd, 2006. "INCREASES IN WEALTH AMONG THE ELDERLY IN THE EARLY 1990s: HOW MUCH IS DUE TO SURVEY DESIGN?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 52(4), pages 509-524, December.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:crr:issbrf:ib-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Amy Grzybowski or Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crrbcus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.