IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/crr/issbrf/ib-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. John Stephenson & Grant Scobie, 2002. "The Economics of Population Ageing," Treasury Working Paper Series 02/04, New Zealand Treasury.
    5. 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.
    6. Marco Taboga, 2004. "The equity premium in the long-run," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(9), pages 645-650.
    7. Marco Taboga, 2002. "The realized equity premium has been higher than expected: further evidence," Finance 0210004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Eugene F. Fama & Kenneth R. French, 2002. "The Equity Premium," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(2), pages 637-659, April.
    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. Brian McCulloch & Jane Frances, 2001. "Financing New Zealand Superannuation," Treasury Working Paper Series 01/20, New Zealand Treasury.
    11. Srichander Ramaswamy, 2012. "The sustainability of pension schemes," BIS Working Papers 368, Bank for International Settlements.
    12. 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. John Geanakoplos & Olivia S. Mitchell & Stephen P. Zeldes, "undated". "Social Security Money's Worth," Pension Research Council Working Papers 97-20, Wharton School Pension Research Council, University of Pennsylvania.
    2. John Geanakoplos & Olivia S. Mitchell & Stephen P. Zeldes, "undated". "Would a Privatized Social Security System Really Pay a Higher Rate of Return?," Pension Research Council Working Papers 98-6, Wharton School Pension Research Council, University of Pennsylvania.
    3. 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.).
    4. 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.
    5. Julio J. Rotemberg, 2007. "Minimally altruistic wages and unemployment in a matching model," Working Papers 07-5, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Timm Bönke & Markus M. Grabka & Carsten Schröder & Edward N. Wolff, 2020. "A Head‐to‐Head Comparison of Augmented Wealth in Germany and the United States," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 122(3), pages 1140-1180, July.
    10. Sherrie L. W. Rhine & William H. Greene & Maude Toussaint-Comeau, 2006. "The Importance of Check-Cashing Businesses to the Unbanked: Racial/Ethnic Differences," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(1), pages 146-157, February.
    11. Stephan Meier & Charles Sprenger, 2007. "Impatience and credit behavior: evidence from a field experiment," Working Papers 07-3, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    12. Edward Simpson Prescott & Daniel D. Tatar, 1999. "Means of payment, the unbanked, and EFT '99," Economic Quarterly, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, issue Fall, pages 49-70.
    13. Bostic, Raphael W & Surette, Brian J, 2001. "Have the Doors Opened Wider? Trends in Homeownership Rates by Race and Income," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 411-434, November.
    14. 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.
    15. Albanesi, Stefania, 2007. "Inflation and inequality," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 1088-1114, May.
    16. Joanna Stavins, 1999. "Checking accounts: what do banks offer and what do consumers value?," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Mar, pages 3-14.
    17. Erosa, Andres & Ventura, Gustavo, 2002. "On inflation as a regressive consumption tax," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 761-795, May.
    18. 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.
    19. Pedro de Araujo, 2015. "Calculating Welfare Costs Of Inflation In A Search Model With Preference Heterogeneity: A Calibration Exercise," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(1), pages 14-29, January.
    20. Fenn, George W. & Liang, Nellie, 1998. "New resources and new ideas: Private equity for small businesses1," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(6-8), pages 1077-1084, August.

    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.