IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Individual Risk and Intergenerational Risk Sharing in an Investment-Based Social Security Program

  • Martin Feldstein
  • Elena Ranguelova

This paper examines the risk aspects of a fully phased-in investment-based defined contribution Social Security plan. Individuals save a fraction of wages in a Personal Retirement Account (PRA) invested in a 60:40 equity-debt mix and receive a similarly invested variable annuity from age 67. The value of the portfolio follows a random walk with historic (1946-1995) mean log real return of 5.5 percent and standard deviation of 12.5 percent. We study 10,000 stochastic distributions of this process for the 80 year experience from 1998 to 2077. With a nonstochastic 5.5 percent rate of return, individuals could purchase the future benefits promised in the current Social Security law (the benchmark' level of benefits) by saving 3.1 percent of earnings, just one-sixth of the payroll tax that Social Security actuaries project will be needed in the paygo system. A higher saving rate provides a cushion' that reduces the risk of unacceptably low benefits. For example, saving 6 percent implies a median annuity at age 67 or 2.1 times the benchmark benefits and only a 17 percent chance that the annuity is less than the benchmark. In 95 percent of the potential investment experience the annuity exceeds 61 percent of the benchmark benefit. With a 9 percent saving rate (half of the tax rate required in a pay- as-you-go system), there is only a 6 percent chance that the annuity is less than the benchmark and in 95 percent of the potential investment experience the annuity exceeds 92 percent of the benchmark benefit. We also study a modified plan in which retirees face no risk of receiveing less than the benchmark benefit because the government provides a conditional pension transfer to any retiree whose annuity is less in any year than the benchmark level of benefits. With a six percent saving rate, a conditional transfer is required in only about 40 percent of the simulations. The expected value of the transfers is substantially less than the expected incremental corporate tax revenue that results from the Personal Retirement Account saving. Additional tax revenue is needed in fewer than one percent of the simulations. In short, a pure defined contribution plan, with a saving rate equal to one third of the long-run projected payroll tax, invested in a 60:40 equity-debt Personal Retirement Account could provide a retirement annuity that is likely to be substantially more than the benchmark benefit while exposing the retiree to relatively little risk that the annuity will be less than the benchmark. Even this risk can be completely eliminated by a conditional guarantee plan that imposed only a very small risk on future taxpayers.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w6839.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 6839.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Dec 1998
Date of revision:
Publication status: published as Feldstein, Martin and Elena Ranguelova. "Individual Risk In An Investment-Based Social Security System," American Economic Review, 2001, v91(4,Sep), 1116-1125.
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:6839
Note: AG PE
Contact details of provider: Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Phone: 617-868-3900
Web page: http://www.nber.org
Email:


More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  1. Mark Huggett & Gustavo Ventura, 1999. "On the Distributional Effects of Social Security Reform," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 2(3), pages 498-531, July.
  2. Narayana R. Kocherlakota, 1995. "The equity premium: it's still a puzzle," Discussion Paper / Institute for Empirical Macroeconomics 102, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  3. Martin Feldstein & Andrew Samwick, 1997. "The Economics of Prefunding Social Security and Medicare Benefits," NBER Working Papers 6055, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. R. Mehra & E. Prescott, 2010. "The equity premium: a puzzle," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1401, David K. Levine.
  5. Murphy, Kevin M & Welch, Finis, 1998. "Perspectives on the Social Security Crisis and Proposed Solutions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(2), pages 142-50, May.
  6. Martin Feldstein & Jeffrey B. Liebman, 2001. "Social Security," NBER Working Papers 8451, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • 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.
  7. Martin Feldstein, 1996. "The Missing Piece in Policy Analysis: Social Security Reform," NBER Working Papers 5413, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  8. Martin Feldstein & Andrew Samwick, 1996. "The Transition Path in Privatizing Social Security," NBER Working Papers 5761, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. Feldstein, Martin (ed.), 1998. "Privatizing Social Security," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226241012.
  10. Robert J. Shiller, 1998. "Social Security and Institutions for Intergenerational, Intragenerational and International Risk Sharing," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1185, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
  11. Laurence J. Kotlikoff, 1996. "Simulating the Privatization of Social Security in General Equilibrium," NBER Working Papers 5776, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  12. Laurence J. Kotlikoff & Kent A. Smetters & Jan Walliser, 1998. "Social Security: Privatization and Progressivity," NBER Working Papers 6428, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  13. Peter Diamond, 2004. "Social Security," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(1), pages 1-24, March.
  14. Robert C. Merton, 1983. "On the Role of Social Security as a Means for Efficient Risk Sharing in an Economy Where Human Capital Is Not Tradable," NBER Chapters, in: Financial Aspects of the United States Pension System, pages 325-358 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Martin Feldstein, 1997. "Transition to a Fully Funded Pension System: Five Economic Issues," NBER Working Papers 6149, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  16. Steven Caldwell & Melissa Favreault & Alla Gantman & Jagadeesh Gokhale & Thomas Johnson, 1998. "Social Security's Treatment of Postwar Americans," NBER Working Papers 6603, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  17. Martin S. Feldstein & Elena Ranguelova, 2002. "The Economics of Bequests in Pensions and Social Security," NBER Chapters, in: The Distributional Aspects of Social Security and Social Security Reform, pages 371-400 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  18. Michael J. Boskin & Laurence J. Kotlikoff & Douglas J. Puffert & John B. Shoven, 1987. "Social Security: A Financial Appraisal Across and Within Generations," NBER Working Papers 1891, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. Paul A. Samuelson, 1958. "An Exact Consumption-Loan Model of Interest with or without the Social Contrivance of Money," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66, pages 467.
  20. Martin Feldstein, 1998. "Privatizing Social Security," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number feld98-1, October.
  21. Bohn, Henning, 1998. "Risk Sharing in a Stochastic Overlapping Generations Economy," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt9r2809f0, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
  22. Zvi Bodie & John B. Shoven, 1983. "Financial Aspects of the United States Pension System," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number bodi83-1, October.
  23. Peter Diamond, 1998. "The Economics of Social Security Reform," NBER Working Papers 6719, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  24. Henning Bohn, 1997. "Social Security reform and financial markets," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 41(Jun), pages 193-227.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:6839. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.