Alpo in the golden years
By Susan Goya
Journal Contributing Writer
Dec 1, 2004, 20:11
What happens with the privatization of Social Security? At
first it seems like a great idea. Any prospectus from just about anywhere
boasts of historical yields far more than the 3 percent annual percentage rate
(APR) the Social Security Trust Fund currently averages (Business Week,
09/06/2004). Why shouldn't Americans take control of their own investment decisions
and reap some of those appealing 12 percent, 20 percent, 32 percent yields?
In the same issue of Business Week, Treasury Department's
John Snow said that Americans are intelligent enough to evaluate choices and
then choose to privatize social security.
Without question, Social Security's 3 percent yield is
abysmal. Anyone could do as well by putting the money in a Certificate of
Deposit and letting it ride. What's worse, with annual inflation rates between
3 percent and 4 percent, it appears that Social Security is simply not keeping
up. Individual investors are in even worse shape, averaging 1.5 percent APR,
half of what Social Security is making. Their money is actually losing value
and buying less over time. How could this be?
George W. Bush said during the presidential debates, �You
should have the freedom to invest your own money. I trust you to control your
future; my opponent trusts the government.�
The stock market is a game, a financial casino. Like any
game there are rules, but the rules are not spelled out in a stock market's
version of Hoyle's. The players have to figure them out. Privatization would
invite a lot of new players who do not know the rules. Who would they ask but
none other than the ones most likely to profit from their ignorance?
Rule #1: Play only if you can afford to lose.
Money can be made, but only by risking money whose loss is
no big deal. The big boys win some and lose some. Overall, they hope to win
more than they lose. The more risk, the greater potential return, but also the
greater potential loss. The little investors cannot afford to risk their
�The money that workers pay into
Social Security is needed for current benefits. If the $1.5 trillion is taken
from Social Security and put into private stock market accounts, then benefits
will have to be cut sharply, even for current recipients. More of the retired,
the disabled and the widowed will be forced to live in poverty. And Social
Security will no longer protect against poverty with a guaranteed benefit. They
need a sure deal and Social Security right now provides a protected fixed
income in the future. The benefits are guaranteed and they are adjusted to
inflation� (Weller & Wenger, 2004).
An editorial in the November 29 issue of Business Week
implied that the government would have to make rules to protect the financially
unsophisticated new investors from losing everything. Will the only difference
between a government plan with government regulation and a private plan with
government regulation be ownership of the money?
Rule #2: Buy low, sell high.
The little investors get snookered by the ups and downs of
the stock market. They observe the price of a certain stock on the rise, so
they buy, hoping it will continue to rise, not realizing the rise is being
fueled by the big boys who bought cheaply just a day or so before. The stock
goes up a little bit more in response to demand by the little guys, then comes
to a screeching halt before heading downward. Then the little guy gets scared
and sells before he loses any more money. The upshot is a net loss aggravated
by two commissions (one for the purchase and one for the sale) paid to a
stockbroker, not to mention the periodic account maintenance fees.
Rule #3: Buy and hold.
Historically, the most successful investors were those who
purchased stock certificates, stuck them in a shoe box, and forgot them for 20,
30, 40 years. One reason the little investors are getting only a 1.5 percent
return today is that they try to time the market like the big boys. By the time
a little guy hears a hot tip, or even a good idea, it's over. The little guys
end up paying more for their stocks. The big guys already purchased when the
price was low, and their purchases drove up the price for the little guys. Same
goes for advise to sell. By the time the little guys hear it, the price has
been driven down by early selling by the big guys. So the investors that can
least afford it buy higher and sell lower. In Las Vegas it might be okay to
brag about winning $1,000 while neglecting to mention that the win cost $1,200.
Such accounting is fatal to a retirement account.
Rule #4: Sooner or later, you are playing with
Even if the little investor manages to invest soundly with a
decent yield, all of those earnings are merely scratchings on paper until the
stock is sold and the gain captured. What will happen when the baby boomers all
start selling their stocks at once to fund their retirements at the same time
pension funds are also selling their stocks?
�The 76 million Americans born
between 1946 and 1964 have strained every system they've encountered: sending
school enrollments soaring in the 1950s and 1960s and prompting new school
construction, flooding the job market in the 1970s and slowing wage growth,
buying homes in the 1970s and contributing to soaring real estate prices, and,
most recently, purchasing stocks through 401(k)s, thereby fueling the great
bull market of the late 1990s. So what happens when boomers go cash out their
investments to pay for their retirements? . . . the massive sell-off of pension
and retirement funds as baby boomers retire could depress investment values�
Prices are likely to fall and the nest eggs may lose value
precipitously (Parker, 2000). Who is supposed to buy the stocks that retirees
want to sell besides current workers, who may or may not be in a position to
buy those stocks? Many financial planners advise withdrawing 7 percent of the
accumulated funds per year throughout retirement. But with privatization, withdrawals
at half that rate (or less) would be required (Cooley, Hubbard, & Walz,
February 1998) in order to assure that the retirement fund does not run out.
The dilemma is that withdrawals of 3 percent-4 percent might not be enough to
live on (Bernstein, 2001).
Stocks are often promoted for retirement accounts based on
historical returns. But there is a reason why every prospectus warns that
historical yields do not guarantee future performance. There is no historical
precedent for the �planned waves of stock selling that virtually all retirement
plans are designed to do� (Parker, 2000).
Furthermore, the actual money any one worker pays into
Social Security is not salted away in individual accounts. It is transferred to
today's retirees. The projected benefit statement workers get every year from
the Social Security Administration is not like a bank statement. That money is
not really there, not really available. Today it takes three workers to support
one retiree. In about 40 years, 1.5 workers will have to support each retiree.
Thornton Parker (2000) points out that the
stocks-for-retirement plan is �really a pyramid scheme� where an �expanding
base� (the boomers) �pay to the early participants, giving the impression that
the asset has a good return. At some point the base stops expanding, revealing
the true nature of the scheme.� The base has stopped expanding as evidenced by
the concern over the future solvency of Social Security.
While it is true that private investments offer higher rates
of return than Social Security, the investments utilized by stock-based IRAs,
pension funds, and 401(k)'s serve a different purpose than Social Security.
Stock-based IRAs, pension funds, and 401(k)'s are exposed to market risk, but
as Weller and Wenger (2004) point out,
�You can�t compare Social
Security to a mutual fund. Social Security offers a guaranteed benefit,
protected against inflation for as long as you live after retirement. No mutual
fund does that. As Enron�s workers and investors found out, risk means a life�s
savings can disappear overnight. Private savings are an important part of any
retirement plan�but Social Security has to provide a basic guaranteed benefit
without stock market risk. And Social Security is also an insurance plan for
younger workers against death and disability, something no mutual fund offers.�
It is ironic that while companies boast of double-digit
stock returns, individual small investors investing in those stocks average 1.5
percent. Little investors may think they are investing in a company when they
buy stock. But instead money is merely passed from stockholder to stockholder.
None of it actually goes to the company. Bush wants workers to invest 2 percent
of their 12.4 percent payroll taxes in stocks. That money is likely to end up
in the pockets of the big investors and stockbrokers, setting up not only baby
boomers, but also their children and grandchildren, for a financial
Bernstein, W.J. (2001). The Retirement Calculator from
Hell. Efficient Frontier from www.efficientfrontier.com retrieved 11/28/2004.
September 6, 2004.
November 29, 2004.
Cooley, Hubbard, &
Walz, February 1998, AAII Journal.
Parker, Thornton. (2000). What if Boomers Can't Retire?
Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco.
Perry, Ann. (2003). The Wise Investor. Random House: New York.
c.e. & Wenger, J.B. (2004).
Let Us Count the Ways: The Costs of Social Security Privatization are in the
Details. Center for American
Progress from www.americanprogress.org
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor