MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502771836 · doi:10.3386/w15170

Market Valuation of Accrued Social Security Benefits

2009· report· en· W1502771836 on OpenAlexaff
John Geanakoplos, Stephen P. Zeldes

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2009
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
FundersAustralian GovernmentU.S. Social Security Administration
KeywordsValuation (finance)Social securityBusinessActuarial scienceEconomicsFinanceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One measure of the health of the Social Security system is the difference between the market value of the trust fund and the present value of benefits accrued to date.How should present values be computed for this calculation in light of future uncertainties?We think it is important to use market value.Since claims on accrued benefits are not currently traded in financial markets, we cannot directly observe a market value.In this paper, we use a model to estimate what the market price for these claims would be if they were traded.In valuing such claims, the key issue is properly adjusting for risk.The traditional actuarial approach -the approach currently used by the Social Security Administration in generating its most widely cited numbers -ignores risk and instead simply discounts "expected" future flows back to the present using a risk-free rate.If benefits are risky and this risk is priced by the market, then actuarial estimates will differ from market value.Effectively, market valuation uses a discount rate that incorporates a risk premium.Developing the proper adjustment for risk requires a careful examination of the stream of future benefits.The U.S. Social Security system is "wage-indexed": future benefits depend directly on future realizations of the economy-wide average wage index.We assume that there is a positive long-run correlation between average labor earnings and the stock market.We then use derivative pricing methods standard in the finance literature to compute the market price of individual claims on future benefits, which depend on age and macro state variables.Finally, we aggregate the market value of benefits across all cohorts to arrive at an overall value of accrued benefits.We find that the difference between market valuation and "actuarial" valuation is large, especially when valuing the benefits of younger cohorts.Overall, the market value of accrued benefits is only 4/5 of that implied by the actuarial approach.Ignoring cohorts over age 60 (for whom the valuations are the same), market value is only 70% as large as that implied by the actuarial approach.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.405
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.139 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207