MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623588464

What are the Costs and Benefits of Social Security Investing in Equities

2017· article· en· W2623588464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gary Burtless

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Brief · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolvencyEquity (law)Social securityEconomicsFinanceWelfareBondBusinessPublic economicsMarket liquidityMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policymakers have long known that the retirement of the baby boom generation would produce significant deficits for the Social Security program. Restoring balance will require raising taxes, reducing benefits, or both. Some observers argue that shifting a portion of the Social Security trust fund from bonds to stocks, as part of a comprehensive reform package, could reduce the size of the required tax increases or benefit cuts. Other countries, such as Canada and Japan, invest a portion of their social security assets in equities, so precedents exist. Equity investments, however, would expose the program to greater financial risk and, potentially, greater political risk. This brief, based on a recent paper, assesses the costs and benefits of investing in equities. The discussion proceeds as follows. The first section provides background on the debate over investing trust fund reserves in equities. The second section investigates how investing in equities would have affected the finances of Social Security if the policy had been adopted in the past and if the policy were adopted today as part of a package to restore solvency over the next 75 years. It also includes a welfare analysis to address the contention that people will not value lower taxes in good times as much as they will dislike tax hikes in bad times. The third section addresses the non-financial issues associated with equity investing, such as the impact on capital markets and corporate governance and how to account for the possibility of higher expected returns without giving the impression that the government could solve all its problems simply by selling bonds and buying stocks. The final section concludes that both retrospective and prospective analyses suggest that investing a portion of the Social Security trust fund in equities would improve its finances; little evidence exists that trust fund equity investments would disrupt the stock market; equity investments could be structured to avoid government interference with capital markets or corporate decision making; and accounting for returns on a risk-adjusted basis would avoid the appearance of a free lunch.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in BriefSame topicFinancial Literacy, Pension, Retirement AnalysisFrench-language works237,207