The Michigan Retirement Research Center released three new working papers: Investor Behavior and Fund Performance under a Privatized Retirement Accounts System: Evidence from Chile by Elena Krasnokutskaya and Petra Todd Abstract: In the U.S. and in Chile, there have been heated debates about the relative merits of a decentralized privatized pension system relative to a more traditional social security system. On the firm side, there are concerns that pension funds engage in anticompetitive behavior and take advantage of consumers' by charging high fees and account maintenance changes. On the consumer side, there are concerns that consumers do not select wisely among funds and take on too much risk. Any pension system with insurance features to protect against low levels of pension accumulations is potentially subject to moral hazard problems, in the form of consumers' taking on too much risk. In the case of Chile, the government provides a minimum pension benefit to those with low pension accumulations, which can make some consumers more willing to take risks. For these reasons, the Chilean government introduced regulations on pension fund firms' investments designed to limit risk. This paper analyzes the determinants of consumers' choices of pension fund and of pension fund characteristics (performance and fees), taking into account governmental regulations. In particular, it estimates a demand and supply model of the pension fund investment market using a longitudinal household dataset gathered in 2002 and 2004 in Chile, administrative data on fund choices, and longitudinal data on cost determinants of pension funds. We find that the existing regulation actually increases the level of risk in the market, reduces heterogeneity across firms, and reduces incentives for consumers to participate in the pension fund program. We suggest alternative more effective forms of regulation. Key Findings: * Low participation in the Chilean pension system, which is mandatory only for full-time workers in the formal sector, is due in part to the large informal sector of the economy. * Regulation requiring that pension fund administrators deliver a return within 2% of the industry average encourages more risk taking than if portfolio risk were regulated. * Fewer people also participate in the pension plan because of the risk taking by pension firms. * Older and younger individuals are more averse to risk. * The market is efficiently served by more than one firm. Social Security Literacy and Retirement Well-Being by Hugo A. BenÃtez-Silva, Berna Demiralp and Zhen Liu Abstract: We build upon the growing literature on financial literacy, which studies the prevalence of lack of knowledge about various financial issues, and analyze how much people know about the Social Security rules using a small pilot survey conducted in 2007, and a follow-up and extended survey funded by MRRC conducted in December of 2008. We then assess the consequences of the apparent prevalence of lack of information by individuals about the rules governing the Social Security system using a realistic and empirically-based life-cycle model of retirement behavior under uncertainty. We investigate the individual's retirement and savings decisions under incomplete information and unawareness, in which a portion of the population does not know some or all of the rules of the system. We compare the outcomes in these cases to the outcome under full information, computing the welfare gain resulting from the acquisition of information regarding the Social Security system. Our analysis can illuminate the need for policies that foster knowledge of the system, which can improve welfare, and can result in better policy outcomes. Key Findings: * Lack of basic knowledge about rules for obtaining Social Security benefits is widespread. * Younger people are less informed than older people, however, only 70% of individuals aged 55 to 64 are aware of the minimum retirement age. * Individuals who are reinterviewed show a large increase in knowledge about Social Security. * The benefits of being fully informed about Social Security vary by age. * Awareness could be increased by targeting messages pertinent to individuals based on their age or income level. The Displacement Effect of Public Pensions on the Accumulation of Financial Assets by Michael Hurd, Pierre-Carl Michaud and Susann Rohwedder Abstract: The generosity of public pensions may depress private savings and provide incentives to retire early. While there is plenty of evidence supporting the latter effect, there remains considerable controversy as whether or not public pensions crowd out private savings. This paper uses international micro-datasets collected over recent years to investigate whether public pensions displace private savings. The identification strategy relies on differences in the progressivity or non-linearity of pension formulas across countries. We also make use of large heterogeneity in earnings across education group and country. The evidence we present is consistent with previous studies using cross-sectional and time-series variation in savings and pensions. We estimate that an extra dollar of pension wealth depresses accumulated financial assets at the time of retirement by 23 to 44 cents and that an extra ten thousand dollars in pension wealth reduces the average retirement age by roughly 1 month. Key Findings: * The generosity of public pension systems affects both private saving rates and the timing of retirement. * Our study of 12 countries shows that generous public pensions depress lifetime asset accumulation. * For every dollar of pension wealth, financial assets are reduced by 23 to 44 cents. * Higher public pension levels also induce earlier retirement. * Retirement comes one month earlier for every $10,000 of pension wealth.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
New working papers from MRRC
Do seniors deserve that extra $250?
David Francis of the Christian Science Monitor To seriously answer this question, I'd think you'd have to ask:
says yes.
Read more!
Social Security Online Benefit Calculator Leads to Faulty Conclusions
Over at AEI's Enterprise Blog, I commented on a Washington Post article by MIT professor Simon Johnson and Yale law student James Kwak arguing that Social Security and 401(k) plans won't provide for a decent income in retirement. While they have a good qualitative case – after all, Social Security is facing insolvency and 401(k) plans face problems regarding participation rates and investment choices – their estimates of Social Security benefits just seemed too low. As it turned out, the problem was that they relied on one of SSA's online benefit calculators. As I pointed out last year regarding the Social Security Statement, while the calculator claims to show benefits "in today's dollars" it actually doesn't. It shows benefits in "wage indexed" dollars, which can make for a big difference. Johnson and Kwak were quick to acknowledge the error, which after all wasn't their fault, and discussed the issue further on their Baseline Scenario blog. But it's the source of the error that I'm interested in. Johnson and Kwak estimate benefits for individuals retiring in 2051. Let's say that the nominal benefit – meaning, the dollar amount that's actually paid each month – was $4000. To inflation adjust that back to today, we multiply $4,000 by the ratio of today's CPI to the projected 2051 CPI: based on this table from the 2009 Trustees Report those numbers are 100/315.37, meaning that the inflation adjusted value of $4,000 is $1,268. Now let's look at the wage-indexed value, which is what the Social Security Statement will give you and what you get when you choose "in today's dollars' from the online calculator. To get that, you multiply $4,000 by the ratio of today's average wage to the average nominal wage in 2051, which from the same table is $42,042/$209,615, which gives you only $802. Now, one big problem is that the calculator doesn't even tell you you're getting wage-indexed dollars. So when your scheduled benefit is actually worth $1,268 in today's dollars you'll think you're only getting $802. The fact that an MIT professor and a Yale law student couldn't figure this out seems like pretty good evidence that it's confusing. When I raised this issue last year with regard to the Statement, the agency's solution was to take the phrase "in today's dollars" out to the Statement. That eliminates one problem, but leaves the reader to only guess in what form their benefits might be expressed. Second, even if there were full disclosure that benefit estimates were in wage-indexed dollars, it's not clear to me whether there's any usefulness in the number. I understand how to calculate wage-indexed dollars, but these figures don't mean anything to me (and I'd guess not to other people either). Moreover, anyone who's actually trying to plan their retirement – which, presumably is what the Statement and the online calculators are for – would express their retirement income either in today's dollars (to show their real purchasing power) or in nominal dollars, to make them comparable to benefit estimates from 401(k) plans or DB pension plans. (If anyone can find me a retirement calculator that expresses income in wage-indexed dollars I'll send you a bottle of wine to celebrate.) Throwing wage-indexed dollars into the mix serves only to confuse people or give them mistaken estimates of their retirement income. As you might have noticed, this is an issue that ticks me off. There's very little substantive case for showing benefits in wage-indexed dollars – try to explain to someone what they mean and you'll see the blank look on their face. That's probably why there's no effort to explain any of this either on the web sites or in the Statement. While it would be a simple task to fix the calculator and Statement so they would show benefits in inflation adjusted dollars, I suspect the reason this isn't done is that people would ask questions why their benefit estimates had changed from last year to this year. What most people would see as an improvement some people in the agency would perceive as an admission that they'd previously been wrong, and some folks don't like to do that. But that mis-serves the public: Social Security is the largest form of retirement income for most Americans and the only way the typical person can know what they're going to get is if they're told. We should do a better job of telling them than we are.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Updated Social Security Fix-It Book Available
The Center for Retirement Research has updated their very nice Social Security Fix-It Book. Check it out here. 
The Fiscal Wake Up Tour Takes to the Airwaves
This afternoon I appeared with other members of the Fiscal Wake Up Tour – the Concord Coalition's Bob Bixby; the Brookings Institution's Isabel Sawhill; and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation's David Walker – on Southern California Public Radio's Patt Morrison show to talk about the fiscal challenges facing the country. I was a bit downbeat today, maybe because the health reforms that were supposed to fix our budget problems will more than likely make them worse. But some things have to get worse before they can get better; let's hope this is one of them. In any case, tune in online by clicking here.
Presentations from APPAM session on the challenges of entitlement growth
On Friday I was lucky enough to moderate a great session at the annual APPAM conference on Aging, Health and the Challenge of Entitlement Growth, featuring a presentation by CBO director Doug Elmendorf and comments by Gene Steuerle of the Urban Institute and Jim Klumpner, a long-time Capitol Hill economist who now teaches at Princeton and George Washington. While nothing can replace the actual presentations and the discussion that followed, which was of course moderated to perfection, I've posted the PowerPoints by Elmendorf, Steuerle and Klumpner. Thanks to CBO's Joyce Manchester for landing the big fish for the session.
New paper: “Marital History, Race, and Social Security Spouse and Widow Benefit Eligibility in the United States”
SSRN turns up a new paper, "Marital History, Race, and Social Security Spouse and Widow Benefit Eligibility in the United States," by Christopher R. Tamborini, Howard Iams and Kevin Whitman, all of the Social Security Administration. Here's the abstract: Large-scale changes in American family structures over the past decades have important implications for the retirement experiences of women. In this study, the authors use a restricted-use file of the Marital History Module of the U.S. Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation to investigate changes in the marital histories of women aged 40 to 69 years between 1990 and 2004, with a focus on outcomes relevant for Social Security spouse and widow benefit eligibility. Multinomial and binary logistic regression analyses show significant changes in women's marital patterns since 1990, with more substantial shifts occurring among recent cohorts. Due to downward trends in marriage, the authors find a modest decline in Social Security spouse and widow benefit eligibility in 2004, particularly among Black women born toward the end of the baby boom generation. This made me think of two things: first, about the only way to get a truly good return from Social Security going forward is for one member of a household to receive spousal benefits; but second, changes in marital patterns by race could mean that spousal benefits become predominantly for white people. I prepared the chart below from Census data a few years ago and so the data isn't completely up to date, but the changes in black/white marriage rates since the 1950s are pretty extreme. Back in 1950 blacks had roughly the same marriage rate as whites, but since then patterns have sharply diverged. In 2000 around 25 percent of whites over age 15 had never been married, which is only a few percentage points higher than the 1950 level. But around 44 percent of blacks had never been married in 2000, compared to only around 25 percent in 1950. As a result, fewer and fewer black retirees in the future will tend to be eligible for spousal benefits. I'm not a huge fan of Social Security's spouse benefits, which seem to reward neither contributions nor need, and – as I'll point out in Friday's sure-to-be-fantastic AEI panel on Social Security's effect on work incentives – impose high marginal tax rates on women's labor. But these racial disparities might be another reason to give spousal benefits the heave-ho.
Posts
