The Forced Bid What Privatizing Social Security Would Do to Stock Prices, and Why Recent Developments in the Economics of Market Flows Strengthen the Case Against It

Lane, Edward (2026): The Forced Bid What Privatizing Social Security Would Do to Stock Prices, and Why Recent Developments in the Economics of Market Flows Strengthen the Case Against It.

Abstract

Proposals to privatize Social Security through personal investment accounts rest on the assumption that equity markets will deliver real returns of 6 to 7 percent, exceeding what the current program can pay. This paper examines that claim from actuarial, financial, and fiscal perspectives and finds it fails in each. Actuarially, Social Security is not an investment account but a package of inflation-indexed insurance benefits, retirement, disability, survivor, and family coverage, delivered through a progressive formula; no private portfolio replicates this package at comparable cost.

Financially, the paper applies the inelastic markets hypothesis (Gabaix and Koijen, 2021), which holds that a dollar of net equity inflow raises total market capitalization by roughly five dollars, to a 2005-style carve-out diverting approximately $330 billion annually into automatic, price-insensitive equity purchases. Under this framework, valuations rise approximately 28 percent above baseline within a decade, compressing forward returns by nearly one percentage point annually and generating roughly $15 trillion in capital gains accruing predominantly to the top decile of households. Crucially, the classical framework of Diamond and Geanakoplos (2003), in which bond issuance offsets equity flows and prices barely move, reaches the same policy verdict by a different route: the equity risk premium shrinks as risk spreads across the workforce, eliminating the excess return the proposal requires.

Both models therefore undermine the projected returns, and neither changes the real economics of retirement, which is funded by future production, not financial claims. Fiscal analysis in the functional finance and Modern Monetary Theory traditions confirms that personal accounts financed by government borrowing create no new national saving. The paper concludes that if broader asset ownership is the goal, the appropriate instrument is a voluntary, low-cost add-on savings vehicle layered atop an intact Social Security system, not a carve-out of the payroll tax.

In preparing this paper, the author used an AI assistant (Anthropic's Claude and Perplexity, powered by GPT-5.1) for drafting, editing, and formatting support. All analysis, arguments, and conclusions are the author's own, and all references and figures were verified against primary sources.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Social Security, Privatization, Personal Accounts, Inelastic Market Hypothesis, Equity Risk Premium, Asset Pricing, Wealth Distribution, Supeannuaation, Functional Finance, Modern Monetary Theory, Modern Money Theory
• Subjects: H - Public Economics > H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies; H - Public Economics > H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies > H51 - Government Expenditures and Health; H - Public Economics > H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies > H53 - Government Expenditures and Welfare Programs; H - Public Economics > H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies > H55 - Social Security and Public Pensions; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty > I38 - Government Policy ; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

References

Abel, Andrew B. “The Effects of Investing Social Security Funds in the Stock Market When Fixed Costs Prevent Some Households from Holding Stocks.” American Economic Review 91, no. 1 (2001). Advisory Council on Social Security. Report of the 1994–1996 Advisory Council on Social Security, Volume I: Findings and Recommendations. Washington, DC, 1997. Auerbach, Alan J., and Laurence J. Kotlikoff. Dynamic Fiscal Policy. Cambridge University Press, 1987. Baker, Dean, and Mark Weisbrot. Social Security: The Phony Crisis. University of Chicago Press, 1999. Baker, Dean. “Saving Social Security with Stocks: The Promises Don’t Add Up.” Economic Policy Institute and Twentieth Century Fund, February 1997. Bell, Stephanie, and L. Randall Wray. 'Financial Aspects of the Social Security "Problem."' Journal of Economic Issues 34, no. 2 (2000). Bell, Stephanie. “Do Taxes and Bonds Finance Government Spending?” Journal of Economic Issues 34, no. 3 (2000). Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Distributional Financial Accounts of the United States (equity ownership by wealth percentile), various releases. C-SPAN. “User Clip: Alan Greenspan Answers Paul Ryan.” November 16, 2020. https://www.c-span.org/clip/house-committee/user-clip-alan-greenspan-answers-paul-ryan/4923562. Diamond, Peter, and John Geanakoplos. “Social Security Investment in Equities.” American Economic Review 93, no. 4 (2003). Eisner, Robert. “Save Social Security from Its Saviors.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 21, no. 1 (1998). Feldstein, Martin, ed. Privatizing Social Security. University of Chicago Press, 1998. Gabaix, Xavier, and Ralph S. J. Koijen. “In Search of the Origins of Financial Fluctuations: The Inelastic Markets Hypothesis.” NBER Working Paper No. 28967, 2021 (SSRN version revised December 2023). Galbraith, James K., L. Randall Wray, and Warren Mosler. “The Case Against Intergenerational Accounting: The Accounting Campaign Against Social Security and Medicare.” Levy Economics Institute Public Policy Brief No. 98, 2009. Geanakoplos, John, Olivia S. Mitchell, and Stephen P. Zeldes. “Would a Privatized Social Security System Really Pay a Higher Rate of Return?” In Framing the Social Security Debate, National Academy of Social Insurance, 1998. Greenspan, Alan. Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on the Budget, March 2, 2005 (exchange with Rep. Paul Ryan on Social Security solvency and personal accounts). Kelton, Stephanie. The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy. PublicAffairs, 2020 (chapter on entitlements). Kritzer, Barbara E. “Individual Accounts in Other Countries.” Social Security Bulletin 66, no. 1 (2005). Lane, Edward. “Saving Social Security.” Levy Economics Institute Working Paper No. 1042, February 2024. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5190379. Lane, Edward. “Protecting Social Security: The Case Against Privatization.” The Levy Economics Institute, July 2025. Lane, Edward. “The K-Shaped Economy: Divergent Fortunes Across American Counties and the Potential Impact on the 2026 and 2028 Elections.” Unpublished manuscript, 2026. https://ssrn.com/abstract=6377838. Malito, Alessandra. “Trump Floats Idea of Australia’s Retirement System Again. But What About Social Security?” MarketWatch, July 7, 2026. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-floats-idea-of-australias-retirement-system-again-but-what-about-social-security-de63b8c6. Papadimitriou, Dimitri B., and L. Randall Wray. “Does Social Security Need Saving? Providing for Retirees Throughout the Twenty-first Century.” Levy Economics Institute Public Policy Brief No. 55, 1999. Poterba, James M. “Demographic Structure and Asset Returns.” Review of Economics and Statistics 83, no. 4 (2001). President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security. Strengthening Social Security and Creating Personal Wealth for All Americans. Final Report, 2001. Social Security Administration. The 2026 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds. U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee. “Unnecessary Risk: The Perils of Privatizing Social Security.” Washington, DC, 2010.