We get inflation numbers for September next week. This is an important data point for some 55 million recipients of Social Security checks. On the assumption that there is no (little) change in the MoM numbers the CPI-W will come in at 223.4. This number is used to calculate the average for the fiscal 4th quarter. The result is then compared to the 2008 fiscal 4th Q. My numbers:
CPI-W 4th Q 2008 = 215.495
CPI-W 4th Q 2011 = 223.110
COLA increase for 2012 = ~3.5%
This is not good news at all for the folks at SSA. The COLA increase will add $25 billion onto the existing expense base for 2012. On top of that there will be the increase in the total number who receive monthly checks (SS is getting 10,000 new beneficiaries every day). In 2011 the new (minus dead) beneficiaries added $25b to the cost of running the program.
The question to ask is, “What does this do for SS?” The answer is, "Nothing good". To make an assessment of what 2012 will look like it is necessary to make some assumptions on what will happen in the real economy, and most importantly, what will happen to total employment.
My base case for 2012 is a repeat of 2011. No recession, but anemic growth. Total payrolls will rise (in part due to an increasing population). The number of new jobs will average 100k a month. As a result SS payroll tax income will rise by $24 billion (same as 2010-2011). Note: My Base Case is actually fairly optimistic. We could easily have negative growth (and zero job growth) for a quarter or two next year.
My numbers for the 2012 cash components at SS:
Benefits: $769
R.R Interchange: $5b
Overhead: $7b
Total Out: $781
FICA: $685b
Tax on benefits: $24b
Total In: $709
Net negative cash flow: $72 billion
There is a non-cash component to SS income. They get interest (paid in paper) on their holdings of Special Issue bonds. The SS Trust Fund owns $2.6 Trillion of this script. The % that the TF earns on this hoard is substantially above the current market rates. But there are troubling signs on the interest income line as well.
My number for % at SS in 2012 is still a whopping $112b. But this number is now headed south. (See notes below)
With the % income, the net change at SS will be a 2012 surplus of a lousy +$40b. This is a very important number. It’s dangerously close to zero. I can’t predict what will happen beyond 2012. What will happen with payrolls, the economy, inflation and interest rates is by no means clear. One very possible outcome is that 2013 and 2014 will bring (more or less) what we have in 2011/12. AKA Stagflation.
Ladies and Gentleman that would be an unmitigated disaster. Should we have more years of stagflation, the net surpluses (includes % income) at SS would fall to zero in 2014 and be negative in 2015. Once that line is crossed, it rapidly collapses. It's nearly impossible to reverse.
The current Base Case assumption by SSA is for the TF to “top out” in 2025. The forecast is that the TF balance will continue to grow for another 12-14 years. The SSTF projection is that the Fund will exceed $4 Trillion before it begins to decline.
Should the economy continue as it is, we reach the “top out” in 2015. The TF balance will never exceed $3 trillion. In other words, a critical milestone for SS will come ten years early, and leave the TF short more than $1 trillion. The broad implications of this are hard to fathom. A major restructuring of SS would be required.
Notes:
(#1)
To my knowledge, I’m the only one talking about this kind of outcome. So I expect to get flack from the usual suspects that my numbers are not reliable. To that I would respond that my numbers are consistent with the SSTF’s own numbers. What I think is coming is worst-case outcome (stagflation), but one close to the parameters of what SS considers reasonable. These are the numbers for the key variables from SSA and the ones that I use:
Benefits
2011 SSTF annual report, High Cost scenario for 2012 Benefits = $769
Krasting Estimate: $769
Variance: $0
FICA Receipts
2011 SSTF annual report, High Cost scenario for 2012 FICA = $711b
Krasting Estimate: $685
Variance - $26B (-3.5%)
My outlook is worse than the SSTF High Cost estimate for revenues. I maintain that this is justified as SSTF has built in a much stronger economic recovery into their model than than I (and Bernanke) consider likely.
(#2)
ZIRP, QE the Twist (and other actions) will be with us for years to come. SS (like every other investor) will have to suffer with low yields on investments as a result. Over the next five-years a substantial portion of SS’s high yielding portfolio will run off. It will be reinvested at sub 2% returns. This is my argument for a rapidly declining net % number at SS. A look at the portfolio and what is maturing:
(#3)
For 2012 SS will run a cash deficit in 9 out of 12 months. SS will have to fund these cash shortfalls by selling a portion of the TF notes. Think of this as having money in a bank CD, but being forced to borrow from a CC to cover a monthly nut (a reverse Repo). As a result, net interest income gets hit.
Yields on the TF securities are set by a formula that has benefited SS for many years. We have been in a 20-year cyclical decline in interest rates. The SS formula takes an average of prior years long-term fixed rates (it excludes short-term rates in the calculation). As a result, the interest income at SS has been “smoothed” and artificially maintained at higher % rates. That said, time and the formula are catching up with the Fund. In 2007 the SSTF invested 15-year money at 5.0%. For 2009 it was 3.5%. In 2011 they only got 2.5%, half of what it was just 4 years ago.
There is a part to this that gives me a chuckle. In month where there is a shortfall the Fund must sell bonds. The discount rate used for these routine transactions is also set by the formula. As the formula excludes short-term rates the Repo rate is set at an artificially inflated level. In August the TF had a deficit of $8.4B. They reverse Repo’ed that at a cost of 2.25% for 4 months ($55mm in interest expense for just the August shortfall). This will add up and get bigger.
I love it. Every dirt bag bank in the country is borrowing money from the Fed at ¼%. At the same time the largest holder of USA government securities in the world is borrowing short-term at 8Xs that.
The Fed’s policies are hitting the Social Security Trust Fund two ways. Inflation costs are high and interest income is falling. At the same time, SS can’t finance its inter-month shortfalls at today’s zero interest rates. Three ways a loser.





appreciate your effort to produce these posts....
ReplyDeleteyes, it's all a 'sad' joke. I should receive my first SS check in sept/12 and I DO need the funds.
I hope it will last. The fact SSA can't borrow at robber rates is absurd.....
Your posts will make me appreciate it all the more as it becomes more 'dear'.
cheers
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteSocial Security doesn't have to borrow.
Why not let the Treasury borrow from them, and pay them 4% interest?
Not only that, but the interest is credited, paid out of thin air, with no budget impact.
Why borrow at 2%, if you can loan at 4%, and it doesn't cost a thing!
Well, that's not totally true.
The government has redeemed the interest to make up the cash shortfall the last 2 years. But that's a small price to pay when all that "phantom" principal and interest has been used by the Treasury all these years to pay for government expenses and lower the deficits.
Don Levit
Great analysis as usual, Bruce, but I still can't see why it even matters. The balance in the SSTF is simply a marker for how much more has been received in SS taxes (plus the "interest" credited to the account) than has been sent out. If the flow reverses it means that the government is sending out more money in benefits than it is taking in--just as it is doing with the rest of the budget. So what difference does it make in the big picture? If taxes need to be increased or spending lowered to cut the deficit (not necessary according to MMT) then SS tax increases/benefits decreases are just another part of the unpleasant medicine.
ReplyDeleteDon Levit:
ReplyDeleteTreasury can't borrow from SS, SS has no money and no capacity to borrow.
The interest paid to SS IS ON BUDGET, surprised you did not know that.
Bruce:
ReplyDeleteIt seems this excerpt from a GAO paper entitled "Financial Audit, Bureau of the Public Debt's Fiscal Years 2000 and 1999 Schedules of Federal Debt," contradicts your statement that SS is on budget.
Page 5 "Interest on debt held by the public is a current burden on taxpayers. In contrast, intragovernmental debt holdings perform an accounting function. They do not have the current economic effects of borrowing from the public."
Page 13 "Interest credited to federal government trust funds and other federal government accounts does not result in an immediate outlay of the federal government because one part of the government pays the interest and another receives it."
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01389.pdf.
If it is on budget, then how come there is no immediate impact? It is a wash, at least for accounting purposes, for the interest is an asset to the trust fund and a liability to the Treasury.
Don Levit
DL It's on the budget. From Treasury
ReplyDeletehttp://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/charts/principal/principal_mark.htm
Bruce:
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to say that it was off the budget.
The surpluses in the trust fund have lowered the deficits over the years.
What I was trying to say was that as long as the cash outgo exceeded the cash income, the only item reported on the budget was the benefits and administrative expenses paid.
The trust fund, from a budget perspective, is a wash.
It is only when cash outgo exceeds cash income, does the trust fund show an expense - the interest redeemed to make up the shortfall.
Don Levit
The Administration and Congress have taken on a policy of hiding from the American people the true value and condition of Social Security. The cover-up is undermining any possibility to save it in an orderly way, tragically.
ReplyDeleteI'm a gumby about such things (except I was forced to go on Medicare this year, not due to age but due to life-threatening condition). What about:
ReplyDeleteMedicare (I'd rather not use it, but by law, I have to)
SS Disability "Insurance"
Federal portion of Medicaid
What's funding these? When I was at the SS office in January practically begging them to put me on the Medicare rolls (or I'd be bankrupt forthwith, as my medical expenses are over @12,000 per month), many folks were there and I could infer from their comments they were trying like anything to get SSDI.
I envision five taxpayers left to pay $100 trillion in benefits.
That @ sign should be a $ sign, of course.
ReplyDeleteWhat youre saying is completely true. I know that everybody must say the same thing, but I just think that you put it in a way that everyone can understand. I also love the images you put in here. They fit so well with what youre trying to say. Im sure youll reach so many people with what youve got to say. Table Pad Company
ReplyDeletecheap goose coats sale online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
ReplyDeletegoose trillium parka jackets online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
Canada goose freestyle vest online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
Canada Goose Chilliwack Bomber sale online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
Canada Goose Mens Citadel jackets online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
cheap Goose Expedition Parka coats online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
canada goose snow mantra parka online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
Canada Goose Yorkville Parka Jackets online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
womens Goose Chilliwack Parka online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
womens Goose Expedition Parka online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
womens Goose Kensington Parka Jackets online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
womens Goose Montebello Parka jackets online sale Denmark Canada, UK,
Canada Goose Womens Solaris Parka online sale Denmark Canada, UK.