The January 2012 numbers for Social Security (SS) show a mixed picture. The results mirror what is going on in the economy. There is clear evidence that revenues at SS are recovering; there is equally clear evidence that America’s social expenditures are rising at a rate that exceeds the rate of recovery.
The following numbers are adjusted for any consequences of the 2% payroll tax deduction for 2011 and 2012. As a reminder, the Treasury pays into to SS every month an amount equal to the 2% shortfall. The country ends up more indebted, but there is no net consequence to SS. Some YoY comparative data on the key numbers:
Clearly, the problem is that benefit payments are increasing more rapidly than revenues. There are two contributing forces pushing up costs, (1) 10,000 additional people sign up for benefits every day of the week and (2) inflation (COLA) is rising. The January 2012 YoY increase in benefit payments was $4.1B. Of that amount, approximately $2.1B is attributable to inflation; the balance of $2B is due to more folks getting checks.
We crossed a big corner at SS in 2010 when the first annual cash flow deficit was reported. SS will never again see a cash surplus. The only question is how rapidly the deficits will rise. It’s a bit early in the year for me to provide a credible 2012 forecast for SS. My read of the January numbers confirms my suspicions. The improvement in the economy will be trumped by increasing benefit costs. Net-net, a modest deterioration in the cash position is my base case. I think SS will produce a $56B cash shortfall in 2012 (2010 = -49B, 2011 – 47B). The changes in the net cash position at SS over the past seven years show the extent of the deterioration:
The expense side of the SS equation can’t be altered. The only variables that make a difference are interest rates and the economy (jobs).
The interest rate side of the equation is easy to contemplate. SS’s income from interest is going to decline in 2012 and beyond. Ben Bernanke’s ZIRP, QE and Twist have seen to that. Ben has made it clear that interest rates will remain at historical lows for well into the future. SS is America’s biggest saver ($2.6 Trillion), it will therefore pay a price as the low interest rate environment is endlessly extended.
In June of this year, SS will re-invest its maturing bonds (and any cash it has) in a new strip of securities that have maturities from 1 to 15 years. The interest rate for these Special Issue Treasury Securities is set by a (stupid) 60-year old formula. This year, the formula will produce a yield for the new investments that is the lowest in history. Take a look at the historical interest rates that SS has received on its surplus:
The following shows the maturities and the interest rates on SS's holdings of Treasury securities. Note that in the next few years, all of the high coupon bonds will be rolling off. The old bonds will be replaced with much lower yielding assets.
This is the expectation for interest income at SS based on its 2011 report to Congress:
Here is the forecast on interest rates on which the above interest income forecasts were made.
This simply does not add up. SS will have to significantly revise downward its projections for interest incomes (there is no way the Fed is going to back off ZIRP anytime soon).
The economy is much harder to ponder. As of today, there is a case than can be made for continued job growth. But for how long? America has a bad habit of slipping into a recession every four years or so. The last one was in 2008, so we’re due. I think that the US will muddle through the first part of 2012 with continued modest job growth. However, a slowdown looks to be in the cards by the end of the year. As of today, there are a dozen economic headwinds that will kick in as of 1/1/13 - all of the Bush tax cuts, the SS payroll reduction and a substantial cutback in government spending (the sequestered amounts).
If we experience a recession in 2013, and the Fed maintains its low interest rate policies, it will be a very bad year for SS. The cash deficit would explode under these conditions. It could easily exceed $100b. The wheels will come off of SS’s cart. As we are seeing now, it is extremely difficult for SS to bounce back in good times. it will be impossible if we hit another economic slow patch.
This is precisely the scenario I’m anticipating for 2013. It will be a decisive year. If we end up going down an economic road as I have described, then SS will fall into full deficit (operating cash deficit + interest income). That would happen circa 2015. The Social Security Trust Fund is forecasting this event but it believes it will happen in 2021. When people realize that the Trust Fund has topped out, and the implications are understood, significant changes at SS will follow.
I point readers to a raging debate going on in Japan. To cover the growing deficits at Japan’s equivalent of SS, consumption taxes are being increased from 5% to 10% on everything purchased in the country. This massive tax increase is far too low to cover the problem. To bring balance to the system, VAT taxes have to rise to 17%.
Japan is in a different situation than the US. Its population is even older (and aging more rapidly) than ours. As in many other examples, the US is about ten-years behind Japan. But we are catching up quickly. In just a few years, America will have a similar raging debate on SS. We too will be faced with a dilemma. Either taxes have to raised, or benefits have to come down. The alternative is that the US follows Japan into the land of 200% debt-to-GDP. Unlike Japan, The US can’t survive at that rate. We will blow up before we get to 200%.
We won't see any reforms in America’s entitlement programs in 2012. The election will see to that. The immediate priorities of 2013 will not include SS. The other problems facing the economy will be more pressing. But by 2014, the jig will be up. By then, there will have been so much damage to SS that a very significant set of changes will be required to minimize what will then be seen as a systemic risk.
Note: I get the occasional beef about using graffiti in my articles. "Phooey" is what I say to that. This one by Banksy is perfect for this piece. No?
.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)









The graffiti is one of your definitive style markers! Always creative and on topic. Keep them!
ReplyDeleteBruce, are the Social Security trustees doing their job? As you point out unreasonable interest rate, gdp and unemployment assumptions. A view that the system can be fixed by increasing the payroll tax to 14.55% from the current 12.4% when Congress and the President are pursuing temporary reductions to benefit the economy? The trustees don't convey seriousness or sense of urgency. They seem to be merely"politically correct".
ReplyDeleteHmmm. The SSTF economics is not far from that of CBO. So I think that SS has been handed a rosy forecast rather than created its own.
DeleteCBO comes out with its annual report on 1/31. The assumptions used in that report will be the basis upon which the 2012 SS report to Congress is made.
So the real question is CBO doing its job? I'll give you my thoughts on Feb. 1
bk
The interest the SS trust fund earns is paid in unfunded debt, not cash. The same is true of the principal and the entire trust fund.
ReplyDeleteThat is why when cash outgo exceeds cash income, and the trust fund is tapped for the difference, general revenues must be raised AS IF THE TRUST FUND DID NOT EXIST!
It is the same way we pay for all pay-as-you-go expenses, with or without a trust fund.
Don Levit
How rediculous it is to talk as if the bonds in the SS Trust Fund are assets, interest earning assets. Just as the bonds themselves are nothing more than a tally of the money stolen from the Trust Fund, the interest, how ever it is calculated is meaningless as it is just a way to transfer money, just as the social security tax is meaningless as it is all in and out of the different pockets on the same man.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't mind hearing more on your assumption that Japan has a higher public debt tolerance than the Americans do.
ReplyDeleteIs it because Japanese legislators understand that they cannot go bankrupt (inflation is the only real threat), whereas American legislators do not? Or is there something more here?
I wish folks like you had the guts to take on the military and health care. But that's risky business in America right now. I get so, so tired of the constant bitching about entitlements. Yep, they're a problem but not nearly as immediate as your agenda driven mind portrays.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you turn your eyes on the one plus trillion dollar military outlays? (silly assed
economic games are played here like % of GDP) Or the excessive public employee retirement programs? Or the out of control health care system? Simple answer: It't not politically popular and you're income depends on feeding American anger.
People have paid payroll taxes for seventy years to support retirees. People were told that they were contributing to their own retirement fund. They paid in more than was immediately needed. The government did not invest the extra cash; it spent it on government salaries and projects.
ReplyDeleteNow, these people want to retire. To support them, younger people will be asked to pay FICA taxes at about double the previous rate, 24% instead of the current 12.4%. (You may think that the employer is paying 6.2%, but it all comes out of the production of the worker and silently reduces take-home pay.)
Those younger people will be wise to the scheme, and will wonder about who is going to pay for them. They may not like the idea that their savings will be vanishing, leaving them with only the option of extracting support from the next younger cohort of people. They may resist.
There is nothing real in the Social Security "trust fund" (or in any US government "trust fund"). There is only a political promise to find the money somewhere that was paid in and already spent. The shortfall in Social Security is about $15 trillion in today's dollars, about equal to the entire yearly income of everyone in the US. That shortfall is above future collections of Social Security tax at current rates. That promise is much more than what is recorded in the trust fund, which is itself only an unfunded promise.
US Treasury Trust Funds are only an accounting record of what was collected and then immediately spent for things other than Social Security.
The Congressional Budget Office (CB0) in 2003:
=== ===
Trust fund holdings are not assets of the government and do not represent money owed to program recipients individually. Payments to Social Security recipients (like other social insurance programs) are based on rules set by law unrelated to trust fund holdings.
=== ===
Ponzy Schemes Like Social Security
Interesting bit about Japan...I read an article about this awhile ago. Found one online for those curious. Potentially some sizeable fraud there driving up their pension costs; presumably descendants collecting pension $$ on people long dead.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/10/japan-missing-more-than-2_n_711979.html
This is the lead-in:
TOKYO — More than 230,000 Japanese citizens listed in government records as at least 100 years old can't be found and may have died long ago, ac...
Bruce, your images are great! And basically always spot-on. Keep 'em coming.
This is the same problem that all of the public and private pension funds have as well. Low interest rates are requiring increased contributions to the pension funds (which, mutatis mutandis, lowers employment). To my mind, this is why Government employment has fallen in the last couple of years--the money that could be spent on employees is being sent to the pension fund.
ReplyDeleteLow interest rates are causing unemployment, at least in the Government sector. Not that BB will care, but his policies on balance are hurting, not helping.
Re: Low interest rates are causing unemployment...(Public or private funding of pensions cost more. This is why employment has fallen in the last couple of years)
ReplyDeleteNot that Ben Bernanke will care, but his policies on balance are hurting, not helping.
Comment: This is the argument (or lie) that the Fed never puts forth. they say we need to have low interest rates to boost the economy.