Track the companies that matter to you. It's FREE! Click one of these fan favorites to get started: Apple; Google; Ford.



The Best Solution to the Retirement Debate

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

Government programs connected with retirement are controversial. But rather than having endless arguments from both ends of an irreconcilable spectrum, the best alternative is one that lets both sides have their choices -- as long as they accept the full consequences of their decisions.

Election-year nonsense
For pragmatic folks who prefer to see things actually get done, election years are pure torture. On one hand, you inevitably see grandiose proposals from the extremes of both parties, most of which would have absolutely no chance of becoming law even under ordinary circumstances. Yet on the other hand, even for cynics who believe that gridlock is generally the order of the day for government, Washington becomes particularly immobilized when elections are right around the corner, as no one wants to take a stand on anything important that could get them in trouble with segments of their constituencies.

Focusing on retirement issues, you can see this phenomenon in action:

  • In the past, the idea of privatizing Social Security by replacing traditional monthly benefits with privately managed investment accounts has come to the forefront on numerous occasions. Yet even though those proposals mostly went nowhere, the idea is making the rounds again this year, thanks to vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan's sponsorship of a 2004 bill that relied in part on private accounts.
  • On the other side of the political spectrum, some analysts have argued that employer-sponsored, worker-managed 401(k) retirement plan accounts have been an abject failure, given mediocre average account balances and relatively poor investment performance. Just a couple of weeks ago, Sen. Tom Harkin revived an idea related to one previously championed by Professor Teresa Ghilarducci that would replace 401(k) plans with what would amount to a pension-like substitute, providing lifetime monthly benefits akin to what private employers used to give the majority of their workers.

With current systems firmly entrenched, proposals like these rarely go anywhere, mostly because they tend to be extreme. If you tone down the rhetoric, though, and set up an environment where people have the choice to participate in novel ideas, then you can create a living experiment that can help drive public policy for generations to come.

Let people invest!
On the 401(k) front, it's easy to criticize the entire concept as being flawed, and it's tempting to blame workers' basic lack of investing know-how for the shortcomings of 401(k)s. But when you look at whether private employers are doing well in covering their pension obligations, the record isn't all that much better. A recent report from S&P Dow Jones Indices found that General Electric (NYSE: GE  ) , Boeing (NYSE: BA  ) , and Ford (NYSE: F  ) all had funding shortfalls of $15 billion or more. A big part of that stems from poor investment performance, given the market's meltdown in 2008, despite companies being sophisticated investors. Putting the onus to invest well on the government could easily lead to no more than another unfunded mandate.

On the flip side, full Social Security privatization misunderstands the insurance element of the program. For one thing, disability and survivors' benefits aren't typically self-insurable; given how early in a career problems can strike, you need a large group to offset joint mortality and accident risk. And while private products can address some of those risks, reasonable people will always disagree about whether the profit that Prudential (NYSE: PRU  ) , Genworth Financial (NYSE: GNW  ) , and a host of other insurance companies would earn from a private insurance program would outweigh the inefficiencies of a government-run program.

Take a risk
Middle grounds exist in both of these debates. Letting some people have supplemental pensions in place of 401(k) accounts could be a valuable experiment in seeing whether steps to control longevity risk work better than relying on insurance companies to provide immediate annuity coverage in private markets. Similarly, letting people partially privatize their Social Security would provide data on whether it actually works in real life.

The key, though, is to force people to live with the consequences of their actions. If people rely on bailouts if they get into too much trouble -- and, unfortunately, the moral hazard of the financial crisis is still at the forefront of people's minds -- then they'll make bad decisions. Only if they embrace risk do they deserve its rewards.

Taking risk has always been the keystone of ingenuity. Too much risk is dangerous, but by giving people more choices with at least some limited financial freedom to control their retirement destiny, we can gain useful information about potential policy changes down the road. That beats election-year hype any day of the week.

Want some more ideas about retirement? The best defense is a strong offense, and that means investing to maximize your retirement nest egg. Despite its pension concerns, General Electric has come back from the brink and looks like a promising investment. Find out everything you need to know about the most well-known conglomerate in the world from our Motley Fool premium report on General Electric today.

Fool contributor Dan Caplinger is already tired of campaign ads. He doesn't own shares of the companies mentioned in this article. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of and creating a synthetic long position on Ford. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Fool's disclosure policy is the best solution to Wall Street's conflicts of interest that we could come up with.

Read/Post Comments (3) | Recommend This Article (6)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Chuck2010 wrote:

    The privatization arguments fail for a good reason. The same deficit hawks proposing this latest inefficiency have absolutely no answer on how to fund the trillion or so needed to transition to such a scheme (providing benefits to current beneficiaries while diverting the same amount into these future benefits).

    The real growth of companies and the lack of an increasing supply of stock versus this flood of cash into stocks should a plan like this be implemented, one has to question who will benefit? Perhaps the 1% and the likes of Mitt Romney who setup his IRA in the Cayman Islands. Will Congress set up all our new plans there so we can benefit from that treatment as well?

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2012, at 8:12 PM, CRNA1109 wrote:

    Ah the 1%..........

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2012, at 6:37 AM, JBKirtley wrote:

    It seems to me that if all my social security payments and employer matches could be rolled into an annuity, a guaranteed income stream in retirement would be assured along with a death benefit in the case of premature death. I could also voluntarily increase my contribution and, if necessary, borrow against the balance.

    If workers over the age of 50 where given the option of an annuity or the current program, then the cost of the current program could be theoretically capped going forward and it's budgetary impact would decrease yearly until it reached zero.

    Since the idea is to maximize retiree benefits, then profits to the insurance companies could be capped by requiring a percentage of all gains be distributed to the annuity holder in the same way REITs are required to distribute the bulk of their gains to shareholders.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1998441, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 10/24/2016 4:28:01 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,223.03 77.32 0.43%
S&P 500 2,151.33 10.17 0.47%
NASD 5,309.83 52.43 1.00%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

10/24/2016 4:01 PM
BA $137.45 Up +1.82 +1.34%
Boeing CAPS Rating: ****
F $12.19 Up +0.17 +1.41%
Ford CAPS Rating: ****
GE $28.92 Down -0.06 -0.21%
General Electric CAPS Rating: ****
GNW $4.79 Down -0.42 -8.06%
Genworth Financial CAPS Rating: ****
PRU $83.54 Up +0.39 +0.47%
Prudential Financi… CAPS Rating: ****