From: "Mark" 

I don't believe they're going allow migration of interpolated existing
balances over to the new accounts, rather, it'll be future contributions of
probably not more than half at the outset, though I'd expect that to move
to 100% within a short time-frame, probably 5 years, no more than 10,
possibly with higher amounts laddered in according to age as well. I
believe too, that they'll require a fairly hefty portion of that half into
Treasuries or similar bonds; this too will probably evolve over time but
I'd not expect them to reduce required bond holdings to zero at any time -
that's just prudent diversification.

That coupled with probably a pretty hefty percentage of the people past
50-55 not going in and the incremental nature of the contributions by the
rest, should negate any really profound affect on the markets, but it is
going to put upward pressure on the prices, that in the short term will
benefit people that have existing investments outside of SS, especially
those already close to retirement. In the long term the change in dynamics
will just become part of the investment landscape.

"Mike N."  wrote in message
news:sp54s0pnalskl678ptfh1cebr20cnk4a59{at}4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:23:35 -0600, "Glenn Meadows"

> wrote:
>
>>he real key, IMO, is to allow a
>>gradual migration of a portion of the funds into user controlled
>>investments.  I don't mean, put the 15% BACK into the paychecks, just
>>require or allow the employee to direct where a percentage goes.
>
>   We have to be careful to convert gradually.   An economist view is that
> the stock market may behave differently if as much money as now goes to
> Social Security is suddenly thrown at it.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5