Recently, we hosted a review meeting with a longtime client. He leaned back in his chair and asked a question I could tell had been on the tip of his tongue all meeting, “Is Social Security going to be there for us when we can take it?” His voice was half-joking, but his eyes told me this was a question he’d been pondering for a while.

A few weeks later, in a meeting with a much younger client, a similar question came up as we reviewed her Longview Analysis. “We should probably assume we won’t get any Social Security,” she stated. “I keep hearing it will be gone by the time my generation retires.”

Social Security is one of the default income streams we have built into our planning, but there are plenty of headlines warning that it is “running out of money”. So are we crazy to plan assuming that it will be around?

The short answer is no. And part of taking the Long View is remembering that headlines are designed to grab your attention, not necessarily to give you the full story. When we step back and look at the complete picture, Social Security is often far more durable than the news cycle suggests.

Much of the anxiety around Social Security comes from the annual reports released by the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Federal Disability Insurance (DI) programs projecting their Trust Funds to be depleted by 2035. These Trust Funds are simply reserves built up during years when Social Security collected more in payroll taxes than it paid out.

As Baby Boomers retire and live longer, benefit payments now exceed annual contributions, which means the reserves are being drawn down. But what the headlines often leave out is that the Trust Funds are not the system itself. Even if the reserves are depleted, workers will still be paying payroll taxes every paycheck, and those ongoing taxes are currently projected by the Social Security trustees to continue funding roughly 80% of benefits.

The problem Social Security faces is primarily a math problem, not an existential one. And the math problem has multiple straightforward fixes that have been discussed for years, including:

• Increasing the Social Security payroll tax rate modestly
• Subject all wages to Social Security payroll tax (remove the current cap)
• Reduce current and future benefits
• Reduce only the future beneficiary’s benefits
• Raise Full Retirement Age
• Slow benefit growth for top earners
• Change the way cost-of-living adjustments are made
• Some combination of two or more of these measures

Many policy experts expect that lawmakers will need to make adjustments over time, although it is uncertain which combination of tools they will choose. Social Security is a significant program that is relied upon by many Americans. More than 70 million Americans receive benefits today, and nearly every worker contributes with the expectation that those benefits will be there when they retire.

It remains one of the most consistently popular programs in the country and has been the backbone of American retirement for generations. That level of reliance and public support is one reason many policymakers focus on keeping it solvent.

At Hill, we plan based on data and evidence, not speculation. For clients nearing retirement, we typically model full benefits under current law. For younger clients, we still model full benefits, but we review scenarios that assume reductions so your long-term plan stays durable regardless of what policymakers decide. These scenarios are planning tools and do not represent predictions about future legislation. What we do not do is assume Social Security will disappear. The evidence available today does not point in that direction, and the popularity of the program makes that outcome appear extremely unlikely, although future changes to the program are always possible.

Of course, if you’d like us to assume a “doomsday” scenario where no Social Security” system exists, we’d be happy to model it for you. But for many clients who’ve been consistent savers over the years, they will learn that they will still be fine without the additional income from Social Security.

While it is true that Social Security is under strain, it is not collapsing. The headlines sound alarming because uncertainty sells, but the reality is far more stable and manageable.

If you have been feeling uneasy about what this all means for your plan, let’s talk. We want you to understand the system, understand your plan, and feel confident about the path ahead.

Most fixed income does its job quietly. It dampens volatility. It provides liquidity. It helps portfolios stay balanced when markets feel uncertain. But it often comes with a tradeoff that matters more than most investors realize.

Traditional fixed income forces taxable income along the way, even when you would prefer control over when taxes show up, and what type of taxes they are. That loss of control can limit planning flexibility and reduce after-tax compounding over time.

Hill Investment Group and Longview Research Partners have been studying this problem with a simple question in mind.

The answer is a resounding “Yes!” In March, we will launch LVIG, a new fixed income ETF addressing that exact question. LVIG is designed to improve after-tax outcomes by managing not just what investors own, but how returns are delivered. The goal is not to change the role fixed income plays in a portfolio. The goal is to make fixed income work more effectively after taxes by giving advisors and clients more control over the timing and character of returns.

If you were part of last year’s 351 exchange launch of the Longview Advantage Fund (EBI), the philosophy will feel familiar. That effort helped solve a common issue in portfolios, how to diversify concentrated positions without triggering a large tax bill. 

LVIG applies the same mindset to a different part of the portfolio, fixed income implementation.

We are hosting a live webinar ahead of LVIG’s launch to explain what’s changing, why we believe it’s an improvement, and how it may fit into client portfolios.

If you’re a Hill Investment Group client or individual interested in taking your fixed income to another level, register here.

If you’re an advisor, please register for one of two upcoming webinars on February 12th (register here) and February 19th (register here) that will dig into how you can deliver a more effective fixed income solution for your clients. 

We hope you can join us.

My 18-month-old son’s favorite song right now has a catchy chorus that goes, “Bubble, bubble, bubble… POP!” and as with any toddler favorite, we sing it constantly, so it’s always stuck in my head. Lately, every time I open my WSJ app and see the word “bubble” splashed across a headline, the soundtrack kicks in automatically.

In the song, the bubbles always pop. So, should we be preparing for a big pop in markets, as the headlines suggest? Part of taking the long view is refusing to react to headlines. Our philosophy centers on tuning out the noise and anchoring decisions in evidence. But with all the AI “bubble” chatter, it’s worth taking a moment to examine this idea from a research-backed point of view, one that might surprise you, but ultimately help you rise above the noise.

What If Bubbles Don’t Exist?

Eugene Fama, Nobel laureate and architect of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (and a major influence on Hill’s investment philosophy), has a view that stops people in their tracks: He doesn’t believe in bubbles.

Not because he thinks markets are perfect…they aren’t. And not because prices never fall…we know that they do. He challenges the idea of bubbles because, as he puts it, you can’t scientifically prove that a price was ‘wrong’ in the moment.

Here’s what this means:

1. We only call something a bubble in hindsight.

When prices rise sharply, no one knows if it’s irrational because future growth could justify it. We only label it a “bubble” after a drop, which means we’re using new information to judge old prices.

2. A crash isn’t evidence of a bubble.

A sharp decline doesn’t mean earlier prices were foolish. It may simply reflect changing expectations, new information, or shifting economic conditions.

3. If something looks obviously overpriced, markets should correct it.

Nobel Prize winner, University of Chicago Professor, and Dimensional Director Eugene Fama argues that calling something a bubble implies that most investors were collectively irrational, something he’s deeply skeptical of.

Whether or not you fully agree with him, his perspective matters because it reminds us of something essential: the story of markets is driven more by narrative and emotion than data.

How this Connects to Your Plan

At Hill, we don’t spend time predicting bubbles. We don’t try to guess where the top is. We don’t build your plan around today’s headlines. Instead, we build portfolios (and relationships) around a different set of ideas:

• Evidence beats emotion.
• Your financial life shouldn’t be swayed by headlines.
• And you don’t need to predict what comes next.

So, Are We in a Bubble? The honest, evidence-based, answer is that no one knows. And we don’t need to. The goal isn’t to call the top. It’s to stay invested, stay disciplined, and stay focused on your long-term vision, the one we’re building together.

If you’d like to talk more about this, call us or email at askanadvisor@hillinvestmentgroup.com to set up a time.