Goldman Sachs has released the latest in a long line of surveys about millennials and money. The findings won’t shock you if you’ve seen other such surveys: millennials get financial advice from their parents, they’re less concerned with privacy, they still want to own a home … someday.
But one familiar finding may be worth highlighting. Even as the stock market reaches record highs, millennials by and large remain wary of investing. Fewer than 20 percent of those surveyed by Goldman said that stocks are “the best way to save for the future.” Another 45 percent said they’re willing to dip a toe in the market or to put money into low-risk options. More than a third of those surveyed said they don’t know enough about stocks or felt that the market is too volatile or too stacked against small investors.
Part of that may because many millennials haven’t yet reached the life stage or the level of financial stability that would lead them to consider investing. But the lingering scars of the recession are evident in the results, too — and financial institutions clearly have a long way go to restore the public’s confidence in them. For example, Gallup just published a report called, “Why It’s Still Cool to Hate Banks.”
Goldman didn’t release the details about how many millennials it surveyed or when (and it hadn’t yet responded to an email asking for those details by the time of publication), but the results it got are broadly in line with those of earlier surveys. And they’re another reminder that not everyone is benefitting from the stock market’s record-setting rally. Millennials are still missing out.
Here is a chart produced by Goldman Sachs summarizing the results of their survey:
As expected, groups representing hospitals sued the Trump administration Wednesday to stop a new regulation would require them to make public the prices for services they negotiate with insurers. Claiming the rule “is unlawful, several times over,” the industry groups, which include the American Hospital Association, say the rule violates their First Amendment rights, among other issues.
"The burden of compliance with the rule is enormous, and way out of line with any projected benefits associated with the rule," the suit says. In response, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said that hospitals “should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it.”
Between December 2017 and July 2019, enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) fell by 1.9 million, or 2.6%. The Kaiser Family Foundation provided an analysis of that drop Monday, saying that while some of it was likely caused by enrollees finding jobs that offer private insurance, a significant portion is related to enrollees losing health insurance of any kind. “Experiences in some states suggest that some eligible people may be losing coverage due to barriers maintaining coverage associated with renewal processes and periodic eligibility checks,” Kaiser said.
Billionaire John D. Arnold, a former energy trader and hedge fund manager turned philanthropist with a focus on health care, says Big Pharma appears to have a powerful hold on members of Congress.
Arnold pointed out that PhRMA, the main pharmaceutical industry lobbying group, had revenues of $459 million in 2018, and that total lobbying on behalf of the sector probably came to about $1 billion last year. “I guess $1 bil each year is an intractable force in our political system,” he concluded.
The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin says Elizabeth Warren’s proposed taxes could claim more than 100% of income for some wealthy investors. Here’s an example Rubin discussed Friday:
“Consider a billionaire with a $1,000 investment who earns a 6% return, or $60, received as a capital gain, dividend or interest. If all of Ms. Warren’s taxes are implemented, he could owe 58.2% of that, or $35 in federal tax. Plus, his entire investment would incur a 6% wealth tax, i.e., at least $60. The result: taxes as high as $95 on income of $60 for a combined tax rate of 158%.”
In Rubin’s back-of-the-envelope analysis, an investor worth $2 billion would need to achieve a return of more than 10% in order to see any net gain after taxes. Rubin notes that actual tax bills would likely vary considerably depending on things like location, rates of return, and as-yet-undefined policy details. But tax rates exceeding 100% would not be unusual, especially for billionaires.