mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Boomer Retirement To Crush Stocks

More bad news for Boomers watching their retirement portfolios shrink and their home equity dwindle.  If the San Francisco Federal Reserve is right about long term stock market trends in a spinechilling new study, Boomers can expect depressed stock prices for most of the rest of their lives.

For decades, the rising American stock market has tracked demographic trends. The Fed study suggests that as baby boomers begin to retire en masse — and, consequently, sell the stocks in their portfolios to maintain their incomes — their actions could serve as a significant drag on equity markets.

All stock market predictions — unlike climate science, which is settled — are subject to change, but if this relationship holds, Boomers are going to be squeezed.

For younger generations the news could be slightly better; as the Boomers offload their stocks, savvy young investors can pick up some bargains.  On the other hand, if their portfolios crash, Boomers are going to fight even harder against cuts in entitlement programs.

Work hard, kids, and pay all your taxes; your parents need the money.

Features Icon
show comments
  • Anthony

    “Liu and Siegal allow that considerable uncertainty surrounds their work.” That is, predicting influences on equities and capital markets over two decades (20 plus years) are at best speculative. Boomers, youngsters, and others, ought to gauge captal markets for respective interests and forge ahead accordingly – despite forecast 20 years hence.

  • Peter

    Demographics is destiny

  • Toni

    TANGIENTIAL re “settled” climate science,” from this speech by a physician turned novelist who cared deeply about the practice of science.

    Historically, the claim of [scientific] consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

    In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth…

    There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra…

    Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years…

    And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

    Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away.

  • Stephen

    “All stock market predictions — unlike climate science, which is settled — are subject to change, but if this relationship holds, Boomers are going to be squeezed.”

    I am surprised by this sentence – I had thought that Professor Mead was still a bit of a skeptic. There are many first rate scientists who do not accept to the AGW story as it is being told. Many position themselves as “luke-warmers” believing the earth may warm about 1C – 1.3C per doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Be that as it may, Mead’s reference to “climate science” in this short essay concerning stock prices only served to distract from his point. This is atypical of his writing.

  • formerdem

    Stephen I am reasonably sure the prof was being facetious.

  • Stephen

    Thanks formerdem, I suppose the irony went right over my head. All is right with the world!

  • A

    Stephen, you sound like a real funster.

  • higgins1990

    “Boomers are going to be squeezed.”

    Which should be only the beginning, IMO. Maybe tarred and feathered, dragged through the mud, and then mocked for being the most selfish generation ever.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service