This is the sound of the Wall Street Journal calling all 18-34 year-old’s pussies.

A general rule of thumb for investing is that the younger the investor, the more risk that can be taken on. But the global financial crisis and accompanying Great Recession created a new risk picture among younger investors. According to the Merrill Lynch Wealth Management Affluent Insights Quarterly, which polled 1,000 investors with $250,000 or more in investible assets, young investors have become almost as risk averse as the oldest investors. Here is the age breakdown for those who said they have a “low tolerance for risk today:” 18-34 year olds: 52%, 35-50 year olds: 45%, 51-64 year olds: 46%, 65+ year olds – 55% In other words, the 18-to-34 age group has about the same tolerance for risk as those who are 65 or older.

Young, Affluent Investors Feel Burned [WSJ]

Comments (16)

  1. Posted by Anonymous | August 3, 2010 at 4:55 PM

    You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you’re not naive enough to think we’re living in a democracy, are you buddy? It’s the free market. And you’re a part of it. You’ve got that killer instinct. Stick around pal, I’ve still got a lot to teach you.

  2. Posted by Anonymous | August 3, 2010 at 4:55 PM

    yeah, pussies!

    – B Madoff

  3. Posted by Anonymous | August 3, 2010 at 4:57 PM

    In Soviet Russia, aversion risks you!

    - “Restaurant/Bar” head waiter

  4. Posted by guest | August 3, 2010 at 4:57 PM

    What’s a “ute”?

  5. Posted by Anonymous | August 3, 2010 at 5:02 PM

    I work with these aforementioned 18-34 pansies

    -Star

  6. Posted by guest | August 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM

    Does this mean I should buy gold?

  7. Posted by Louis Winthorpe III | August 3, 2010 at 5:17 PM

    Sad to say, I fit the age range but not the criteria.

  8. Posted by Anonymous | August 3, 2010 at 5:32 PM

    I’ll bet it’s mostly those pussy 18/19 year-old affluent investors w/over 250k and Merrill brokers. Nice fucking study.

  9. Posted by Jimmy | August 3, 2010 at 5:40 PM

    Terrible study.

    ^675k net worth, 33% in equity, 27 years old.

  10. Posted by lindsay is a milk-a-holic | August 3, 2010 at 6:18 PM

    WSJ? Puweeezeee. I got $5 trillion. All in 3x-levered bull equity ETFs.

    -The E-Trade Baby

  11. Posted by Anal_yst | August 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM

    How many 18-34 year olds with $250m invested in their Merrill account could they have counted, seriously, and how many of them were under 30?

  12. Posted by the99th | August 3, 2010 at 9:53 PM

    You could verify this quantitatively by comparing the spread between a moving average of weekly historical volatility on, say the SPX against implied volatility. If this is true than that spread should favor option buyers.

  13. Posted by E. Stanley O'Neal | August 3, 2010 at 10:40 PM

    WSJ? I believe it’s now called the Pennsylvania Avenue Journal.

  14. Posted by Anonymous | August 4, 2010 at 1:42 AM

    The recession has made me highly risk averse. I now use a condom while doing hookers.

  15. Posted by bigdaddy | August 4, 2010 at 1:01 PM

    Couldn’t agree more. I now use condoms while doing poster #14

  16. Posted by Christopher Cox | August 5, 2010 at 10:51 AM

    Yeah, ramp up that risk, we here at the SEC will protect you!

Leave a comment

You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.