Women Are Inheriting Trillions. This Is A Seismic Power Shift
Mackenzie Scott (formerly Bezos) quietly invested her billions in education, arts, organizations that support and serve women, public health, immigration, diversity and affordable housing, as the Chronicle of Philanthropy and Levers for Change have reported. Joan Kroc donated $200 million to NPR (in 2003).
Melinda French Gates is investing her billions in helping women and social impact, 'to accelerate the pace of social progress using high-impact investments, philanthropy, partnerships, and advocacy to get more power in the hands of more people — especially women — in the U.S. and around the world,' according to her Pivotal Ventures website, She announced that 'Decades of research on economics, wellbeing, and governance make it clear that investing in women and girls benefits everyone."
The rise of women's sports reflects this premise too. Women's sports is now 'a burgeoning investment category from both seasoned sports investors to newcomers,' Sports Litigation Report declared recently. Female athletes, teams and their fans have a 'values-first mindset, and prioritize brands that demonstrate integrity and social responsibility,' as my fellow Forbes contributor Claire Poole reported.
'An estimated $124tn is expected to change hands (globally) under the so-called 'great wealth transfer', with women set to inherit nearly 70% of that amount. Combined with rising educational attainment, stronger diversity and inclusion efforts, and ongoing progress in closing the gender pay gap, this moment signals a transformative rise in global female affluence.' Those are the words of Silvia Bastante de Unverhau – global philanthropy expert and Senior Advisor at LGT in Private Banker International.
Citing the Bank of America Institute's report on women and wealth, CNBC said, 'About $47 trillion is expected to be passed down to women in younger generations as inherited wealth,' as a result, 'women will soon control more money than ever before.' McKinsey reports US women will have a $30 trillion opportunity by 2030.
No matter what the final amount is, this is a seismic shift in the economy. If wealth is power, which it seems to be in this economy, women are about to have a lot more financial, geopolitical, economic and cultural power.
Experts say this massive shift in wealth is mostly due to demographics, because baby boomers (born 1946 to 1964) and 'the silent generation' (born 1928 to 1945) will pass on their wealth. Since women tend to live longer than men, surviving wives will inherit the majority. That's 'a potential wealth transfer of such magnitude that it approaches the annual GDP of the United States. After years of playing second fiddle to men, women are poised to take center stage,' according to McKinsey.[1]
It's also because women are taking center stage in the executive suites, earning more, starting and selling more companies, and investing more. McKinsey's 2024 Women in the Workplace analysis (of over 1,000 companies and 480,000 people) found that 29% of the C-suite is now women, 29% of senior management is now women, and 34% of Vice Presidents are now women, up from up from 17%, 23% and 27% in 2015, respectively.
If the current economy is ruled by the Golden Rule – ye who has the most gold rules – and that's been why the ultra-rich bro boys have wielded so much power, then we are in for an economic earthquake when the wealth tables turn. It's already happening, subtly – see French Gates, Walton, Kroc and Scott's examples.
Women are more educated than ever before, more accomplished than ever before, have wider networks than ever before, are more independent thinkers and more assertive leaders than ever before, are more influential than ever before, have more resources – financial and nonfinancial – than ever before, and wield more power than ever before.
More women are also supporting other women more, either via who they choose to do business with, or by donating to their nonprofits or to nonprofits that serve women's needs. There are more self-made women billionaires than ever too, as Forbes reported.
As French Gates said, 'Investing in women and girls benefits everyone.'
'Combined with rising educational attainment, stronger diversity and inclusion efforts, and ongoing progress in closing the gender pay gap, this moment signals a transformative rise in global female affluence,' as Unverhau put it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
IPO market heats up: These 4 names prepare to go public next
EquityZen head of market insight Brianne Lynch joins Market Domination with Josh Lipton to discuss the initial public offering (IPO) market in light of Figma's (FIG) recent public debut and whether companies need to have an artificial intelligence (AI) story to succeed. She also shares which private companies are likely to go public next. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination. Which are the possible candidates in your opinion, that would be on your radar, who might be willing to test the public markets this year? Sure. So, you know, several of the names on our IPO outlook for the year have already gone public. But there are a few that we're still waiting on. One of the big ones being Klarna. This is a company that was planning to go public in the spring, tabled those plans given the volatility in the market post deliberation day. Uh but they're reportedly now looking at a September IPO. So that'll be, um, the next of several Fintech IPOs we've seen. You had Circle, um, Chime, eToro. So certainly, uh, Fintech is an area where we're seeing more activity and given Klarna's brand recognition, um, and you know, value in the market, that's one we have our eyes on. Right now if you're going to go public, Brian, do you have to have an AI story? Do you have to be able to just sprinkle some of that AI magic on your S-1? Yeah. I would say at a minimum you have to try. And Figma, you know, that's something that played into their story as well. They had so many case studies of their large enterprise clients saving, you know, lots of time and money because of the AI tools that they've built into their products. So, I think that's a table stake for any company that is looking to go public. And that might be the best option for public market investors at the time because you have to remember a lot of these pure play AI companies are still very young in their life cycle. They're less likely to be going public in the next few years. So yes, that's bringing more investors into the private markets to invest. Uh but to kind of capitalize on that interest, public companies or contenders to go public will also need to have that as part of their story. Do you think there there are certain kinds of private companies, Brian, that would be more likely to receive a warm welcome to the public markets in in this environment against this backdrop? Sure. I mean, we've seen a few examples of what has worked. You know, I talked about a little bit about the need for growth, the need for profitability, but when we look at the companies that may be coming next or even the IPOs we've seen in the first half of the year, it hasn't been just one sector or one industry. You've seen Fintech, um, you've seen crypto, which is obviously growing a lot and given, you know, the regulatory tailwinds, uh, we expect that to continue to be a hot market. Um, but then, you know, Netskope, another name on our outlook, that's a cybersecurity company. Um, StubHub, another one. That's an e-commerce player. So, it's definitely not a, you know, one sector narrative that's driving the market. It's more are you growing? Are you profitable? Do you have the brand name? Um, and do you have a a story that's exciting to investors, uh, especially, uh, given the lack of public companies relative to private companies now. Related Videos Berkshire Hathaway earnings: 'Perfect' stock to own when 'worried' Tesla must pay $240M+ for deadly 2019 car crash: What to know Fed Governor Adriana Kugler to resign Dow falls more than 500 points on jobs report, tariffs Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Micah Parsons fallout: Jerry Jones' contract tactics with star players once again bites the Cowboys
In recent years, when Dallas Cowboys ownership was trying to negotiate a contract extension with one of the team's star players, an agent in the middle of the process reached a boiling point. Talks were at a difficult standstill, team owner Jerry Jones and son Stephen were renewing efforts to engage the player in a private meeting, and the agent had enough. So they picked up a phone and delivered a message directly to the Joneses. 'Stop trying to talk to my player without me.' Inside the agent community, this has been a familiar story. For years, player representatives have complained behind the scenes about how the Cowboys continue to go about their business in high-stakes negotiations. In drawn out contact talks, the furor has often been a climbing scale, beginning with general annoyance, transitioning to heated or passive-aggressive exchanges. In the worst cases, it has resulted in breaking off talks for long periods of time. Often, the familiar decay in negotiations shared an underlying theme inside the agent community, with representatives alleging that Jerry Jones had a history of attempting to manipulate players into discounted deals. First by isolating them in a face-to-face meeting without an agent present — sometimes under the guise of discussing something other than contract talks — then by pouring honey into their ear about being a lifelong member of the Cowboys, staying part of the Dallas family and sacrificing a little financially to win Super Bowl immorality together. [Join or create a Yahoo Fantasy Football league for the 2025 NFL season] Sometimes, it was an alleged sideswipe tactic that remained tucked behind a curtain of secrecy, with both sides choosing to keep any rising animus private. Other times, it seeped out in telltale moments that are likely still fresh in the minds of Cowboys fans. Moments like quarterback Dak Prescott repeatedly and publicly putting his agent, Todd France, front and center as the conduit who would complete his last two drawn-out — and sometimes prickly — contract extensions. Or the representatives of former running back Zeke Elliott not only holding him out of training camp in 2019, but moving him to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico so he could train and more easily remain out of direct communications with the Jones family. Those were two of the higher profile instances of star Cowboys players trying to keep their contract negations in the hands of their agents in an effort to realize their full value as players. But there have been others, too. What there hasn't been up to this point, is a star player willing to step out and directly challenge the way Dallas and Jerry do business. That is, until Friday, when edge rusher Micah Parsons laid his lengthy concerns bare on social media, requesting a trade and stating that he no longer wanted to be a part of the Cowboys. Within it, there was one cutting line that has been a siren scream inside the player and agent ranks: 'I no longer want to be held to close door negotiations without my agent present.' That line was a reference to a March meeting between Parsons and Jerry Jones that ultimately left the Cowboys owner feeling as if he had directly negotiated a new extension with his pass rusher. Parsons then went on to spell out some previously untold aspects of that meeting. 'In March I met with Mr. Jones to talk about leadership,' Parsons wrote on social media. 'Somehow the conversation turned into him talk contract with me. Yes I engaged in a back and forth in regards to what I wanted from my contract, but at no point did I believe this was supposed to be a formal negotiation and I informed Mr. Jones afterward my agent would reach out thinking this would get things done. But when my agent reached out and spoke to [senior director of salary cap and player contracts Adam Prasifka] he was told the deal was pretty much already done. My agent of course told him that wasn't the case and also reached out to Stephen Jones. Again the team decided to go silent.' [Get more Cowboys news: Cowboys team feed] Parsons said it was at that point he and his agent, David Mulugheta of Athletes First, made the decision to let the Cowboys reach out when they were ready to do a deal. According to Parsons, 'Up to [Friday], the team has not had a single conversation with my agent about a contract.' For Cowboys fans and the franchise in general, the post by Parsons is an earthquake of significant magnitude. It's the first time a star player has been this expansive about a problem that agents and players have complained about for a while: A penchant to cut agents out of the process and try to cut deals directly with players using tactics or criteria that clearly are meant to create a negotiating advantage for the team. This despite Parsons saying on more than once occasion that he wanted Mulugheta to play a role in negotiating his extension. In the past, Dallas has honored those requests in the midst of bank-breaking talks with the likes of Prescott, Elliott, CeeDee Lamb and others. For reasons that only the Jones family can speak to, it appears they are refusing to honor it with Parsons. It's a reality that Jerry all but said directly in July, when he suggested that he had an agreement in place between himself and Parsons. 'I'm really not going to get into responding to what Micah said I said, or what [Micah] said he said, or what Mulugheta said, or what Stephen said,' Jerry insisted. 'I'm not getting into any of that at all. We're where we are. I sign the check. Period. … Micah, he's confident in himself, he should be, he's extraordinarily bright — I can't emphasize that enough. He's very capable of negotiating anything he wants to negotiate.' In the agent community, that smacks of a my-way-or-the-highway stance. And it's how you get to the point of pushing negotiations off the table completely — only to be replaced with a trade demand. Right now, it appears that's exactly what has transpired inside Dallas. But rather than the end of this story being a record-breaking deal that heals all wounds — as has been the case in so many other acidic contract talks for Jerry Jones and Dallas — it appears the only thing broken is the resolve of Micah Parsons to remain a Cowboy.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The 35% tariff kicked in today on Canadian goods. How big of an impact will it have?
With the signing of an executive order, U.S. President Donald Trump upped Canada's tariff rate to 35 per cent, effective at 12:01 a.m. today. That's a 10 per cent increase on the 25 per cent rate that has been in effect on Canadian goods headed south of the border since March, and is a blanket tariff that will apply to Canadian products across the board. However, that doesn't paint the whole picture. A very small number of Canadian products will be subjected to the 35 per cent tariff. That's because the tariffs don't apply to all goods that are subject to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), the existing free trade deal governing trade between the three countries. Those products can keep going across the border free of tariffs. Most of the goods Canada exports to the U.S. are covered by CUSMA. The Bank of Canada said in its monetary policy report released Wednesday that an estimated 95 per cent of stuff sent south of the border qualifies under that agreement. That means the new, higher 35 per cent rate will be felt by a small fraction of exports that are not CUSMA-compliant, which likely includes a broad array of products across all sectors, according to experts. "[CUSMA] is the one thing that is ensuring normalcy in trade flows in much of the economy," said Eric Miller, president and CEO of Rideau Potomac Strategy Group. "And so the maintenance of that exemption was absolutely crucial." WATCH | Trump increases tariff on Canada to 35%, White House says: There's no simple list of items that are CUSMA-compliant, because products are certified on a case-by-case basis, based on a number of complicated factors. In order to get the exemption, a certain amount of the product needs to be made in Canada, with Canadian inputs. Take the example of a steak versus that of a screwdriver. If a cow is born, raised, slaughtered and prepared in Alberta, then the steak — the end product — is clearly Canadian and would be shielded under CUSMA, says Miller. But a typical screwdriver is made of metal, along with plastic or rubber for the handle. The manufacturer would have to make sure that enough of the materials come from Canada, Mexico or the U.S. That amount is usually about 60 per cent, according to lawyer Daniel Kiselbach, a managing partner at Miller Thompson LLP. WATCH | What we know — and what's still unclear — after tariffs hiked on Canadian goods: Then, you have to make sure you're adding value to those parts and converting them to a finished product before shipping it out. In the case of the screwdriver, you're taking the raw materials and making them into a new, finished item, so that would meet the bar. Overall, anything harvested or mined is usually CUSMA-compliant, Kiselbach said. Anything manufactured or produced in Canada gets more complicated. Electronics and machinery, in particular, are product types that tend to have a harder time getting CUSMA certification. On top of that, the certification process can be challenging, requiring records showing where all a product's components come from, and it is costly. "[Businesses] don't necessarily understand what the rules are telling them," Miller said. "It's almost like cryptography or something." For that reason, Miller says some businesses have simply not acquired CUSMA certification in the past — something that's changing now that the rates are so much higher. WATCH | Is Canada-U.S. free trade dead?: While the fraction of companies that don't qualify for the free trade exemption might be small, Miller says the impact of the new rate should not be overlooked. Many of those who will be hit by the Saturday tariff increase will be small- to medium-sized businesses that rely on components that are made in countries outside of Canada — and can't easily replace them with materials sourced elsewhere. "If you are used to sourcing a particular input from China for the last 10 years, it's not so easy to go and say, 'Now I'm going to buy that good somewhere else,'" Miller said. "They can't easily change and they can't meet the rules, so they have to pay 35 per cent. And for them, going from 25 per cent to 35 per cent is pretty devastating," Miller. Kiselbach says 35 per cent tariffs might be higher than some companies' profit margins, meaning they'd be losing money on each item they sell at the current rate. Sectoral tariffs still in play The 35 per cent rate also has no bearing on the rates Trump has set for specific sectors. Those include a 50 per cent tariff on steel and aluminum, as well as 25 per cent on cars and auto parts, both of which had already been in effect. A new, 50 per cent tariff on some copper products, including copper pipes and wiring, also went into effect today. The Trump administration made carveouts for copper input materials such as ores, concentrates and cathodes, which is providing the industry some relief. And while the sector-specific rates are largely not new, the impact of these steep rates on important sectors cannot be ignored, said Alan Arcand, chief economist with the trade association Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. "These are very important industries for Canada," Arcand said. "These are tariff rates that are just not … sustainable for these industries. So that's really the rub of the issue right now." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
