Finance
Financial Nihilism & The Trap Young Investors Are Walking Into
The article from the Wall Street Journal titled “Why My Generation Is Turning to Financial Nihilism” by Kyla Scanlon argues that Gen Z is embracing high-risk financial behavior out of despair and detachment. Of course, it is essential to recognize that Kyla, although well-intentioned, is a young twenty-something influencer with limited real-life experience, and sees things for “her generation” through a very narrow lens of “recency bias.”
Let’s start with understanding that “Financial Nihilism” is a term used to describe an attitude where people believe financial decisions are meaningless because the system is rigged, the future is hopeless, or traditional paths to wealth are broken. The term “Financial Nihilism” was first coined in 2020 by Demetri Kofinas, a podcaster, who used it to describe his belief that speculative assets lack intrinsic value, driven by a loss of faith in traditional economic systems.
However, while this phrase has gained popularity in recent years, particularly following the GameStop short squeeze, crypto mania, and the rise of meme trading, it disappeared when all of that collapsed in 2022. However, after three years of unprecedented market gains in every asset class, from stocks to cryptocurrencies to precious metals, “Financial Nihilism” has resurfaced to rationalize “speculative excess” and justify abandoning long-term investment strategies that have withstood the “sands of time.”
While Kyla produced a bombastic article to gain social media exposure by suggesting that Gen Z and Millennials no longer believe in saving, investing, or following traditional financial paths, the data shows something very different.
- Over half of Gen Z holds investments in traditional financial products, according to FINRA and the CFA Institute.
- A 2023 Vanguard report showed Gen Z participants in retirement plans were increasing contributions, not fleeing traditional investing.
- Charles Schwab’s Modern Investor Study found Gen Z prefers low-cost ETFs and index funds, strategies built around long-term returns.
- Pew Research data shows that Gen Z and Millennials are investing at earlier ages than previous generations.
None of these behaviors is nihilistic. They are practical and reflect economic constraints, not philosophical despair.
Yes, there is undoubtedly a pool of young investors throwing “caution to the wind” and aggressively investing in speculative assets to “get rich quick.” But even my children, at the ripe old age of 22, think they are unique and different and that no one understands their challenges. We parents, of course, have “no idea” about their situation. Of course, this is the problem with our youth who have no real-world experience or a sense of history. We, the “old people,” were the ones speculating on Dot.com investments in the late 90s, just before it all went bust. As I wrote in“Retail Investors Flood The Market,”
“Is it 1999 or 2007? Retail investors flood the market as speculation grows rampant with a palpable exuberance and belief of no downside risk. What could go wrong?
Do you remember this commercial?
That commercial aired just 2 months shy of the beginning of the “Dot.com” bust. We “youngsters” at the time thought Warren Buffett was an idiot for avoiding technology stocks because “he didn’t get it.”
Turns out he was right.
But that wasn’t the first time that we youngsters had to learn the risks of chasing “hot investments,” and why “this time is NEVER different.” The following E*Trade commercial aired during Super Bowl XLI in 2007. The following year, the financial crisis set in, markets plunged, and once again, investors lost 50% or more of their wealth by refusing to listen to the warnings.
Why this trip down memory lane? (Other than the fact that the commercials are hilarious to watch.) Because what is happening today is NOT “Financial Nihilism,” it is the typical outcome of exuberance seen during strongly trending bull market cycles.
While young people, like Kyla, may think that “this time is different,” they lack the historical experience to support such a conclusion. Ask anyone who has lived through two “real” bear markets, and the imagery of people trying to “daytrade” their way to riches is all too familiar. The recent surge in speculative excess, leverage, and greed is not a new phenomenon.
With that said, let’s examine the issues with Kyla’s article and why “Financial Nihilism” is a myth.
“Meme Stocks and Crypto Aren’t Jokes Anymore. They’re Cries for Help.”
I loved this line from her diatribe as it suggests that Gen Z uses risky financial products as an emotional outlet. She implies that young people are not seeking returns but rather relief from feelings of hopelessness. While that framing sells well, it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. While speculative assets like cryptocurrency and meme stocks attract younger buyers, that’s not proof of despair. Instead, it reflects broader exposure to digital markets, higher risk tolerance, easy access to trading (via platforms like Robinhood), leverage, and the rise of a gambling mentality.
But this is a newer development.
“Historically, access to capital markets was highly mediated, available only to institutions or individuals who had the time, money and resources to manage their assets with the help of brokers and financial advisors. Today, market data is readily accessible online and new technologies have significantly reduced the cost of trading and other barriers to entry. This means that more people can trade, at any time, from anywhere.” – World Economic Forum
Since 2016, the volume recorded at platforms that match orders from brokerages, a proxy for retail activity, has posted its third consecutive annual increase, rising by 15%. Meanwhile, the average daily volume of US-listed stocks has been ~12.0 billion shares since 2019, which is ~75% above the levels seen over the prior six years. Most notably, just over the last 12 months, daily volume has averaged a massive 16.7 billion shares.
Yes, retail investors are piling into the market. But why wouldn’t they after watching 15 years of market returns that are 50% above historical norms, and seeming “no risk” for speculative activities?
However, there is a difference between risk appetite and recklessness. As noted above, the data indicate that Gen Z is starting to engage with investing at a younger age than previous generations, and many hold investments for the long term while utilizing digital tools to experiment with their investments. That may include crypto or options, but it’s not a binary between discipline and nihilism.
Emotional narratives about “cries for help” obfuscate the data. Investors in their 20s often take more risk because they have longer time horizons. But where they are going wrong is through the amount of speculative risk and gambling behaviors they have adopted without financial guidance and education.
As noted above, “youngsters” gambling with investments is not new. Every generation throughout history has speculated on risk assets through every bull market cycle. But, unfortunately, regardless of age, speculative bubbles all ended the same way.
Gen Z didn’t “reinvent” the market; they are just entering a market that incentivizes risk-taking. Until it doesn’t.
“People My Age Don’t Think the System Works, So Why Follow Its Rules?”
Scanlon asserts that Gen Z has lost faith in traditional finance and institutions, and assumes systemic distrust is translating into a rejection of personal responsibility.
That isn’t an argument. It’s an excuse for “victimization.”In other words, my personal financial situation is not a result of my personal behaviors, spending habits, work ethic, or savings process, but it’s the “system’s fault.” Yet there is vast data to the contrary, showing that successful young individuals who follow the tried-and-true process of financial pathways succeed. Do they have as much wealth as their parents? Of course, they don’t, because they haven’t had the time to accumulate it. However, they are early on the path to success, which will likely outpace their peers.

Furthermore, this argument falsely equates skepticism with nihilism. Many young investors distrust centralized finance due to real-world events, including the 2008 crash, rising debt burdens, and stagnant wages. But rejecting blind trust in institutions is not the same as rejecting financial logic. Despite disillusionment, Gen Z invests at higher rates than Millennials did at the same age, according to Pew and the WEF. They also save a larger share of their income, using digital apps and platforms to automate their financial behavior.
Yes, Gen Z tends to distrust the government and financial media, but do you blame them, given the garbage that is produced daily on social media and YouTube by people with an agenda to promote? While skepticism fuels caution, it is not chaos. Gen Z is more likely to question fees, demand transparency, and seek passive investment tools, and that’s a smart move. Traditional rules of finance, such as saving consistently, spending less than you earn, and investing for the long term, are still followed; they just don’t generate “media-grabbing headlines.”
Calling this behavior “Financial Nihilism” misses the point. Gen Z is engaging with markets on its own terms, and while not all methods are necessarily healthy, it represents adaptation, not rejection.
“If the Future Feels Doomed, Why Not YOLO Trade Into It?”
Lastly, Kyla suggests that existential dread leads young people to treat the market like a casino. The idea is that if nothing matters, risk doesn’t either. This is the article’s weakest argument. While social and economic pressures are real, they are not driving widespread self-destruction. They are driving innovation in how people build and manage their wealth.
The idea behind this line is that young people, facing what feels like a bleak financial future, are throwing caution to the wind to gamble on crypto, options, and meme stocks to build wealth fast, rather than creating “lasting wealth.” This is where the term “YOLO trading” comes in, making aggressive bets with the mindset that there’s nothing to lose. However, as noted above, there is certain logic to that mindset, given that over the last 15 years, every market downturn has been met by either fiscal or monetary interventions. Repeated bailouts of bad investment decisions have created a “moral hazard” in the marketplace.
There’s truth here, but only part of it.
Yes, a subset of young investors is engaging in reckless speculation. They take on excessive risk, invest in volatile assets, and often trade on hype rather than fundamentals. Many borrow money to do it. This group exists, and their outcomes won’t be good. Some will lose money, and likely most will wipe themselves out entirely. The market is unforgiving when paired with leverage, inexperience, and emotional trading.
Here is a great example of the “YOLO” trading fallacy. Since the end of the “Meme Stock” craze in 2021, retail investors on Robinhood have made no money, even after accounting for the $4-5 billion wipeout in the January rout. That’s 5 years of their investing time horizon gone, whereas just investing in the S&P 500 index would have produced far superior results.

But this behavior doesn’t define the generation. It represents the tail end of the distribution—the loudest, not the largest.
What’s left out of Kyla’s article is what happens after the eventual realization that “trading” is a losing exercise over the long term. Early losses are the price of financial education, and, hopefully, if they survive financially, they will change their approach and revert to more traditional principles that have endured over the decades. In other words, they grow up and learn from the experience just as every great investor in history has.
The future is not doomed. But it is fragile for those who ignore risk. Financial outcomes depend on staying in the game long enough to benefit from compounding. If you blow yourself up in your 20s, you lose that opportunity.
The lesson is simple. Speculation is fun while you are winning, but that is not “Financial Nihilism.” It is simply greed masquerading as investing. However, the people who win in the long term are not gamblers. They’re grinders. They keep costs low, automate savings, and make decisions that allow them to survive market cycles. That’s not as flashy as YOLO trading, but that is how wealth is built.
What Gen Z Should Do: Build Survivability, Not Sensation
Despite the bad headlines, most young people are serious about their money. But seriousness alone doesn’t build wealth. The key is survivability, the ability to stay in the game long enough to benefit from compounding returns.
Do yourself and your financial future a favor: turn off bombastic, emotionally charged headlines and focus on what matters for building long-term wealth. Crucially, whether you agree with the current financial and economic system or not, learn to take advantage of it.
The only thing YOU can change is YOUR future. So stop worrying about things you can not control.
To get there, start here.
- Turn off the social media, influencers, and other financial goblins and focus on your goals and behaviors.
- Keep fixed expenses low
- Build cash reserves that cover 6 months of spending
- Use retirement accounts like Roth IRAs early
- Allocate most of their portfolio to index funds or ETFs
- Limit risky bets to no more than 5% of their total assets
- Learn through action, not theory, and track everything
- Avoid the leverage period.
The goal is not to outperform every year or get rich quickly. The goal is to stay solvent long enough for your savings to generate a return.
Financial nihilism is a myth. What’s real is volatility, income pressure, and distrust. The response shouldn’t be disengagement, but rather financial discipline. Long-run wealth isn’t about hope; it’s about repeatable behaviors that work consistently through market cycles.
The biggest problem for most young investors is the lack of research on the stocks they buy. They are only buying them “because they were going up.”
However, when the “season does change,” the “fundamentals” will matter, and they matter a lot.
Such is something most won’t learn from “social media” influencers.
As Ray Dalio once quipped:
“The biggest mistake investors make is to believe that what happened in the recent past is likely to persist. They assume that something that was a good investment in the recent past is still a good investment. Typically, high past returns simply imply that an asset has become more expensive and is a poorer, not better, investment.”
Investing is a game of “risk.”
It is often stated that the more “risk” you take, the more money you can make. However, the actual definition of risk is “how much you will lose when something goes wrong.”
Following the “Dot.com crash,” many individuals learned the perils of “risk” and “leverage.”
Unfortunately, for Gen-Z’ers, such is a lesson that is still waiting to be learned.
Finance
Morgan Stanley sees writing on wall for Citi before major change
Banks have had a stellar first quarter. The major U.S. banks raked in nearly $50 billion in profits in the first three months of the year, The Guardian reported.
That was largely due to Wall Street bank traders, who profited from a volatile stock exchange, Reuters showed.
But even without the extra bump from stock trading, banks are doing well when it comes to interest, the same Reuters article found. And some banks could stand to benefit even more from this one potential rule change.
Morgan Stanley thinks it could have a major impact on Citi in particular.
Upcoming changes for banks
To understand why Morgan Stanley thinks things are going to change at Citi, you need to understand some recent bank rule changes.
Banks make money by lending out money, which usually comes from depositors. But people need access to their money and the right to withdraw whenever they want.
So, banks keep a percentage of all money deposited to make sure they can cover what the average person needs.
But what happens if there is a major demand for withdrawals, as we saw during the financial crisis of 2008?
That’s where capital requirements come in. After the financial crisis, major banks like Citi were required by law to hold a higher percentage of money in order to avoid major bank failures.
For years, banks had to put aside billions of dollars. Money that couldn’t be lent out or even returned to shareholders.
Now, that’s all about to change.
Capital change requirements for major banks
Banks that are considered globally systemically important banking organizations (G-SIBs) have a higher capital buffer than community banks as they usually engage in banking activity that is far more complicated than your average market loan.
The list depends on the size of the bank and its underlying activity, according to the Federal Reserve.
Current global systemically important banks
A proposal from U.S. federal banking regulators could drastically reduce the amount that these large banks have to hold in reserve.
Changes would result in the largest U.S. banks holding an average 4.8% less. While that might seem like a small percentage number, for banks of this size, it equates to billions of dollars, according to a Federal Reserve memo.
The proposed changes were a long time coming, Robert Sarama, a financial services leader at PwC, told TheStreet.
“It’s a bit of a recognition that perhaps the pendulum swung a little too far in the higher capital requirement following the financial crisis, making it harder for banks to participate in some markets,” he said.
Finance
Couple forced to live in caravan buy first home as ‘stars align’ in off-market sale
Natasha Luscri and Luke Miller consider themselves among the lucky ones. The couple recently bought their first home in the northwest suburbs of Melbourne.
It wasn’t something they necessarily expected to be able to do, but some good fortune with an investment in silver bullion and making use of government schemes meant “the stars aligned” to get into the market. Luke used the federal government’s super saver scheme to help build a deposit, and the couple then jumped on the 5 per cent deposit scheme, which they say made all the difference.
“We only started looking because of the government deposit scheme. Basically, we didn’t really think it was possible that we could buy something,” Natasha told Yahoo Finance.
RELATED
Last month they settled on their two bedroom unit, which the pair were able to purchase in an off-market sale – something that is becoming increasingly common in the market at the moment.
Rather perfectly, they got it for about $20-30,000 below market rate, Natasha estimated, which meant they were under the $600,000 limit to avoid paying stamp duty under Victoria’s suite of support measures for first home buyers.
“They wanted to sell it quickly. They had no other offers. So we got it for less than what it would have gone for if it had been on market,” Natasha said.
“We didn’t have a lot of cash sitting in an account … I think we just got lucky and made some smart investment decisions which helped.”
It’s a far cry from when the couple couldn’t find a home due to the rental crisis when they were previously living in Adelaide and had to turn to sub-standard options.
“We’ve managed to go from living in a caravan because we were living in Adelaide and we couldn’t find a rental with our dogs … So we’ve gone from living in a caravan, being kind of tertiary homeless essentially because we couldn’t get a rental, to now having been able to purchase our first home,” Natasha explained.
Rate rises beginning to bite for new homeowners
Natasha, 34, and Luke, 45, are among more than 300,000 Australians who have used the 5 per cent deposit scheme to get into the housing market with a much smaller than usual deposit, according to data from Housing Australia at the end of March. However that’s dating back to 2020 when the program first launched, before it was rebranded and significantly expanded in October last year to scrap income or placement caps, along with allowing for higher property price caps.
Finance
WHO says its finances are stable, but uncertainties loom – Geneva Solutions
A year after the US exit from the global health body, WHO officials say finances are secure, for now. But amid donor cuts, rising inflation, and future economic uncertainties, will funding be sufficient to meet its needs?
Earlier this month, senior officials at the World Health Organization (WHO) told journalists in a newly refurbished pressroom at the agency’s headquarters that its finances were “stable”. Following a year that saw its biggest donor withdraw as a member, forcing it to cut 25 per cent of its staff, its financial chief said that 85 per cent of its 2026 and 2027 budget had been financed.
“While we are looking at resource mobilisation, we’re also looking at tightening our belts,” Raul Thomas, assistant director general for business operations and compliance, explained, admitting that the WHO “will have great difficulty mobilising the last 15 per cent”.
Sitting at the centre of the press podium, surrounded by his deputies, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO director general, backed up Thomas’s outlook. “We are stable now and moving forward”, since the retreat of the United States from the health body, he said. The Ethiopian noted that the WHO’s financial reform, allowing for incremental increases in state member fees, has been a big plus.
Mandatory contributions have historically accounted for only a quarter of the organisation’s total funding. States have agreed to raise their contributions by 20 per cent twice, in 2023 and in 2025. Further increments are scheduled to be negotiated in 2027, 2029 and 2031 to bring mandatory funding up to par with voluntary donations that the agency relies on. The WHO also reduced its biennial budget for 2026 and 2027 from $5.3 billion to $4.2bn.
“Our financing actually is better,” Tedros emphasised. “Without the reform, it would have been a problem.”
Read more: Nations agree to raise their WHO fees in wake of US retreat
Nonetheless, the director general, now in his final year at the UN agency, warned that member states should not assume that the financial road ahead will be clear. “The future of WHO will also be defined by how successful we are in terms of the assessed contribution increases or the financial reform in general.”
As west retreats, others step in
Suerie Moon, co-director of the Global Health Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute, explains that every year at the WHO, there’s “a non-stop effort” to ensure funding. She says a continued reliance on non-flexible, voluntary funding earmarked for specific projects, as well as donors withholding contributions – sometimes for political leverage – complicates the organisation’s financial plans. Meanwhile, ongoing cuts and predictions of a global economic downturn stemming from the war in the Middle East may further aggravate the situation, as costs rise and member states focus on national spending needs.
Soaring prices driven by the conflict and supply chain disruptions have already affected the WHO’s procurement of emergency health kits for crises, officials at the global health body said. “We are continuing to negotiate at least from a procurement standpoint on how we can bring down a little bit the prices or reduce the increases, but we are seeing it across the board,” said Thomas.
Altaf Musani, WHO director of health emergencies, meanwhile, said aid cuts have already deprived roughly 53 million people in crisis situations of access to healthcare.
Last month, Thomas told the Association of Accredited Correspondents at the UN at the end of April that the agency is looking at non-traditional, or non-western, donors for funding to close the biennial 15 per cent funding gap. “It’s not that we won’t go to the traditional donors, but we’re expanding that donor base.”
Since the dramatic drop in funding from the US, formerly the WHO’s biggest contributor, Moon highlights that there hadn’t been a “sudden jump by non-traditional states to compensate for the US”. Last May, at the World Health Assembly, China pledged $500 million in voluntary funding until 2030, a sharp rise from the $2.5m it contributed over 2024 and 2025.
The WHO did not respond to questions from Geneva Solutions about how much of the pledged amount had been disbursed. China’s mission in Geneva did not respond to questions raised about the funding.
Other countries, particularly Gulf states, have meanwhile been increasing their voluntary contributions to the organisation in recent years. Similarly to “western liberal democracies have in the past”, Moon explains that they may be seeking “to raise their profile and prioritise health as one of the issues that they would like to be known for”. She noted that the shift in the UN agency’s list of top donors may affect how it manages the money.
‘Sustainable’ spending
Amid these financial uncertainties, WHO executives say the organisation is also reviewing its expenditure through “sustainability plans”. This includes working more closely with collaborating centres, including universities and research institutes that support WHO programmes and are independently funded. On influenza, for example, the WHO works with dozens of national centres around the world, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US,
When asked about any plans for further job cuts, Thomas denied that these were part of the WHO’s current strategies, but could not rule them out entirely as a future possibility. Instead, he said, the organisation was “looking at ways to use funding that may have been for activities to cover salaries in the most important areas”.
Meanwhile, WHO data shows that the number of consultants employed by the agency by the end of 2025 decreased by 23 per cent, slightly less than the staff reductions. Global heath reporter Elaine Fletcher explained to Geneva Solutions that consultants continue to represent a significant proportion of the agency’s workforce, at 5,844 – including an overwhelming number hired in Africa and Southeast Asia – compared with regular staff numbering 8,569 in December.
Upcoming donor politics
The upcoming change in leadership will also be a strategic moment for the organisation to boost its coffers. Moon says the race for the top job at the organisation may attract funding from candidates’ home countries, which could be seen as a strategic opportunity.
Given the relatively small size of the WHO budget, compared to some government or agency accounts, “you don’t have to be the richest country in the world to dangle a few 100 million dollars, which could go a long way in their budget,” the expert notes.
The biggest ongoing challenge, however, will be whether major donors will announce further aid cuts. In the medium and longer term, “countries will have to agree on the step up every two years, and there’s always drama around that.”
-
Illinois47 seconds agoPPP Loan Scandal Busts Joliet Woman Working For Illinois Department Of Corrections: AG Kwame Raoul Reveals
-
Indiana7 minutes agoFernando Mendoza, citing Raiders obligations, misses Indiana’s White House visit
-
Iowa13 minutes agoIowa City police seek help identifying persons of interest in vandalism investigation
-
Kansas19 minutes agoBoeing makes $1 billion investment in Wichita facility
-
Kentucky25 minutes agoLiberty Trees planted throughout Kentucky
-
Louisiana31 minutes agoNeuty, the beloved Bucktown nutria rat that charmed Louisiana, has died
-
Maine37 minutes agoHow a data center derailed $240,000 for affordable housing in Wiscasset
-
Maryland43 minutes agoDC man wins $5M in Maryland lottery – WTOP News




