Future Returns: Why Women Need to Participate in Financial Planning

It sounds hopelessly antiquated: A female spouse cedes control of the family’s finances, either willingly or unwillingly, to her male partner, only to be caught by surprise when her husband dies.

Yet financial advisors say it’s true—and problematic. Data is spotty, but a 2019 UBS survey of high-net-worth women found that 56% of American women aged 20-34 deferred long-term financial decisions to their spouse, as did 54% of women 51 and older.

Vance Barse is the founder of Your Dedicated Fiduciary, an investment advisor firm based in San Diego, Calif., that has made centring women a bedrock of its practice: two-thirds of its clients are female-headed households.

In a conversation with Penta, Barse says that if women aren’t part of the financial-planning conversation already, they should be. And if they lose their spouse before that can happen, they should be deliberate, not hasty, in finding a trusted advisor.

‘A Little Resentful’

No one wants to think about losing a spouse, but it will happen at some point—and as all the statistics show, it’s far more likely for a woman to outlive her male partner. That’s why Barse tries to centre female-headed households in his business model, but also why it’s wise for couples to make sure the wife has a say in the family finances before she’s all alone.

Barse describes the scenario he and other advisors see far too often with new widows: “After that initial shock, there is acceptance of the reality, which is that she is the one in charge of estate administration, she is the one who receives the estate, and now she is front and centre in her own financial life. There’s a transition where these women may become a little resentful or realise that they don’t have a trusting relationship with the person who was the husband’s—not the family’s—advisor.”

That’s when many widows fire the family’s existing advisor, and go in search of someone they can trust, Barse says.

But Barse says women usually turn to friends and family members for recommendations. Far too often those people aren’t right for the new widow, and may even take advantage of her.

High-net-worth women don’t need a retail advisor selling them whatever mutual fund the home office is hawking, Barse points out—they need what he calls an “in-house, right-hand person” to manage all aspects of the household’s financial life, even if that’s not what the husband’s expectations were while he was alive.

Look Before It’s Too Late

Women with male spouses—even happily married ones—may want to take a more active role in the family’s finances sooner rather than later, even if their husbands are content with the way things have always been, and especially if they feel left out of the conversation.

“When a new client couple first comes in, I ask, in a social situation, which one of you typically talks first,” Barse says. “Whichever of the spouses raises the hand and says I do, I turn to the other spouse. That means we’re giving the less-vocal spouse more of a voice right out of the gate.”

That’s critical, he says, not only because both voices should be heard, but because men and women often bring different perspectives to financial planning. With high-net-worth women, Barse says, “the conversation focuses more on how to make an impact and how to keep as much money in the estate as possible and prevent the heirs from fighting over the assets.”

For Widows

Women who have lost a spouse are in a difficult position. The recent loss may make it difficult to think about vetting someone analytically. Still, Barse offers a few considerations, starting with approaching the existing advisor as if he or she were any other candidate for the job.

“It’s highly appropriate to interview different financial advisors and their firms to determine which one feels like the best long-term fit,” he says. “There is no such thing as too much due diligence.”

Ask the advisor to detail in writing what products and strategies are in your best interest, what value they will bring to your estate, and how much that will cost you

Ask the advisor to outline any potential conflicts of interest in writing. Barse recalls one client whose family advisor had put almost 100% of the household assets in expensive financial products such as mutual funds managed by the advisor’s parent company—but one that just happened to have a different name.

Ask the financial advisor to outline how he or she will work alongside other estate advisors such as the CPA, the estate planner, the insurance agent, the realtor, and so on. You need someone to be sure all the professionals are communicating with each other and that there are no gaps.

For decades, Australia has leaned into its reputation as the lucky country. But luck, as it turns out, is not an economic strategy.

What once looked like resilience now appears increasingly fragile. Beneath the surface of rising property values and steady headline growth, the Australian economy is showing signs of strain that can no longer be ignored.

Recent data paints a sobering picture. Australia has recorded one of the largest declines in real household disposable income per capita among advanced economies.

Wages have failed to keep pace with inflation, meaning many Australians are working harder for less. On a per capita basis, income growth has stalled and, at times, reversed.

And yet, on paper, things still look relatively solid. GDP is growing. Unemployment remains low. But that growth is increasingly being driven by population expansion rather than productivity.

More people are contributing to output, but not necessarily improving living standards.

That distinction matters.

For years, Australia’s economic success rested on a powerful combination: a once-in-a-generation mining boom, a credit-fuelled housing market, strong migration and a property sector that rarely faltered. Between 1991 and 2020, the country avoided recession entirely, building enormous wealth in the process.

But much of that wealth is tied to property. Around two-thirds of household wealth sits in real estate, inflated by leverage and sustained by demand. It has worked, until now.

The problem is the supply side of the economy has not kept up.

Housing supply is falling behind population growth. Rental vacancies are near record lows.

Construction firms are collapsing at an elevated rate. At the same time, massive infrastructure pipelines are competing with residential projects for labour and materials, pushing costs higher and delaying delivery.

The result is a system under pressure from all angles.

Despite near full employment, productivity growth has stagnated for years. In simple terms, Australians are putting in more hours without generating more output per hour. The economy is running faster, butgoing nowhere.

Meanwhile, government spending continues to expand. Public debt is approaching $1 trillion, with spending now accounting for a record share of GDP.

The gap between spending and revenue has been filled by borrowing for decades, adding further pressure to an already stretched system.

This is where the uncomfortable question emerges.

Has Australia become too reliant on a model driven by rising property values, expanding credit and population growth?

As asset prices rise, households feel wealthier and borrow more. Banks lend more. Governments collect more revenue. Migration fuels demand. The cycle reinforces itself.

But when productivity stalls and debt outpaces real income, the system begins to depend on constant expansion just to stay stable.

It is not a collapse scenario. But it is not particularly stable either.

Nowhere is this more evident than in housing.

The National Housing Accord targets 1.2 million new homes over five years, yet current completion rates are well below that pace. With approvals falling and construction costs rising, the gap between supply and demand is widening, not narrowing.

Housing is also one of the largest contributors to inflation, with costs rising sharply across rents, construction and utilities. Yet the private sector, from small investors to major developers, is struggling to make projects stack up in the current environment.

This brings the policy debate into sharper focus.

Tax settings such as negative gearing and capital gains concessions have undoubtedly boosted demand over the past two decades. But they have also supported supply. Removing them may ease prices briefly, but risks deepening the supply shortage over time.

That is the paradox.

Policies designed to make housing more affordable can, in practice, make the shortage worse if they discourage development. The optics may appeal, but the economics are far less forgiving.

It is also worth remembering that most property investors are not institutional players. The majority own just one investment property. They are, in many cases, ordinary Australians using real estate as their primary wealth-building tool.

Undermining that system without replacing it with a viable alternative risks unintended consequences, from reduced supply to higher rents and increased inflation.

So where does that leave Australia?

At a crossroads.

The country can continue to rely on population growth and rising asset prices to drive economic activity. Or it can shift towards a model built on productivity, innovation and sustainable growth.

The latter is harder. It requires structural reform, long-term thinking and political discipline.

But it is also the only path that leads to genuine, lasting prosperity.

The question is no longer whether Australia has been lucky.

It is whether it can evolve before that luck runs out.

Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.

Future Returns: Why Women Need to Participate in Financial Planning

As housing drives wealth and policy debate, the real risk is an economy hooked on growth without productivity to sustain it.