Wealthy Americans Are Prioritizing Protecting Assets And Limiting Personal Taxes

Protecting assets and minimizing tax liabilities are the top priorities of wealthy Wall Street Journal and Barron’s Group readers, according to a recent personal finance study conducted by WSJ Intelligence.

Around 57% of the more than 3,600 respondents—who had an average net worth of just over US$3 million—said growing and protecting their wealth is their No. 1 priority going into 2024, the data showed. That stands to reason, as 55% of readers were most concerned about inflation and the rising cost of living, while 40% reported that market volatility was their biggest issue.

About 81% of participants were male, with 3,280 of them being over age 55—aka, Baby Boomers. The combined total of Millennial and Gen X respondents was 333. Across wealth bands, the largest number of participants—1,656—were high-net-worth individuals with assets between US$1 million and US$9.9 million, followed by 718 “emerging affluent” respondents (with a net worth of less than US$1 million) and 253 ultra-high-net-worth individuals, with assets of US$10 million or more.

“This study was really to understand the behavior of our financially savvy readers and explore how they improve their financial acumen and make informed investment decisions,” says Donna Zeolla, the associate director of Finance Intelligence for the Wall Street Journal and Barron’s Group.

Certain concerns are unique to those in the highest income bracket, the survey found. For example, members of that group are 22% more likely to be concerned about identity theft and financial fraud than emerging affluents, the data showed. Zeolla said that was a surprise, given how rampant it can be.

The wealthiest are also 28% more likely to be worried about cybersecurity risks in digital banking and three times more likely to be concerned with estate planning and inheritance, according to the report. They are looking to educate themselves on tax planning, private banking, and estate planning—and in turn seeking out content that helps them do that.

Survey participants across wealth bands use a variety of wealth management services, including brokerage, tax and estate-planning services. When selecting an investing company, key considerations are the fee and commissions charged (49%), expertise (44%), customer service (38%), and the company’s reputation (36%), the figures showed.

“Every survey we’ve done here, at least for the 18 years I’ve been here, it’s the same things that they’re looking for in the institutions,” Zeolla says. “They look at fees, right? I don’t care if you’re the wealthiest person, you’re looking at the fees…[and] they look at the trust and the reputation of the companies. That’s always on their minds.”

And while many are loyal to their financial institutions, the richest investors are more open to switching. Only 41% of ultra-high-net-worth individuals wouldn’t consider moving their money to a new company, versus 53% of high-net-worth individuals and 49% of the emerging affluent.

“Wealthier individuals use a variety of different services—they don’t just have one institution that they’re working with, they’re working with many,” Zeolla says. “But what we did find was that the wealthier people were, the more that they’re open for change. It could be because they’re not loyal to one institution.”

Other differences included their preferred credit cards—the wealthiest were concerned about foreign-transaction fees while low interest rates were more important to younger respondents—and the richest also craved the personal touch. About 47% of ultra-high-net-worth individuals don’t use an automatic investing service because it doesn’t cater to their needs vs. 27% of the emerging affluent.

President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs on trading partners have moved analysts to reduce forecasts for U.S. companies. Many stocks look vulnerable to declines, while some seem relatively immune.

Since the start of the year, analysts’ expectations for aggregate first-quarter sales of S&P 500 component companies have dropped about 0.4%, according to FactSet. The hundreds of billions of dollars worth of imports from China, Mexico, and Canada the Trump administration is placing tariffs on, including metals and basic materials for retail and food sellers, will raise costs for U.S. companies. That will force them to lift prices, reducing the number of goods and services they’ll sell to consumers and businesses.

This outlook has pressured first-quarter earnings estimates by 3.8%. Companies will cut back on marketing and perhaps labour, but many have substantial fixed expenses that can’t easily be reduced, such as depreciation and interest to lenders. Profit margins will drop in the face of lower revenue, thus weighing on profit estimates. The estimates dropped mildly in January, and then picked up steam in February, just after the initial tariff announcements.

“We are starting to see the first instances of analysts cutting numbers on tariff impacts,” writes Citi strategist Scott Chronert.

The reductions aren’t concentrated in one sector; they’re widespread, a concrete indication that the downward revisions are partly related to tariffs, which affect many sectors. The percentage of all analyst earnings-estimate revisions in March for S&P 500 companies that have been downward this year has been 60.1%, according to Citi, worse than the historical average of 53.5% for March.

The consumer-discretionary sector has seen just over 62% of March revisions to be lower, almost 10 percentage points worse than the historical average. The aggregate first-quarter earnings expectation for all consumer-discretionary companies in the S&P 500 has dropped 11% since the start of the year.

That could hurt the stocks going forward, even though the Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR exchange-traded fund has already dropped 11% for the year. The declines have been led by Tesla and Amazon.com , which account for trillions of dollars of market value and comprise a large portion of the fund. The average name in the fund is down about 4% this year, so there could easily be more downside.

That’s especially true because another slew of downward earnings revisions look likely. Analysts have barely changed their full-year 2025 sales projections for the consumer-discretionary sector, and have lowered full-year earnings by only 2%, even though they’ve more dramatically reduced first-quarter forecasts. The current expectation calls for a sharp increase in quarterly sales and earnings from the first quarter through the rest of the year, but that’s unrealistic, assuming tariffs remain in place for the rest of the year.

“The relative estimate achievability of the consumer discretionary earnings are below average,” Trivariate Research’s Adam Parker wrote in a report.

That makes these stocks look still too expensive—and vulnerable to declines. The consumer-discretionary ETF trades at 21.2 times expected earnings for this year, but if those expectations tumble as much as they have for the first quarter, then the fund’s current price/earnings multiple looks closer to 25 times. That’s too high, given that it’s where the multiple was before markets began reflecting ongoing risk to earnings from tariffs and any continued economic consequences. So, another drop in earnings estimates would drag these consumer stocks down even further.

Industrials are in a similar position. Many of them make equipment and machines that would become more costly to import. The sector has seen about two thirds of March earnings revisions move downward, about 13 percentage points worse that the historical average. Analysts have lowered first-quarter-earnings estimates by 6%, but only 3% for the full year, suggesting that more tariff-related downward revisions are likely for the rest of the year.

That would weigh on the stocks. The Industrial Select Sector SPDR ETF is about flat for the year but would look more expensive than it is today if earnings estimates drop more. The stocks face a high probability of downside from here.

The stocks to own are the “defensive” ones, those that are unlikely to see much tariff-related earnings impact, namely healthcare. Demand for drugs and insurance is much sturdier versus less essential goods and services when consumers have less money to spend. The Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF has produced a 6% gain this year.

That’s supported by earnings trends that are just fine. First-quarter earnings estimates have even ticked slightly higher this year. These stocks should remain relatively strong as long as analysts continue to forecast stable, albeit mild, sales and earnings growth for the coming few years.

“This leads us to recommend healthcare and disfavour consumer discretionary,” Parker writes.