Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
  • “…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube

Macro Roundup

  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
Select topics to choose: articles that mention them (broader) or articles mainly about them (focused)
  • Mentions 0
  • Primary focus 0
Showing all 7,320 Macro Roundup articles
When you search for any topic (like GDP, Inflation, or Banking), choose:
Choose search scope

Tuesday, December 8, 2020

Why do wealthy parents have wealthy children?

AI Summary. A study of Korean-born adoptees raised by Norwegian parents estimates that a 10% increase in parents' net wealth is associated with 2.4% higher wealth for biological children and 1.6% for adoptees. The association is stronger at the top of the wealth distribution.

Andreas Fagereng University of Chicago
Date Posted:
December 8, 2020
Is Database:
Database

A 10% increase in parent net wealth is associated with a 2.4% increase in biological child’s net wealth & 1.6% increase in adoptees net wealth, with stronger dependence at top of net wealth distribution @AndreasFagereng

How much of parental wealth passes to children through upbringing?

Core argument: A 10% increase in parent net wealth is associated with a 2.4% rise in biological children's net wealth and a 1.6% rise for adoptees, according to the study of Korean-born adoptees raised by Norwegian parents.

The study reveals that a 10% increase in parent net wealth correlates with a 2.4% rise in biological children's net wealth and a 1.6% increase for adoptees, highlighting the significant role of family background in wealth accumulation. This intergenerational wealth association is more pronounced among biological children, suggesting genetic factors amplify the effect. The research, using Korean-born adoptees raised by Norwegian parents, demonstrates that even without genetic ties, children benefit from being raised in wealthier environments, as seen in increased stock market participation and portfolio risk-taking aligned with adoptive parents' financial behaviors. The dependence on parental wealth is notably stronger at the top of the wealth distribution, indicating that affluent families have a greater capacity to transfer economic advantages across generations.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. A 10% increase in parent net wealth is associated with a 2.4% rise in biological children's net wealth and a 1.6% rise for adoptees, according to the study of Korean-born adoptees raised by Norwegian parents.
  2. The stronger intergenerational wealth association among biological children than adoptees suggests genetic factors amplify wealth transmission, while adoptees still benefit from being raised in wealthier households.
  3. Adoptees' stock market participation and portfolio risk-taking align with their adoptive parents' financial behaviour, and dependence on parental wealth is stronger at the top of the wealth distribution.

Andreas Fagereng, Magne Mogstad, Marte Rønning, "Why do wealthy parents have wealthy children?∗," University Of Chicago, June 2020, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/712446

Study looks at Korean-born children who were adopted at infancy by Norwegian parents (the distribution to parents was effectively random) thus removing any genetic component for lack of future/ or future successes. They look at the parents and then the kids outcomes in terms of net wealth, and financial wealth (they use the parents wealth btw 1994-1996 and the kids wealth btw 2012-2014)

Primary findings, “…We use the quasi-random assignment of the Korean-Norwegian adoptees to estimate the causal effects from a child being raised in one type of family versus another. Our findings show that family background matters significantly, even after removing the genetic connection between children and the parents raising them. In particular, adoptees raised by wealthy parents are more likely to be well off themselves, whereas adoptees’ stock market participation and portfolio risk are increasing in the financial risk taking of their adoptive parents….”
However they also look at biological children of parents where being genetically related to rich parents has a significant impact, "...To help interpret the economic significance of family background,we compare the intergenerational associations in wealth for adoptees to those for non-adopted children. This enables us to compare the predictive influence of parental wealth when there is and is not a genetic link between children and the parents raising them. We find that the intergenerational association in wealth is more than twice as large for parents and own birth children as compared to parents and adoptees..."

Overall findings, “…Strong intergenerational associations in wealth have fueled a longstanding debate over why children of wealthy parents tend to be well off themselves. We investigate the role of family background in determining children’s wealth accumulation and investor behavior as adults. The analysis is made possible by linking Korean-born children who were adopted at infancy by Norwegian parents to a population panel data set with detailed information on disaggregated wealth portfolios and socio-economic characteristics. The mechanism by which these Korean Norwegian adoptees were assigned to adoptive families is known and effectively random. We use the quasi-random assignment to estimate the causal effects from an adoptee being raised in one type of family versus another. Our findings show that family background matters significantly for children’s accumulation of wealth and investor behavior as adults, even when removing the genetic connection between children and the parents raising them. In particular, adoptees raised by wealthy parents are more likely to be well off themselves, whereas adoptees’ stock market participation and portfolio risk are increasing in the financial risk taking of their adoptive parents. The detailed nature of our data allows us to explore mechanisms, assess the generalizability of the lessons from adoptees, and compare our findings to results from behavioral genetics decompositions…. Figure 3 summarizes the dependence in net wealth across generations by displaying the relationship between parent and child ranks in the net wealth distributions.6 Panel A considers the non-adoptees, whereas panel B shows results for the Korean-Norwegian adoptees. We measure the percentile rank of parents based on their positions in the entire distribution of parental wealth, pooling parents of the non-adoptees and the Korean-Norwegian adoptees. Similarly, we define children’s percentile ranks based on their positions in the entire distribution of child wealth, including both the non-adoptees and adoptees. To adjust for differences in age across children and parents, we regress their wealth on a full set of indicator variables for child and parent birth years, and use the residuals from these regressions to measure child and parent ranks. Each dot represents the mean child rank (measured on the y-axis) for a given parental rank (measured on the x-axis). The solid thick line comes from a local linear regression of child wealth rank on parental wealth rank, the solid thin line is the estimated slope coefficient from a linear regression of child rank on parent rank, and the dashed line is the 45 degree line (representing perfect dependence). The linear rank correlations are 0.24 and 0.16 for the samples of non-adoptees and adoptees, respectively. This means that, on average, a 10 percentile increase in parent net wealth is associated with a 2.4 percentile increase in a biological child’s net wealth and a 1.6 percentile increase in an adoptees’ net wealth. The conditional expectation of child net wealth given parent net wealth is relatively linear in percentile ranks across most of the net wealth distribution. At the top of the net wealth distribution, however, the dependence is stronger than what is predicted from a linear regression of child rank on parent rank…”
Why do wealthy parents have wealthy children?: Extended Excerpt Image 1

Ed Comment:“Note that it says the opposite of what it seems to say.It says the genetic children of rich parents are much richer than the adopted children of rich parents.Presumably that’s genetics. Then it says that while adopted children of rich parents are are richer, “Parental transfers of wealth is the most important mediator.” So the rich adoptees are richer because their parents give them more money, and not so much because their adopted parent given them anything else—e.g., a better education. So when you step back, the genetic children of rich parents are overwhelming richer because of their genetic inheritance, secondarily, but to a much lesser extent, because of their monetary inherence, and then, left in the rounding, for all the other things their parent’s try to do for them but which have very little effect. They are talking about $200,000 of wealth, less than a US college grad.”

  • Inequality

Thursday, December 10, 2020

Companies have raised more capital in 2020 than ever before

AI Summary. Non-financial firms globally raised a record $3.6tn in capital from public investors, including $2.4tn in investment-grade bonds, $426bn in junk bonds, and a 70% increase in secondary stock sales to $538bn. Corporate cash holdings swelled to $7.6tn from $5.7tn, and venture capitalists invested 3x more into American startups than public investors did.

Economist Staff Amazon
Date Posted:
December 10, 2020
Is Database:
Database

Non-Financial Firms Raised $3.6T In Capital In 2020, VC Still Investing 3x What Public Investors Do Into Startups But Proceeds From Listing Now Growing Faster Than Private Rounds.

How much capital did companies raise from public investors?

Core argument: Non-financial firms globally raised a record $3.6tn from public investors in 2020, including $2.4tn in investment-grade bonds and $426bn in junk bonds, driven by monetary and fiscal stimulus.

In 2020, non-financial firms globally raised a record $3.6tn in capital from public investors, driven by unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus. This surge included $2.4tn in investment-grade bonds and $426bn in junk bonds, alongside a 70% increase in secondary stock sales to $538bn, reversing the trend of share buybacks. Initial public offerings (IPOs) approached all-time highs as startups sought to capitalize on high valuations, with venture capitalists investing three times more into American startups than public investors. However, proceeds from public listings are now growing faster than private funding rounds, indicating a shift in capital-raising dynamics. The global boom saw significant activity in markets like Hong Kong and Shanghai, with IPO proceeds reaching $63bn and $44bn, respectively. Despite near-zero interest rates, investors continue to fund firms with potential to thrive post-pandemic, contributing to a liquidity surge on corporate balance sheets, which swelled to $7.6tn from $5.7tn in 2019.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Non-financial firms globally raised a record $3.6tn from public investors in 2020, including $2.4tn in investment-grade bonds and $426bn in junk bonds, driven by monetary and fiscal stimulus.
  2. Secondary stock sales rose 70% to $538bn, reversing the trend of share buybacks, while initial public offerings approached all-time highs as startups sought to capitalise on high valuations.
  3. Corporate balance-sheet liquidity swelled to $7.6tn from $5.7tn in 2019, with Hong Kong and Shanghai IPO proceeds reaching $63bn and $44bn respectively.

Economist Staff, “Companies have raised more capital in 2020 than ever before,”The Economist, December 9, 2020, https://www.economist.com/business/2020/12/09/companies-have-raised-more-capital-in-2020-than-ever-before

Companies have raised more capital in 2020 than ever before

IN MARCH THE corporate world found itself staring into the abyss, recalls Susie Scher. From her perch overseeing global capital markets at Goldman Sachs, a bank, she witnessed firms scrambling for money to keep going as the wheels of commerce ground to a halt amid the pandemic. Many investors panicked. Surely, the thinking went, public markets would freeze in the frigid fog of covid-19 uncertainty—and then stay frozen.

Instead, within weeks they began to thaw, then simmer, kindled by trillions of dollars in monetary and fiscal stimulus from governments desperate to avert an economic nuclear winter. In the past few months they have turned boiling hot.

Companies have raised more capital in 2020 than ever before: Extended Excerpt Image 1


According to Refinitiv, a data provider, this year the world’s non-financial firms have raised an eye-popping $3.6trn in capital from public investors (see chart 1). Issuance of both investment-grade and riskier junk bonds set records, of $2.4trn and $426bn, respectively. So did the $538bn in secondary stock sales by listed stalwarts, which leapt by 70% from last year, reversing a recent trend to buy back shares rather than issue new ones.

Initial public offerings (IPOs), too, are flirting with all-time highs, as startups hope to cash in on rich valuations lest stockmarkets lose their frothiness, and venture capitalists (VCs) patience with loss-making business models. VCs still plough three times as much into American startup stars than public investors do. But proceeds from listings are now growing faster than private funding rounds (see chart 2). The boom is global (see chart 3). On December 2nd JD Health, a Chinese online pharmacy, raked in $3.5bn in Hong Kong. A week later DoorDash, an American food-delivery darling, and Airbnb, a home-rental platform, both more or less matched it in New York.

Companies have raised more capital in 2020 than ever before: Extended Excerpt Image 2


In a world of near-zero interest rates, it appears, investors will bankroll just about anyone with a shot at outliving covid-19. Some of that money will go up in smoke, with or without the corona crisis. What does not get torched will bolster corporate haves, sharpening the contrast between them and the have-nots.

The original spark that lit capital markets on fire was the $6.25bn in debt and equity that Carnival Cruise Lines secured in April, remembers Carlos Hernandez of JPMorgan Chase, a bank. Investors reasoned that cruises will one day sail again—by which time some of Carnival’s flimsier rivals will have sunk. Other dominant firms have benefited from this logic. Boeing, part of a planemaking duopoly, has sold $25bn in bonds this year, even as its bestselling 737 MAX jetliner has remained on the ground and the near-term future of travel up in the air. Many Chinese companies have taken to issuing perpetual bonds, which are never redeemed but pay interest for ever, to repair their balance-sheets.

Companies have raised more capital in 2020 than ever before: Extended Excerpt Image 3


By the summer, notes Ms Scher, “rescue capital-raising” had given way to something less defensive. Investors’ ultraloose purse-strings allowed opportunistic firms to lock in historically low coupons. S&P Global, a ratings agency, calculates that the average investment-grade bond paid interest of 2.6% in this year’s covid recession, down from 2.8% in 2019. Thanks to a boom in online shopping and cloud computing, Amazon, which is a leader in both areas, can now borrow at 1.5% for ten years, more cheaply than any American firm since at least 1980—and than some governments. Indebted giants like AT&T, a telecoms-and-entertainment group, are lengthening debt maturities. In November Saudi Aramco, an oil colossus, sold $2.3bn-worth of 50-year bonds, in spite of looming climate policies that may cripple its business of selling crude long before 2070.

Even cheap debt, of course, must be rolled over and, perpetuities aside, eventually paid back. With stockmarket valuations propped up by loose monetary policy, and only a slim prospect of tightening, many firms opted to shore up their balance-sheets with new share issues. Danaher, a high-rolling industrial conglomerate, raised over $1.5bn by selling new stock just after its share price returned to its pre-pandemic highs in May; it has risen by 39% since. On December 8th Tesla, an electric-car maker whose market value has grown eight-fold this year, to $616bn, said it plans to issue $5bn-worth of shares.

With shareholder payouts trimmed or suspended until the covid fog lifts, the cash held by the world’s 3,000 most valuable listed non-financial firms has exploded to $7.6trn, from $5.7trn last year (see chart 4). Even if you exclude America’s abnormally cash-rich technology giants—Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Facebook—corporate balance-sheets are brimming with liquidity.

It is still too early to tell what firms will do with all that cash. The merger market is showing signs of life, though mostly as deals put on ice during the pandemic are being revived. Many companies will content themselves with maintaining liquidity, at least until a covid-19 vaccine becomes more widely available.

Startups, for their part, will use IPO proceeds to blitzscale their way to profitability. The pandemic has made business models that might not have matured for years, such as digital health, suddenly viable. Many will fail. But for now giddy investors are pouring money into any firm whose IPO prospectus features the words “digital”, “cloud” or “health”. Headier still, “special purpose acquisition companies”, which go public with nothing but a promise to merge with a sexy startup later on, and which have raised $70bn in 2020, mostly on Wall Street, are shattering previous records.

Markets seem no more discerning in mainland China, where proceeds from listings hit $63bn, the most since 2010. Hong Kong added another $46bn. Shanghai’s STAR Market, a year-old technology board, this week welcomed its 200th member, bringing its IPO haul to $44bn. In September demand for shares to be traded on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange by Nongfu Spring, a water-bottler, outstripped supply by 1,148 times. Even the authorities’ last-minute suspension of Ant Group’s record-breaking $40bn IPO in Hong Kong and Shanghai, after the fintech titan’s co-founder annoyed regulators, may not frighten other listers. And so long as geopolitical tensions between America and China persist, more Chinese firms with an American stock ticker may avail themselves of a Hong Kong one, observes Julien Begasse de Dhaem of Morgan Stanley, a bank.

For now, capital is likely to keep flowing. Mr Hernandez says his bank’s pipeline of IPOs looks “the most robust in years”. The ten-year Treasury yield is below 1% and the spreads between American government and corporate bonds have narrowed to pre-pandemic levels. As a result, even riskier firms’ paper yields less than 5%, according to JPMorgan Chase. Investors expecting meaningful returns are therefore eyeing stocks. For the pandemic’s corporate winners, the choice between cheap debt and cheap equity is a win-win.

Record cash on hand, “…,the cash held by the world’s 3,000 most valuable listed non-financial firms has exploded to $7.6trn, from $5.7trn last year (see chart 4).Even if you exclude America’s abnormally cash-rich technology giants—Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Facebook—corporate balance-sheets are brimming with liquidity….

Factoids on record capital formation in 2020, “…. According to Refinitiv, a data provider,this year the world’s non-financial firms have raised an eye-popping $3.6trn in capital from public investors(see chart 1). Issuance of both investment-grade and riskier junk bonds set records, of $2.4trn and $426bn, respectively. So did the $538bn in secondary stock sales by listed stalwarts, which leapt by 70% from last year, reversing a recent trend to buy back shares rather than issue new ones. Initial public offerings (IPOs), too, are flirting with all-time highs, as startups hope to cash in on rich valuations lest stockmarkets lose their frothiness, and venture capitalists (VCs) patience with loss-making business models. VCs still plough three times as much into American startup stars than public investors do. But proceeds from listings are now growing faster than private funding rounds (see chart 2).The boom is global (see chart 3)….”

Ed Comment:would be nice if we could net out refinancing of debt. Does the fed do that? (getting out the mailing is a higher priority at the moment).

  • Savings Glut/Trade Deficit
  • GDP
    • Business Cycle
  • Productivity
    • Investment


Loading More Posts

End of content

No more pages to load

© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms