logo
What does the 'big beautiful bill' mean for your retirement?

What does the 'big beautiful bill' mean for your retirement?

Yahoo2 days ago

As the Trump administration's budget bill works its way through Congress, many people are wondering how the bill's provisions on taxes and Social Security will affect their finances. On this episode of "Decoding Retirement," Robert 'Bob' Powell speaks with Lisa Featherngill, national director of wealth planning at Comerica Bank. Lisa discusses what deductions are likely to stay in the bill, the solvency of Social Security, and how retirees may have to adjust their spending.
Yahoo Finance's Decoding Retirement is hosted by Robert Powell.
Find more episodes of Decoding Retirement at https://finance.yahoo.com/videos/series/decoding-retirement.
The big beautiful bill is now in the hands of the Senate, and it may be a while before it becomes, or some version of it becomes the law of the land. And here to talk with me about this is Lisa Featheringgill. She is the national director of wealth planning at Wealth Management. Lisa, welcome.
Thanks, Bob. Great to be here.
Oh, it's a pleasure to have you here. It will be a pleasure to have you talk about the big beautiful bill and where it stands and what you think will stay and why people should be planning for it, if at all.
Yeah, that, you know, it, it went through the house pretty quickly and within a week it was uh passed out of ways and means and off the floor and over to the Senate. Well, that's
partly because, by the way, it's partly because some people didn't read it.
It's lengthy. It's very lengthy. Over
1000 pages, I think, yeah.But anyway, I interrupted you.
No, no, but, um, so even on the news this morning I was watching CNBC and they were um uh and there were people on talking about how even the Republican senators are not super excited about it, so there will probably be some changes coming out from the Senate. Uh, we're just in a wait and see mode.
So for seniors, for anyone really, don't make any plans based on what may be.
That is one thing I have learned over the years. You do not take the House version or the Senate version and make any plans, at least waiting until we've got something coming out of conference committee.
All right. So let's just play a what if game. Uh, there are some things in the bill as it currently stands that are somewhat interesting. There's a bonus deduction for seniors, which is being put in place to make up for not for the president.Uh, and Congress not, uh, to be able to, uh, do away with taxes on Social Security benefits in the absence of a new law. So, any thoughts about whether the bonus deduction stays?
Uh, you know, that's interesting. It's only $2000 per individual aged 65 or over, and it's only for 4 years. It's really it's an additional um personal exempt it's an add-on to the personal exemption.So I don't know the numbers, but based on the number of people turning 65 this year, it's probably pretty significant about
4 million people, yeah,
yeah.Yeah.
So, all right, so it stays or goes, What do you think?
You know, it affects a lot of people and it's not a huge dollar amount. I'm gonna say itstays.
All right. Uh, there has been much talk ever since it was introduced about the salt deduction going down to $10,000 in the new bill, it goes up to 40,000, I think, somewhere around there.
That's fair.Oh that's a tough one. I don't think it's gonna look like it looks right now. So when it came out of um Ways and Means, it was a maximum of $30,000 but it was gonna phase out starting at $400,000. Well, that didn't to me when I saw that, I thought the phase is out at $40,400,000 and phases out pretty quickly for people who are high earners or who have a lot of real estate property tax.They're, they're gonna blow through that that $30,000. At least there's a $10,000 cap. So on the house floor, they changed it to a $40,000 deduction with $500,000 phase out. Um, you know, for the high income earners in California and New York, it they're still not gonna get a huge amount of benefit out of that deduction. So I don't know, I, it's got a lot of energy behind it. I'm gonna, I'm gonna guess that it changes.
Yeah.All right, and the last thing that people are talking about is the estate tax and whether it gets extended or gets repealed.
Well, in the bill, it says, uh, the exemption goes up to $15 million you know, it's at 13.99 this year, goes up to $15 million and then it adjusts for inflation going forward. There hasn't seemed to be much controversy around that, so I think that has a good chance of of moving forward, which is um.Yeah, pretty exciting and in the business that we're in because a lot of people had been waiting to see what was gonna happen. Actually, a lot of people were motivated to act because they thought that it was gonna drop in half on January 126.
And it's interesting because uh I just came back from a conference in California where some of the discussion was around whether I should use a slat or a CRT or some advanced charitable giving strategies, but maybe the need to do that is less if the estate tax uh gets extended.True,
but you know, I've been looking at how often the tax, the estate tax laws have changed since the beginning of this decade, or this of this millennium. Think about it. We had, we had the big change uh from a million to 5 million, then it dropped down to 0 for a year, then it went back up and then it doubled.I just don't think anything is permanent when it comes to a state tax anymore. Yeah.
So job security for uh estate planning attorneys and and CPAs, I guess too, along with that.All right, so, I, I want to turn my attention to, uh, something that I think is quite interesting in the opportunity that presents. The R&D age goes to 75 for those who reach age 74 after December 31st, 2032, and there's some planning opportunities that are created because of this increased to the R&D age.
Yeah, so think aboutit. Some retires at 65, 66, 67, somewhere in there, even if they've got payouts for a couple of years, if they're waiting to take RMDs, they might have 3 or 5 years that are gonna be really low income cause they got nothing coming from their employer. Maybe they've got Social Security, but that's not gonna throw them into a high tax bracket. And so there's an opportunity there to accelerate income before taking RMDs, and what it actually will do isIf if you take the RMDs early, if you need the money, or convert some of the um money that's in the IRAs to Roth and use up some of those tax brackets, you'll end up smoothing out the income in the later years because you'll either have lower you'll have lower RMDs and therefore maybe can keep your bracket levellower.
Yeah.So with respect to uh Roth IRA conversions, two things at least I think, to consider. One is, do you have outside money to pay for the taxes due, uh, otherwise, maybe that creates a problem for you. And then secondly, a lot of times people think about RMD Roth conversions with a break even point and that there may be a number of years that you should consider before it makes sense. Is that fair to say?
Yeah, normally we think about the, the break even point if we're looking at theirBeing a lower tax bracket later. So what, well, excuse me, no, let me say that differently. Um, usually there's a break even point because you're accelerating the tax expense, right? And so, at, at what point would you have been better off just waiting to take that money. So you have to look at what's your tax bracket gonna be down the road versus if you brought in that income through the rock conversion.
So, and then in terms of having outside money to pay for the taxes due on the conversion, that's an absolute must, right there. It's a non-starter to even to think about doing a Roth conversion if you don't have the money outside.
Absolutely. Even if you're thinking about small Roth conversions, you need to have money.You need to have liquidity to pay the taxesup front.
Right. And and and when I think about the taxes due, there's the tax on the distribution from the IRA and then perhaps if you have money in a taxable account that you're using to pay for the uh for the bill due, you might have a capital gain perhaps on.The taxes that you use to sell your stock
that'sright. If you have to sell stocks or something to create the liquidity to pay the taxes, you could be, yeah, you could be hit with that that capital gains. But the, the thing to remember is that it's not just the rates, it's the brackets. And one of the things that this um tax, the beautiful tax bill does is it keeps those wide brackets for the lower um income tax rates.And so whereas it used to be, you would get into the 39% bracket at about $400,000 and that in the current world, you're not even getting into the 37% bracket until you're well above that. So there's a lot of room to to plan and and to do some, uh, you know, good tax arbitrage.
Yeah.So it's, it's hardly an episode of the coding retirement goes by where we don't talk about the Social Security Trust fund and it becoming depleted in 2033 and the possibility of benefits being reduced by 20 cents on the dollar. And, uh, you have a contrary point of view on Social Security and, uh, the, the common advice, Lisa, right, that we get from mostly everyone is delayed at age 70 if you can, and rarely is, uh, are we telling people to claim sooner than that, butEager to hear your country point of view.
You know, I, I, I ran, I, I had somebody run my numbers, right? And, um, and clearly, right, if everything goes as planned, it makes sense to wait till age 70, get an 8% bump a year. Now I'm of the age where full retirement age is 67, so I would have 3 additional years, you know, that would be another 24%.Uh, um, income, which sounds great. However, in reading the annual report from the Social Security Administration, I'm a little worried if, if they hit that, uh, if they deplete their reserves in 2033, which now we have a couple of years' worth of um them saying that's the case, then they're only gonna be able to pay out what what is coming in, and that's expected to be 80% of current benefits.So it's almost like a bird in the hand type of thing that maybe you should go ahead and take it earlier cause you're getting 100% of something rather than waiting and getting a smaller number.
Yeah, so you're getting 100% for a little bit of time until 2033, at which point you'll get 80% of what you were getting.
That's right. So maybe I would have, let's see, 6768, 69, uh, maybe I would have 33 or 4 additional years of uh 100%.Versus waiting and getting, you know, 24% extra, but then it's gonna go down by by 20. I, I haven't run the numbers, but my gut is telling me.That it, it's gonna make sense to go early if I'm concerned about the fund.
Right. Now, there is the possibility, as many people have told us on decoding retirement, that yes, there's the possibility that it goes down to 80 cents on the dollar, but more more likely than not, someone in Congress, some brave soul who doesn't mind not getting re-elected, will vote to.Uh, put forth a bill that says we're going to either raise taxes or cut benefits. And, uh, and if we do any of that, it's going to affect younger people in their 20s, 30s, and 40s perhaps as opposed to anyone in their 50s, 60s, and older, right? I mean, is that fair to say that if you're a betting person that it's notgonna get
we haven't had legislation that's passed that's affected Social Security tax.Taxation or benefits a long time. Remember there was a bill about, I don't know, 5 years ago that that were there or there was some, there was some discussion about um decreasing the benefits and increasing the tax rate on Social Security income. So I think there's, there's, there's gonna be more of a sense of urgency as we get closer to to depleting the fund, you know, we have, what is it?5 million people turning age 65 this year or something like that, so it's gonna be even more pressure on the fund every year as as the baby boomers, you know, more and more and more start taking Social Security.
Yeah. Lisa, we have to take a short break and when we come back, I want to talk about your son's most recent graduation and what you're helping him do. Don't go away.Welcome back to Decoding Retirement. I'm speaking with Lisa Featheringgill. She's the national director of wealth planning at Comerica Wealth Management. Lisa, uh, before the break, I promised that we would talk about, uh, your son who recently graduated from college, and perhaps unlike other college graduates, you're doing something somewhat unique for him that I didn't quite expect. Tell me what you're doing.
So I'm very excited. My son graduated with his master's in accounting. He was a finance undergrad, and I planted the seed a couple years ago about the shortage of accountants, and so he went ahead and he got his accounting degree, and he's going to work for a CPA firm starting this summer.Well, you know, coming out of college, even if you're making a decent wage is so expensive, um, and real estate has gotten so expensive. He's in Raleigh, North Carolina, and while it may not sound really expensive if you're in the Northeast, but to, you know, to buy a condo in in Raleigh is, you know, it's hard to find something for under $300,000. So I am doing something that my mother actually did for me when I got out of college, and it's called a shared equity agreement.So I am, I am putting down the down payment.And he will make the monthly payments on the mortgage. Well, I, I do a modified version. I'm actually giving him some financial assistance that tapers off um over 3 years. But I put everything into writing, you know, what my investment is, what my expectations of him are, and how we'll split the profits going forward. So, um, so I, I put the upfront money in.I said that any additional improvements will decide how that's paid, but if I pay for it, it, it obviously increases my investment in the property, and when the property is sold, I get my investment back, pay off the mortgage, and then we split 50/50. So it gives him a chance to um also have a stake in the appreciation of the property, and he's super excited, you know, he's gonna have a a a townhouse not too far from where he works, and he's staying um where he went to school, so.Yeah, it's a nice thing to be able to pay it. So
that's really fantastic. Um, does your husband know about this deal, by the way?
Yes, he does.
All right, because you sounded like you made the agreement.
So that's true. I did write up the agreement and he and Walker and I are on the uh on the deed and the mortgage together. But here's an interesting thing that I hadn't thought of, and this actually my sister-in-law is a realtor and told me about this when she said, think about how you want to title the property.Right, so if I was to pass away, I don't necessarily want this property being joined with right a survivorship, or my investment would automatically go to my son. I want my husband to have the opportunity to to get that investment back, so we title it as tenants in common.
That's a, that's great. Well, you, but, but, so you bring, you bring up an interesting point, which is, in order to do these things, you need to have access to good advice, right? Like that, that to me is almost a hurdle that most people face when they think about what could I do to help my son, daughter, whatever it might be. And having access to advice goes a long way toward helping you solve these problems, overcome these hurdles.
Well, and, and when you think about it, I've been in this business almost 40 years, and I've had a, a shared equity agreement, but the whole idea of how to title the property didn't even cross my mind until a couple of weeks ago. So you really have to have advice and probably for more than one person.
Uh, Lisa, I want to turn my attention back to retirement. Uh, I'm fond of quoting research that says spending declines on a real basis throughout retirement.But that's not the case with your client base. Um, tell us what you're seeing about how retirees are spending money when every day is Saturday.
Well, very early in my career, client said to me, Lisa, my expenses are not going down in retirement because every day is Saturday. And the clients that I talked to say, you know, I'm gonna travel more, I'm gonna, you know, indulge in my hobbies more, and I think that if you don't have 8+ hours that are dedicated to the office where you're not shopping or traveling or spending money on other things.There's just a lot more time to spend money and, you know, um, this generation is more spenders than maybe the early earlier generation. So and you know, that doesn't even factor in the health care, you know, we're living longer, we're gonna have more money that we're spending on health care, whether that's um cosmetic or or medically necessary, um, there's just a lot more opportunities, I think, to spend money than there ever were.
Yeah. So the implications of that, Lisa, I think are twofold for me. One is, you might need to save even more than you thought, given that you're going to spend more than you anticipated. And secondly, maybe you should work a little bit longer to save that much more so that you can enjoy your years uh of that spending.
Sothere there are a couple of things you can do to uh to affect that expense number. One of them is to work longer, so your net expenses are less, which means that you have more money for later on.Um, another thing is just, you know, uh, budget so that you are spending to a certain amount. Um, it used to be people talked about the 4%, you know, the endowment method of drawing down your assets 4%. I don't think that works so well anymore, but at least having some kind of an estimate, a projection.Of what your income and expenses are going to look like. So cash flow and balance sheet year by year really helps to put things inperspective.
Yeah, I, you know, I always think that the hardest part about these factors is your life expectancy, Lisa, right, which is to say, I don't know if I'm going to live 10 years or 20 or 30 or 35 years in retirement, and to me that makes all the difference in the world is the sort of the, we're trying to make something certain out of uncertainty. How do you deal with all that?
I try to be as conservative as possible, so with clients where we're running the numbers, we run them out to age 95.And
that that scares some people, right?
It does, it, it does, but better to overs save and better to be conservative than as my clients used to say. I don't want to be eating dog food when I'm 85 years old.
Yeah.I, I used to think that if instead of um mutual fund companies showing people on yachts and beaches in retirement, that they should show people maybe eating dog and cat food to say, if this is what you want to have happen, fine, just keep doing what you're doing. But if you want to live on the yacht and be on walk on the beach, you should save a little bit more maybe.
Now if you look at the stats and how much people have saved for retirement, that's probably a really good idea to, to start influencingbehaviors.
I can't get anyone to think that they want to run that ad for what it's worth. You you know.All right, but, but in, in retirement, right, a lot of folks have the ability maybe to control some of their destiny. You're an avid biker, I'm an avid biker. The need to stay healthy in retirement, uh, if you follow Peter Atia and this notion of, you know, being having functional sort of strength and being able to lift groceries and lift grandchildren and walk up steps, really important in retirement. What, what, I mean, obviously, you, you practice what you preach.
Yeah, I wish I didn't have such an expensive hobby, you know, they always say with bikers, the number of bikes you need is the number you have plus one.And they, uh, oh, and so.
I know we take up
running that pretty cheap hobby.
Yeah, I'm, I'm afraid my, my wife and I have somewhat maybe two expensive hobbies. When I have a number of bikes in my fleet, uh, gravel road, and, and mountain, and then my wife is a stand-up paddle boarder and she has a number of paddle boards in our garage. So we can never downsize because we, there's not enough, you know, there was no space would be big enough except for what we have for all our toys.
Yes, but it, it, you know what, I think it keeps you happy, it keeps you healthy, and that's, that's really the name of thegame. Yeah,
I, I, we've almost run out of time, but as you think about happiness in retirement, I'm often reminded, Lisa, there was a study done by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College that said by and large, most people, irrespective of how much income they have in retirement, are satisfied if 3 things are true.Uh, one is that they retired on their own terms, 2, that they're in good health, and 3, that they're married. And, um, I've always debated the third one. Just kidding.
I might have been a man who saidthat.All right.
I, I think we've run out of time unfortunately, but, uh, I want to thank you for sharing your knowledge and wisdom with our listeners and viewers. It's so greatly appreciated. Can't wait to have you come back on a future episode.
Really enjoyed it.Thanks, Bob.
So that wraps up this episode of Decoding Retirement. We hope we provided you with some actual advice to help you plan for or live in retirement. Don't forget, if you've got questions about retirement, you can email me at YF podcast@yahoo Inc.com and don't forget you can listen to Decoding Retirement on all your favorite podcast platforms.
This content was not intended to be financial advice and should not be used as a substitute for professional financial services.
Are you ready to master the markets and dare I say become a better leader in the process? Well, Yahoo Finance has you covered with our new full suite of original podcast content. Whether you're a seasoned investor or you're just starting your financial journey, we offer invaluable market insights and strategies to help boost your portfolio, build your wealth, and make you a successful investor. Join us on Yahoo Finance.com, the Yahoo Finance app, or whereveryou get your podcasts.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response
How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response

Newsweek

time14 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles Response

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's response to protests in Los Angeles is in keeping with suggestions put forth in Project 2025, a political commentator has said. Allison Gill, who worked at the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, said on Wajahat Ali's the Left Hook Substack that the president's military response was "spelled out in Project 2025," a conservative policy dossier. She did not specify how. Newsweek has contacted the Heritage Foundation and Gill for comment by email. The Context Protests against immigration enforcement began in Los Angeles on Friday and have continued, with some isolated incidents of violence and looting. In response, Trump announced the deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to restore order, without California Governor Gavin Newsom's consent. While the president has said the move was necessary to prevent the city from "burning to the ground" amid protests and riots, officials in California have accused Trump of exacerbating the situation in an "unprecedented power grab." A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. A police officer firing a soft round near the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles on June 8. AP Photo/Eric Thayer What To Know Gill, who served Trump a lawsuit in 2023 accusing him of conspiring to fire her from the Veterans Affairs Department during his first presidency, said sending in the Marines was "propaganda" because the protests were not severe enough to require them. Though she said Project 2025 predicted the president's response to the protests, she did not elaborate on how. Project 2025 is a 900-page document of policy proposals published by the Heritage Foundation think tank. It advocates limited government, border security and tough immigration laws among other conservative measures. The policy proposals have proved divisive, and the president's critics and supporters alike have debated their influence on him. While Project 2025 does not mention the Insurrection Act, a November 2023 report from The Washington Post, citing internal communications and a person involved in the conversations, said the Project 2025 group had drafted executive orders that would use the Insurrection Act to deploy the military domestically. Gill told Ali that she warned people of Trump's potential use of the military to curb protests before the presidential election. "We did everything that we could in leading up to the election in 2024 to tell everyone as loud as we can, they are planning to do this," she said, adding: "Saying he's going to call this an invasion. He's going to call this an insurrection. And he's going to use that to invoke emergency powers so that he can unleash the military on United States citizens and perhaps even suspend habeas corpus so that he can detain his political enemies without due process." "This is scary," Gill, who hosts the Mueller, She Wrote podcast, continued. "This is full-on fascism, full-on authoritarianism." "This is a test case for authoritarianism," Ali added. Before the 2024 presidential election, Democrats accused Trump of planning to implement Project 2025 if he won. While Trump initially called parts of the plan "ridiculous and abysmal," he told Time after his electoral victory that he disagreed with parts of it, but not all of it. He has since appointed a number of people linked to Project 2025 to White House positions. In an October interview with Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures, Trump indicated that he would use the National Guard or the military if there were disruptions from "radical left lunatics" on Election Day. What Does Project 2025 Say? Project 2025 advocates for improved defense infrastructure and for the Department of Homeland Security to "thoroughly enforce immigration laws." The document added that DHS should "provide states and localities with a limited federal emergency response and preparedness." However, it did not say whether this would occur in the context of protests. What Trump's Advisers Have Said Trump's advisers have previously spoken about the use of National Guard troops in other contexts. According to a February 2024 report in The Atlantic, Stephen Miller, now the White House deputy chief of staff, said that Trump—if returned to office—would take National Guard troops from sympathetic Republican-controlled states and use them in Democratic-run states whose governors refused to cooperate with their mass deportation policy. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday: "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "We will always protect the constitutional right for Angelenos to peacefully protest. However, violence, destruction and vandalism will not be tolerated in our city and those responsible will be held fully accountable." What Happens Next The anti-ICE protests, which have spread to other cities, are likely to continue. Newsom has called on the Trump administration to remove federal troops from Los Angeles.

Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers
Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers

Boston Globe

time14 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Mass. needs competitive pay for defense lawyers

Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Legislators ought to listen to the committee. Ensuring that there are enough lawyers to uphold the constitutional right to representation enshrined in the Sixth Amendment should be a legislative priority. Whether in the state budget or in some other legislative vehicle, such as a supplemental budget, lawmakers should find a way to boost compensation rates across all categories of indigent defense, which span criminal, mental health, family law, and juvenile cases. Doing so would cost the state about $29 million annually. Advertisement Massachusetts' minimum bar advocate rate of $65 per hour is an outlier in New England. Maine's minimum rate is $150, New Hampshire's is $125 to $150, and Rhode Island's is $112 for most cases. Current rates in Massachusetts don't reflect the complexity of modern court cases, the overhead costs private attorneys pay out of pocket, or the state's sky-high cost of living. Advertisement The Senate's version of the budget does boost rates — but only for mental health appointments and Superior Court cases. The work stoppage is underscoring the critical work bar advocates produce. Since the stoppage began on May 27, the committee and its in-house counsel have struggled to provide attorneys for all clients that need them. Now, a slew of people accused of crimes are waiting, either in jails or out on bail — more than 150 people in Boston as of June 9, according to the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. These numbers are estimates, and bar advocate participation in the work stoppage varies between counties. But leaders agree that the number of unrepresented clients across Massachusetts is already in the hundreds and will continue to grow. Without representation, defendants are forced to stay in jail for days without arraignment, a violation of their constitutional rights. As early as next week, the Supreme Judicial Court may have to consider implementing the A shortage of bar advocates has put courts under pressure before. In 2019, Hampden County couldn't represent all of its clients, and a court instituted a day rate of $424 to incentivize additional private lawyers to handle arraignments. It was effective — and proved that low compensation really is a dissuasive factor for most private attorneys. Advertisement The legislature shouldn't wait for the crisis to deepen to provide a pay raise for bar advocates. Waiting to act will force more defendants to languish without representation, risking case mismanagement or pouring money into finding other private attorneys willing to do the work. This doesn't have to happen. The best way to solve this issue is to pay bar advocates fairly in the upcoming budget, allowing them to uphold the constitutional rights of their clients and ensuring due process across the Commonwealth. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us

U.S. uncertainty is handing Europe a huge opportunity
U.S. uncertainty is handing Europe a huge opportunity

CNBC

time19 minutes ago

  • CNBC

U.S. uncertainty is handing Europe a huge opportunity

Europe is being urged to capitalize on the volatility of the Trump administration, as shifts in capital and private market flows suggest U.S. exceptionalism is waning and losing out to a resurgent Europe. The numbers tell part of the story, with Europe's Stoxx 600 up over 8% compared to a 5% jump for the S&P 500 since Nov. 1, 2024, just days ahead of the U.S. election. Bank of America said in a report dated June 5 that U.S. equities had seen outflows of $7.5 billion over the previous three weeks, while European stocks benefited from inflows of $2.6 billion over the same period. Earlier this year, meanwhile, data from Morningstar showed that investors withdrew 2.8 billion euros ($3.2 billion) from U.S. equity ETFs in the month to the middle of March, while shifting 14.6 billion euros into European ETFs. Goldman Sachs International Co-CEO Anthony Gutman told CNBC that the convergence in U.S. and European growth rates came about quickly this year and was a big factor prompting investors to shift money toward Europe. "In January, sentiment felt very strong in the U.S., it felt somewhat more muted in Europe. You roll the clock forward and now the picture has changed fairly dramatically, that's to the benefit of Europe in many cases. Europe is getting more capital inflows and there is more optimism in Europe," Gutman told CNBC's Annette Weisbach Wednesday on the sidelines of the Goldman Sachs European Financials Conference in Berlin. Meanwhile, in private markets, talk of the breakdown of U.S. exceptionalism dominated the Super Return forum in Berlin last week. Carlyle Group's Managing Director Mark Jenkins told CNBC that, "in Europe, we've seen a lot of great opportunity and think we can pick up greater returns here relative to the risk you're taking in the U.S." This sentiment was echoed by private equity giant Permira, which holds private equity funds and credit vehicles representing around 60 billion euros worth of capital under management. "If you look at Europe at the moment, firstly, capital is cheaper, if you look at the trend of where euro rates are going versus dollar rates are going, you can fund and finance things cheaper here. Secondly, valuations are cheaper, you can buy great companies for less," Permira Executive Chairman Kurt Björklund told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" on Tuesday. "Thirdly the innovation cycle is growing exponentially in Europe … there is an enormous number of highly innovative companies that are growing in a disruptive and global way," he added. All eyes are now on the potential for an EU-U.S. trade deal — which is proving trickier to pin down than with some other countries, including the U.K. Referencing the complexity of the behemoth that is the European Union, Siemens Energy Chairman Joe Kaeser told CNBC that the EU is "politically not ready to strike these types of deals." The White House hinted on Wednesday that a July 9 deadline for a deal may be movable, however, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying: "It is highly likely that for those countries that are negotiating — or trading blocs, in the case of the EU — who are negotiating in good faith, we will roll the date forward to continue the good faith negotiation." French President Emmanuel Macron also struck an optimistic tone, telling CNBC's Karen Tso on Wednesday: "I'm sure that we will find, at the end of the day, a good solution." Unicredit CEO Andrea Orcel stressed that the opportunity for Europe's continued revival lies in its own hands, however. He explained that the 27-member European Union could galvanize amid the fracturing of Europe's relationship with the U.S., but warned that investors can also be fickle. The expectation is that "there will be convergence, there will be a banking union, there will be a capital markets union. There will be a lot of spend on infrastructure, on defense... That's exciting for the market, therefore money flowing in," Orcel told CNBC Wednesday. "But if, little by little, investors realize that this is lip service, but it doesn't really happen. Money will flow back in a nanosecond, and you will see [that] very quickly." Europe is faced with a "phenomenal opportunity," he added. "We have every reason to be ... on par with the U.S., but it's our fault if we don't do it."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store