
Worried About Stock Market Swings? These Young Investors Aren't.
A haunting childhood moment defined how John Kakuk would think about investing his own money when the time came. During the 2008 financial crisis, his mother asked him if he would be willing to contribute the meager savings in his piggy bank to his family's grocery fund should his father, a lawyer, lose his job.
'She was very anxious,' Mr. Kakuk, then 12, remembered.
His family averted disaster. 'As far as I know, we didn't miss a mortgage payment, we didn't get a car repossessed, nothing like that,' recalled Mr. Kakuk, 28, who runs Bridger Digital, a marketing firm. But the rattling experience steeled the Montana native against the tumult caused last week by President Trump's announcement of steep global tariffs.
In response, markets plunged, but Mr. Kakuk, who described himself as 'notably invested,' said he felt little alarm about his portfolio, even if it took a few short-term body blows. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump announced that he would pause the tariffs for most countries for 90 days, and the S&P 500 swung in the other direction for its biggest daily gain since 2008.
'People my age are in a very different position from our parents when they were our age,' Mr. Kakuk said. 'We don't have a lot to lose. We just have everything to gain.'
Interviews with young investors — ranging from high school students to entrepreneurs in their late 20s — aligned on a variation of that theme. Helped in part by digital platforms with low bars to entry and enticed by the promise of cryptocurrency, members of Gen Z began investing at 19 — six years before the average millennial and 16 years before the typical baby boomer, according to last year's Modern Wealth Survey from Charles Schwab.
These younger investors said they were willing to countenance risk — but also to hew to a keep-calm-and-carry-on investing philosophy as the market swung wildly. If anything, the plummeting prices led to discounts unavailable during the years when stock markets were on a relentless climb.
'We've become accustomed to instability in a way that older generations are not,' said Alex Tucker, a senior at the School Without Walls in Washington, D.C., who opened a Vanguard account a couple of years ago but began actively investing only late last year. Though he was just a toddler during the 2008 crisis, Mr. Tucker believes the lessons of that crash suffuse his generation's financial outlook.
'I guess the Great Recession showed that Greenspan can be wrong,' he said, referring to the former Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan, widely faulted for facilitating the conditions that led to the mortgage meltdown. 'The markets were wrong. The banks were wrong. The entire system can be rotten — and there is a way to go on. There's a way to make money off of it.'
Mr. Tucker turned 18 on April 2, which the White House had framed as 'Liberation Day' from a global trade arrangement unfair to American workers and consumers. Since then, he has become a little wealthier, having purchased put options on Tesla stock, correctly predicting that the association of the carmaker's chief executive, Elon Musk, with the Trump administration would cause a sell-off.
For guidance these days, Mr. Tucker is following Michael J. Burry, the Cassandra-like investor made famous in Michael Lewis's book 'The Big Short,' and Kyla Scanlon, a 27-year-old who writes and makes videos about investing and has nearly a quarter-million followers on TikTok.
Ms. Scanlon advised a cautious approach known as 'risk-off' while much of the world grappled with the implications of Mr. Trump's protean tariffs plan. She pointed to gold as one potential source of security.
'I think any investor should have a teeny bit of allocation to gold just to have that hedge,' she said.
TikTok is rife with videos about investing in gold, among a flood of advice on how to withstand the turmoil. Just as smartphone-based trading platforms like Robinhood, launched a decade ago, have empowered casual investors, the rise of social media has created an ecosystem of influencers who speak fluently to younger audiences.
'It really is about following people and ideas and narratives,' said Steven Wang, who dropped out of Harvard to start Dub, a platform that allows users to mimic the trades of influential investors. No longer is the Bloomberg terminal, once a Wall Street must-have, the avatar it was to investors of previous generations.
'Younger folks are no longer sitting by screens and just looking at price-earnings ratios,' Mr. Wang said.
While some of the online expertise is dubious (and difficult to identify as such), some advice is savvy and expertly tailored to contemporary sensibilities. A two-minute TikTok video by Derrick Fung, an entrepreneur, about 'buying the dip'— investing in the market as prices fall — has more than 750,000 views. The accompanying comments include discussion of retaliatory tariffs, inelastic markets and, well, price-earnings ratios.
Young investors have the luxury of time, and stock markets tend to reward patience.
'A fluctuation of around like 5 to 10 percent — I can most likely weather that in the long run,' said Isaac Chan, 16, a student at the Edison Academy Magnet School in Edison, N.J., and a member of the Young Investors Society. He started investing while learning remotely during the coronavirus pandemic, which left him with plenty of time for other pursuits.
To learn the basics, Mr. Chan said, he read Investopedia and followed the advice of Warren E. Buffett and Charles T. Munger. Now, sailing through his first serious storm, he is able to maintain an old hand's equanimity.
'What really worries me isn't necessarily my own portfolio. It's my parents,' Mr. Chan said. 'They don't have that luxury of waiting out a downturn. For them, this is their retirement security being redrawn in real time.'
'I get excited when I see these kinds of market dips,' said Chris Josephs, 29, a co-founder of a trading platform called Autopilot. He added that while he was certainly not cheering for a recession, the recent market tumble had allowed for discounts on blue-chip stocks like Apple and Nike.
'If these stocks go down 40 percent, that just means I get a 40 percent better price,' he said.
Other young investors are making moves to insulate against future shocks.
'I don't think my investing goals themselves — saving up money for retirement, preserving wealth in an unsteady economy — have changed as a result of the tariffs,' said Christiana Sung, 17, a student at Mt. Everest Academy in San Diego and, like Mr. Chan, a member of the Young Investors Society. (She learned to trade from its tutorials, she said.)
Also like Mr. Chan, she started trading in the summer of 2020, as the stock market recovered vigorously from the shock of pandemic lockdowns.
'I've certainly had to rethink my way of achieving those goals,' Ms. Sung said. 'I used to favor international companies before, but now I'm more cautious of those tariff-vulnerable sectors and have begun to look more at domestic opportunities.'
Ms. Scanlon believes that now may be the time for 'some international exposure,' as the American economy undergoes a transformation under Mr. Trump's unpredictable dictates.
'Uncertainty is expensive,' she said, pointing to the relative safety of Germany's industrial and defense sectors. Overall, European stocks have enjoyed a recent surge in popularity, seemingly thanks to Mr. Trump. The tariffs have also raised the prospects of a decline in the American economy.
'I have some stock but nothing super fancy,' said Abdullah Hassan, 30, a White House spokesman under President Joseph R. Biden Jr. who is set to graduate from Georgetown's law school next year. Mr. Hassan said he and his peers were more concerned about an 'impending recession' and finding jobs.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time Magazine
17 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
‘Went Too Far': Elon Musk Says He Regrets Some Posts About Trump
'I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week,' Elon Musk posted on his social media platform X early Wednesday. 'They went too far.' Musk and Trump, who were once almost inseparable allies, were engaged in a public and vitriolic war of words last week. But the fierce hostilities between the man with the most money in the world and the man with the mightiest military appear to be cooling. The statement of remorse by Musk, who spent more than $250 million to help elect Trump in 2024, comes as observers have noticed another shift in his tone on social media toward the Administration. In retweets and replies, Musk signaled support for Trump's approach toward the protests in Los Angeles, including sharing multiple of the President's recent posts from Truth Social. He also responded with a heart emoji to a video of Trump telling reporters on Monday that he wished Musk well and that they had a 'good relationship.' It's a sharp contrast to how the two powerful men discussed each other last week, after Musk left his official government role and ramped up his criticisms of Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' massive tax-and-spending legislative package that is stumbling through Congress. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore,' Trump told reporters at the White House on June 5. 'I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' On Truth Social, Trump said at the time that Musk ' went CRAZY!' and threatened that the 'easiest way to save money' would be 'to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' In turn, Musk alleged that the Administration was holding back the public release of so-called Epstein Files because Trump is implicated in them, and he endorsed a message that suggested 'Trump should be impeached' and Vance 'should replace him.' Those posts have since been deleted.


CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'

Wall Street Journal
39 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Appeals Court Lets Sweeping Tariffs Stand for Now
A federal appeals court granted Tuesday the Trump administration's request to keep far-reaching tariffs in effect for now, but agreed to fast track its consideration of the case this summer. The court said it intends to hear arguments on July 31, which means the levies will likely remain in effect for at least the next two months. 🔎 Dig deeper: