By Dr Sarah McLaughlin, Behavioral & Socioeconomic Insights Contributor
The Great Wealth Transfer is anticipated as a period of unprecedented movement of wealth from older generations to younger beneficiaries over the coming decades. With expectations of far-reaching implications for US financial markets, it is predicted to equate to $124 trillion by 2048 and is a critical consideration for financial advisors. In this article I draw on a sociological lens to explore the Great Wealth Transfer. In doing so, I reframe the question facing advisers as not simply how do assets move between generations, but rather which forms of capital are transferred, which are disrupted, and where does the adviser sit in that process?
A Shift in Perspective
The principal recipients of this intergenerational transfer of wealth are expected to be Generation X (those born between 1965 and 1980), Millennials (1981-1996) and Generation Z (born after 1997). Together, these cohorts are forecast to inherit around $105 trillion from the Baby Boomer generation (those born between 1946 and 1964), with $54 trillion being passed to spouses and $18 trillion going to charity by 2048 (Cerulli Anticipates $124 Trillion in Wealth Will… | Cerulli Associates).
Within the financial services world intergenerational wealth transfer is typically approached as a technical exercise in succession. Assets must be moved efficiently between legal owners, tax exposure mitigated, investment risk managed, and governance structure put into place. This framing captures only part of what is taking place. Wealth transfer is also, and perhaps primarily, a social process.
Inheritance represents a moment of social reorganisation in which relationships, authority and identity are renegotiated alongside the movement of wealth. It is at this point, despite careful financial planning, that advisers may lose the next generation. To appreciate and understand this social dimension, it is helpful to look beyond a purely financial lens and draw upon sociological theory that extends beyond financial mechanics.
Forms of Capital
“Early engagement with heirs creates the space to build social and symbolic capital over time.”
The work of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, and his theory of capitals, offers a powerful viewpoint. His ideas allow us to see wealth transfer not simply as the reallocation of economic resources, but as a process in which multiple forms of capital are either reproduced across generations or allowed to dissolve. To dig deeper into the nuances of capital transfer we must first understand Bourdieu’s concept of capitals.
As advisors are experts in economic capital, advisory practice may exclusively focus on the economic dimensions of inheritance. However, when wealth passes between generations, other forms of capital are in flux. Wealth may pass hands smoothly, but this does not necessarily coincide with the intergenerational transfer of relational trust and advisory continuity.
Bourdieu proposed that capital takes several distinct but interrelated forms. The form most obvious is economic capital (assets, income, and property), which can be transferred instantaneously through legal arrangements. Cultural and social capital, however, are often overlooked when seeking to retain business during the inheritance stage. These capitals do not move so easily. They must be built and sustained over time.
Cultural Capital
Cultural capital refers to the knowledge, values, competencies, and orientations that individuals use to navigate their social world. In a financial planning context this includes attitudes toward money, financial literacy, familiarity with advisory norms, confidence engaging with professionals, and understanding long-term planning decisions. Cultural capital is often unevenly transmitted between generations. Some heirs may inherit wealth without inheriting the financial language, values, or habits that underpin an effective adviser relationship.
Data published by Merrill Lynch shows that younger investors, particularly Millennials and Generation Z, are increasingly confident making their own investment decisions. They also show a growing appetite for non-traditional assets such as crypto, digital investments, private equity, and direct investing (How Will the Great Wealth Transfer Impact the Markets?). Generational shifts in investment preferences could meaningfully influence everything from how assets are distributed to portfolio construction and broader market trends. At the same time, differences in cultural capital can make it harder for advisers to build and maintain trust and continuity with the next generation.
These differences highlight a further challenge, beyond attitudes and knowledge. The strength of the relationship, or social capital, ultimately determines whether those connections continue.
Social Capital
Social capital consists of networks of relationships such as friends, colleagues, and trusted intermediaries. It encompasses the resources embedded in social networks and relationships, mutual recognition, and access to influential others. When it comes to inheritance, this is reflected in long-standing adviser-client relationships, reputational trust, and the wider professional networks that help sustain consistent advice and client loyalty.
This is where continuity may be lost. Natixis Investment Managers found nearly half of inheritors do not plan to keep their benefactor’s advisor, while those who do point to trust and familiarity as decisive factors (Over 40% of U.S. Financial Advisors See Wealth Transfer as an Existential Threat to Business, Natixis IM Finds). In other words, the continuity of advice depends less on technical competence than on relationships already in place. From this perspective, social capital must be actively produced and maintained.
Younger inheritors place a high value on human connection, aligned values, empathy, and collaboration, indicating that trust based relationships (social capital) and shared meanings around legacy, purpose, and family values (cultural capital) are at least as important as technical competence (America’s Great Wealth Transfer: Young clients want human connection with their financial advisors – The Harris Poll).
From an inheritor’s perspective, an advisor is not simply attached to the balance sheet but embedded within the family system. Where the advisor has not played a meaningful role in the heir’s financial or personal narrative, continuity of the relationship cannot be assumed. Moreover, what is labelled as intergenerational planning focuses on continuity of assets rather than continuity of relationships.
From a social capital perspective, late or purely transactional engagement with heirs leaves little time to build meaningful relationships, and there is less social capital to draw upon by the time succession occurs. If they are treated as future clients rather than current participants, there is little trust or connection to draw on when wealth transfers. From this standpoint, post-death client loss is hardly surprising. Where no independent relationship exists, the adviser is easily perceived as a remnant of the previous social order rather than a partner in the next. A key question is therefore not whether heirs know who the advisor is, but whether they would choose to have a relationship with them in the absence of inheritance.
Why Capital Still Matters, But in Different Ways
“Younger inheritors place a high value on human connection, aligned values, empathy, and collaboration.”
What ultimately sustains the advisor’s relationship is the strength of their social capital, alongside a third form: symbolic capital. Symbolic capital is the authority and credibility an advisor holds in the eyes of clients, and perceived value to the client’s evolving needs. Recent research by the Teachers of Insurance and Annuity Association of America Institute (tiaa-institute-mit-future-of-advice-kolluri-march-2025.pdf) reinforces this, showing that above all else clients prioritise an advisor’s credibility, and specifically reputation, expertise, and trustworthiness. Advisors must therefore continually reproduce their symbolic capital, ensuring their credibility and relevance are recognised by the next generation.
Taken together, this broader view of capital shifts the focus from simply holding assets to understanding how advisory relationships endure and evolve across generations and through the reproduction of capital. Technical knowledge still matters, but it is only part of the equation. Cultural, social, and symbolic capital are what anchor relationships across generations.
Reframing Retention ass the Reproduction of Capital
There’s an uncomfortable truth about the Great Wealth transfer. The credibility, trust, and status built with one generation will not transfer in the same way assets do. Bourdieu’s concept of capitals brings this to light and suggests that successful intergenerational retention is not about preserving what already exists. It is about reproducing it in a new context, and this means starting again, to some extent.
The implication is clear. Early engagement with heirs creates the space to build social and symbolic capital over time. Where those relationships are in place, the point of wealth transfer becomes less about client retention risk and more about maintaining relations that still hold value to the next generation.
Conclusion – Advice as a Social Practice
A sociological lens helps explain why adviser relationships may not survive the passing of a client. With the Great Wealth Transfer expected to impact a majority of US Affluent households (The Great Generational Wealth Transfer – Glenmede), those who endure will be the advisors who do more than manage economic capital. They are the advisers who can successfully reproduce the social and symbolic capital on which their legitimacy depends.
About the Author
Dr Sarah McLaughlin
Dr Sarah McLaughlin is a sociologist and academic lead at a Russell Group university in the UK, and a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. She brings a distinctive blend of academic rigour and real-world relevance to her writing, offering rigorous yet accessible perspectives on the structural and human forces that drive behaviour, influence culture, and shape how people learn and make decisions in complex organisational settings.
Sources
The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History Is Here, With Familiar (Rich) Winners – The New York Times
How to navigate the ‘great wealth transfer,’ according to top advisors
Cerulli Anticipates $124 Trillion in Wealth Will… | Cerulli Associates
According to Cerulli Anticipates $124 Trillion in Wealth Will… | Cerulli Associates
- Industry estimates suggest around USD 120–125 trillion will be transferred in the US alone by the late 2040s. [cerulli.com], [glenmede.com]
- Over half of this wealth (≈ USD 60+ trillion) is expected to come from HNW and UHNW households, despite them representing only ~2% of all households. [cerulli.com], and The Great Generational Wealth Transfer – Glenmede
- A substantial portion of transfers initially move between spouses (often to widowed women), before passing intergenerationally to heirs. [cerulli.com], and The Great Wealth Transfer estimate just increased close to 50%. Is this good or bad news for wealth firms?
Why this matters for HNW clients:
HNW families are the primary drivers of the GWT, both in absolute value and in the complexity of assets being transferred (business interests, trusts, private markets, international holdings).
tiaa-institute-mit-future-of-advice-kolluri-march-2025.pdf
The Great Generational Wealth Transfer – Glenmede
How Will the Great Wealth Transfer Impact the Mar
Continue Reading
This editorial is featured in Modern American Advisor’s Torches of Freedom issue, alongside interviews, commentary and analysis exploring the forces reshaping wealth management. Explore more perspectives on AI, leadership, innovation and financial advice
