The notion of a massive intergenerational wealth transfer has become a staple of industry conferences and marketing materials, but some practitioners argue the phenomenon is more nuanced than the headlines suggest. While Cerulli Associates projected in 2024 that $124 trillion would change hands by 2048, Dr. Jim Grubman, a psychologist and owner of Family Wealth Consulting, cautions that such figures are projections, not certainties.
Grubman, author of "Strangers in Paradise" and "Wealth 3.0," traces the concept back to a 1999 Boston College study that estimated a wealth transfer of at least $41 trillion between 1998 and 2052, with a possible high of $136 trillion. That study emerged during the dot-com boom, a period of rapid wealth creation that fueled expectations of a dramatic handoff. However, Grubman notes that longevity and changing demographics have made the timeline less predictable.
"It's much less dramatic than what a lot of people think," Grubman told InvestmentNews. He emphasizes that the transfer is "back-end loaded," with only about $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion passing annually. Citing Federal Reserve data showing U.S. household net worth at $154.3 trillion in 2023, he points out that $1.5 trillion represents just 1% of that total. "It's not because anything has changed in inheritance, it's because the denominator has changed," he said.
Moreover, the wealth being transferred is not primarily cash. Grubman notes that the top 1% hold a disproportionate share of assets, much of it in illiquid forms like company ownership shares and trusts. Federal Reserve data from 2020 shows the average inheritance is $46,200, but for the wealthiest 1%, that figure jumps to $719,000. This disparity underscores the uneven nature of the transfer.
Zach Mangels, senior vice president and advisor at Wealthspire Advisors, echoes Grubman's skepticism. "What I am not sure is going to happen is if it's going to be this massive, immediate wealth transfer," he said. "It feels like it's more of a slower move." Mangels advises clients to consider gifting assets while they are alive, rather than waiting for a transfer that may be gradual and partial.
For advisors, the practical implications are significant. Rather than planning for a lump-sum inheritance event, they should stress-test retirement and estate plans that assume such a windfall. They might also encourage aging clients to make gifts now, allowing them to see the impact of their generosity. This approach aligns with the growing focus on preparing heirs for wealth, not just transferring assets.
The real estate market offers a glimpse of the transfer's scale. In 2025, inherited homes accounted for a record 7% of all U.S. property transfers, totaling 340,000 properties, according to Cotality (formerly CoreLogic). Yet that number is small relative to the roughly 30 million homes owned by those aged 65 and older, per Realtor.com. This suggests that the transfer will unfold over decades, not overnight.
Grubman also points out that inheritance patterns haven't fundamentally changed. "Has the pattern of inheriting really changed? The answer on that piece is no," he said. The focus should be on the broader context, including the denominator effect, rather than the headline number.
For advisors, the takeaway is to help clients make a difference today. Mangels notes that receiving help in one's 30s, 40s, or 50s can be transformative, whereas waiting for a distant inheritance may be less impactful. This aligns with research suggesting that delays in wealth transfer can cost families more than money.
Ultimately, the Great Wealth Transfer is a moving target. Advisors who plan for a gradual, illiquid transfer—and who engage clients in proactive gifting—will be better positioned than those who wait for a single, dramatic event. As Grubman puts it, "We don't know how much money will transfer in 2040, because we don't know how much money there will be in total in 2040."
