Women in Wealth: are we still missing the mark?

This is not a new insight. The rise of women’s wealth has been extensively researched for over a decade. And yet, despite the volume of data, much of the industry’s response still feels misaligned.

The data is not the problem

• More risk-aware (JP Morgan)
• More values-driven, particularly around social and environmental impact (CNBC/Cerulli Associates)
• More likely to prioritise clarity (Unbiased)

When comparative data becomes a blunt instrument

Most conclusions about women in wealth are based on relative comparisons between men and women, not absolute differences.

The distinction matters.

When research says women are “more likely” than men to behave in a certain way, it often implies a dramatic divergence. In reality, the difference is frequently single-digit or low double-digit percentage points.

“More likely” does not mean “fundamentally different.” And it certainly does not mean “all women.”

The second issue is more subtle, but more damaging.

The narrative typically focuses on the percentage of women who respond differently to men. What then gets lost is the significant minority of women who respond the same as men.

Over time, “more likely than men” quietly becomes “this is what all women want.”

Example one: risk appetite

JP Morgan research shows women are more likely than men to describe themselves as risk-averse.

77% percent of women characterised their approach as risk-averse. 58% of men also described themselves as risk-averse. Caution is not a uniquely female trait.

It’s also not a trait that applies to all women. If 77% describe themselves as risk-averse,  that means nearly 25% of women did not.

If, as a wealth manager, you over index on risk-aversion when communicating with women, you’ll immediately alienate a quarter of your audience.

Adding further nuance, an iShares study claims that though women are risk aware, 74% of women actually maintain a moderate to aggressive risk tolerance.

Example two: impact investing

Research shows women are more likely than men to express interest in sustainable and impact investing. This narrative was especially prevalent during the ESG craze.

A Cerulli Associates study endorsed by CNBC found that 52% of women would prefer to invest in companies with a positive social or environmental impact.

The same study showed 44% of men would prefer to invest in companies with a positive impact. So, yes, it is true to say that more women have that preference, but it is by a relatively narrow margin.

But the data tells us something else: almost half of women do not prioritise impact. That is a substantial group who should not be ignored.

The headline is: Women prefer values-based investing. That is a leap the data doesn’t necessarily support.

Example three: clarity vs confidence

A UK study by Unbiased found that 70% of women value clear communication from financial advisers.

This is frequently interpreted as evidence of lower financial literacy or confidence. But 61% of men also value clear communication.

Clarity is not a gendered preference. It is a universal expectation.

Similarly, while some studies suggest women report lower confidence levels, others present a far more nuanced and evolving picture. The iShares (Blackrock) Women and Investing Survey (2025) found:

• 71% of women describe themselves as confident decision-makers
• Two-thirds say their confidence has increased in recent years

Recent McKinsey research supports this upward trend in confidence.

There is a risk here of conflating two different concepts – expecting or preferring clarity is not the same as needing education.

Clear communication should be the default for everyone. But over-simplified communication should not be the default for all women.

Framing matters

It’s also worth considering for all these examples that survey results depend entirely on how questions are framed, particularly in a jargon-heavy industry like wealth management.

Take impact investing. There is a meaningful difference between asking:

“Are you more likely to invest in companies with positive social or environmental impact?” and “Is impact investing a top priority in your portfolio construction?”

They measure different things. The first tests preference. The second tests priority.

Yet, in the example of the CNBC article mentioned above, respondents were asked the first question, while the headline implied the second.

The same pattern appears in discussions around risk.

Across the two cited studies – JP Morgan and iShares – the terminology shifts between ‘risk-averse’, ‘risk-aware’ and ‘risk tolerance’. These phrases are used almost interchangeably, but they don’t all mean or measure the same thing.

• Risk-averse suggests a behavioural inclination to avoid risk.
• Risk-aware implies an understanding and consideration of downside.
• Risk tolerance measures the level of volatility or potential loss an investor says they are willing to accept in pursuit of returns.

The point is, awareness becomes aversion. Preference becomes priority. 
Naturally, language and framing will differ across different pieces of research. The danger is that one conclusion is drawn from a range of sources that were measuring slightly different things.

The second trap: age and marital status as proxies for capability

Alongside behavioural generalisation sits another persistent shortcut: segmentation by age and marital status.

Common implicit assumptions include:

• If a woman is in a relationship, financial decisions sit with her partner.
• If she is single, divorced or widowed, she is inexperienced or uncertain.

These assumptions are often applied regardless of age and without examining lived experience.

Consider two women:

Both are 55 years old. Both are widowed. Traditional segmentation might assume they share similar needs.

But imagine:

Woman A

• Her partner historically managed the finances
• She is newly self-directed
• She prioritises security and legacy for her children

Woman B

• She was the primary earner and decision-maker
• She plans early retirement and extensive travel
• She has no children
• She has a higher appetite for calculated risk

Same age. Same marital status. Radically different motivations, experience levels and expectations.

Put simply, age and marital status are demographic data points. They provide surface-level context, but they do not necessarily reveal someone’s experience, priorities, motivations or service needs.

The core issue: how insight turns into assumption

The issue is not that the data is wrong. The issue is how high-level, comparative insight becomes a blanket strategy.

When applied without nuance, research can lead firms to:

• Simplify language to the point of over-reduction
• Default to conservative, risk-cautious narratives
• Over-index on impact and purpose
• Frame communications primarily around education and reassurance

This is not inclusion. It is a misalignment. A strategy designed for the majority tendency (especially when derived from relative comparison) can miss large portions of the audience.

Based on the research cited:

• Impact-led campaigns may be irrelevant to nearly half of women
• De-risked narratives may alienate the 75% of female investors with moderate to aggressive risk tolerance
• Over-simplified language may disengage the 71% of women who consider themselves confident decision-makers

This is not a dismissal of women who prioritise caution, clarity and impact. That is a large and important group.

The mistake is assuming that group represents all women.

What leading firms will do differently

Firms that truly capitalise on the gendered wealth shift will move beyond:

• Gender as a blanket behavioural assumption
• Age and marital status as shorthand for capability
• Comparative data as a substitute for segmentation

Instead, they will build personas grounded in:

• Confidence and financial experience
• Values and motivations
• Life goals and decision dynamics
• The nature and origin of wealth

The final framing

Women’s wealth is one of the most significant structural shifts in modern financial services. The research exists and the opportunity is clear.

But if insight continues to be applied as an assumption, firms will continue to miss the mark.

Women aren’t one segment. They’re a diverse, commercially powerful audience. And the firms that operationalise that nuance will be the ones that win.

If your firm is ready to evolve its brand, content, and communications to more effectively reach women in wealth, Rationale can help. Get in touch.