How Generative AI Will Change the Way You Use the Web, From Search to Shopping

People seeking information online will increasingly go first to TikTok, ChatGPT and other applications powered by generative artificial intelligence, instead of using traditional search engines, said Michael Wolf, co-founder and chief executive of consulting firm Activate.

Today, about 13 million U.S. adults begin their web searches by using generative AI, Activate data show. Wolf predicts that will grow to more than 90 million by 2027 because generative AI is capable of providing results with far greater precision and customisation.

“Generative AI fundamentally changes the model for search because the results are no longer links,” said Wolf, who gave a presentation of Activate’s findings at The Wall Street Journal’s Tech Live conference on Tuesday. “It serves up your information totally packaged and ready to use.”

Applications rife with customer data will benefit the most from this shift, Wolf said, as they will be better equipped to serve their users with personalised information. He expects TikTok to lead in this area because Activate estimates that its users already spend an average of more than 54 minutes a day on it, compared with 49 minutes daily on YouTube, 33 on Instagram and 31 on Facebook.

Amazon and other major e-commerce platforms have also embraced generative AI to better recommend products for users based on their past behaviour, along with many music- and video-streaming apps, Wolf said.

For example, Spotify earlier this year introduced AI DJ, a feature that offers a curated lineup of music alongside commentary around the tracks and artists that the app thinks users will like. “Choices are being made for you,” Wolf said.

Google and other search engines are also taking advantage of generative AI, yet Wolf said they might not remain the first stop or default option for most people. People are devoting more of their time to social media, entertainment platforms, online videogames and other utility apps that are also embracing the technology.

According to Wolf, domination within the $100 billion search industry is “up for grabs” and large, established companies aren’t necessarily going to outmuscle startups. The rise of open-source AI models is paving a pathway for smaller entrants to potentially make a big impact, he said.

Adoption of generative AI is being driven by a significant increase in the amount of time people spend online—behavior boosted by the pandemic, Activate data show. With people spending more time online, they are becoming adept at using multiple applications at once, enabling them to accomplish more in a single day than would otherwise be possible. Today, the average U.S. adult spends 13 hours daily multitasking among video, audio, games, social media and various technology and media activities.

“AI is making everybody into a metaverse creator,” Wolf said, referring to extensive online worlds where people interact via digital avatars.

Generative AI is poised to disrupt the internet in other ways besides search, such as content creation, Wolf said. By typing simple text prompts into applications featuring the technology, anyone—not just tech-savvy folks who know how to write code—will be able to make videogames, artwork, music and even entire virtual worlds on their own.

More predictions from Wolf’s presentation:

  • Nearly all U.S. households, more than 120 million, will be able to access the internet through their television sets by 2027. Whether people own a smart TV or have a device like Roku, the TV screen will play a bigger role than ever, driving subscriptions for streaming services and capturing valuable viewing data.
  • By 2027, the average video-streaming subscriber will have 5.8 subscriptions, up from 4.9 today. With many such applications now offering the option to see ads in exchange for lower monthly fees, Activate predicts ad revenues across the major video streaming services will grow 25% annually through 2027.
  • Spatial computing—the ability to interact with virtual imagery displayed without obstructing a user’s view of the real world—won’t be limited to pricey virtual- and augmented-reality headsets. The technology will be prevalent on almost any internet-connected device with a screen, from car navigation systems and kitchen appliances to digital door locks and mall kiosks.
  • Online sports betting will continue to grow and evolve. The activity became legal five years ago, and it is now available in 35 states. Activate forecasts that U.S. adults will collectively wager $186 billion annually by 2027, up from about $123 billion today. Another change: Sportsbooks today rely on extensive sign-up and referral bonuses to attract new customers, but going forward retention will be driven by improved betting options and user experiences.
  • While the average U.S. adult will spend 13 hours a day multitasking by 2027, the majority of the time will entail watching video, followed by listening to music, podcasts and other audio, and playing videogames. How consumers will spend this time with technology and media will differ across generations. For example, YouTube and other social-media platforms will become the top destinations for younger adults looking to discover new music, while those over the age of 35 will still rely on the radio.

STEP ASIDE, BANKS. TESLA AND NETFLIX EARNINGS ARE THE REAL TESTS

Forget banks—third-quarter earnings season doesn’t start until Wednesday, when Netflix and Tesla report.

Since Alcoa’s (ticker: AA) abdication, the kickoff of earnings season has been assigned to the U.S.’s big banks, including JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Citigroup (C), which reported earnings on Friday. This despite the fact that some large, prominent companies, including PepsiCo (PEP) and Delta Air Lines (DAL), disclosed their results earlier in the week.

Don’t expect the overall market to care too much about how the banks do. The S&P 500 financials sector, which includes banks and insurers but also Visa (V) and Mastercard (MA), totals 12.7% of the index’s market value. Its earnings contribution is expected to be larger, at 17.4% of third-quarter earnings, according to data from Refinitiv. But these days, the banks are less a reflection of the U.S. economy than they are of monetary and regulatory policy, which take up a good portion of their earnings calls.

No, earnings season doesn’t really get started until Wednesday, when the first of the large technology-oriented stocks that have driven the S&P 500 this year are set to report. That would be Tesla (TSLA) and Netflix (NFLX), followed by Alphabet (GOOGL), Microsoft (MSFT), Meta Platforms (META), Amazon.com (AMZN) next week, and then Apple (AAPL) on Nov. 2. Nvidia’s (NVDA) fiscal third quarter doesn’t end until Oct. 31, and it will report in late November.

The Magnificent Eight punch well above their fundamental weight, thanks to premium valuation multiples. The group makes up roughly 30% of the S&P 500’s market capitalisation but is expected to contribute just 10% of the index’s third-quarter sales and 16% of earnings, according to Refinitiv. Hits and misses from their results will prompt outsize moves in the index.

Take Meta, which Wall Street analysts expect to report $8.0 billion in earnings for the third quarter, up 120% from the same period last year. That’s nearly a full percentage-point contribution to the S&P 500’s overall expected earnings growth in the quarter.

Nvidia is responsible for another 1.5 percentage point of expected growth, Amazon for 0.6 point, and Alphabet and Microsoft for 0.5 point each. With growth rates like those, how well the biggest companies on the market do could meaningfully swing overall S&P 500’s earnings growth one way or another.

There’s a slim margin for error: Analysts are predicting 1.3% year-over-year earnings growth from the S&P 500 in the third quarter, per Refinitiv. The biggest expected individual detractors from the index’s year-over-year earnings growth are Exxon Mobil (XOM)—a 1.9-percentage-point drag—and Pfizer (PFE), a 1.5-point drag.

That’s before considering the potential impact to investor sentiment from Big Tech’s results. In a year dominated by macro themes, the enthusiasm around artificial intelligence has been one of the greatest bullish drivers of the stock market. Nvidia’s results are showing the benefit already, while other companies are more likely to be merely talking up the technology’s transformative potential.

Hype can only go so far—eventually even Microsoft, Meta, and Alphabet will need to show that their AI investments are yielding a positive return. The third quarter of 2023 is still early innings in the AI revolution, but signs of progress will be cheered by investors, and may be necessary to justify many of the Magnificent Eight’s huge rallies this year.

Third-quarter earnings season may have officially kicked off, but the real action has yet to begin.

Disney Goes All In on Sports Betting

In early 2019, an analyst asked Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger if sports betting could coexist with the House of Mouse’s brand. He said he didn’t see the company facilitating gambling in any way.

Just four years later, the world’s most beloved name in family entertainment is going all-in on sports betting.

In August, the company struck a 10-year deal with sports-betting company Penn Entertainment to bring gambling to Disney’s ESPN sports network. Sports fans will be able to wager on games on their phones through a new app called ESPN Bet that accepts bets through Penn’s sportsbook.

The idea of gambling under the same roof as Disney has roiled some company executives and employees who feel it will damage the brand that is synonymous with princesses and talking cartoon ducks. In the last year, at least one large investor warned Disney that it might have to sell some of its Disney stake if the company embraced betting.

But for ESPN President Jimmy Pitaro and Iger, who saw his two adult sons glued to gambling apps on their smartphones, the chance to engage a younger male audience, and the money, were eventually too good to pass up. Penn will pay Disney $1.5 billion in cash while ESPN will receive warrants worth about $500 million to purchase shares in the gambling company. Penn will operate the app and Disney will help market it.

This is how sports in America works. Fans watch and they bet—particularly young men between the ages of 18 and 34—often making multiple complicated bets during a live sporting event. They can wager on how many 3-pointers a basketball player will sink or who will catch the final fly ball in a baseball game. It is huge on college campuses.

Wagering on games ballooned after a 2018 Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for states to adopt it. It is legal in 38 states and the District of Columbia. Last year, online sports gambling generated $7.6 billion in revenue—the amount companies received after paying out winning bets. Next year, revenue is expected to grow to $11.8 billion, according to Eilers & Krejcik Gaming, an industry consulting firm.

ESPN, like more traditional TV networks, is struggling with the decline in cable TV subscribers and the rising cost of sports-broadcasting rights. Sports leagues and legions of startups have embraced gambling, while large media companies have homed in on betting as one of the best ways to expand.

But Disney employees, more than most other workers, feel that their company stands for a set of wholesome ideals—something more than making money.

In mid-2022, Jenny Cohen, a Disney veteran who had been promoted to head of corporate social responsibility a year earlier, raised concerns about a potential foray into sports betting to top executives at Disney’s Burbank, Calif., headquarters and leaders at ESPN, urging them to reconsider their plan to strike a deal with a sports-betting operator.

She told her colleagues, and Disney’s CEO at the time, Bob Chapek, that sports betting would tarnish the Disney brand, according to people familiar with the discussions. Consumers could start associating Disney with gambling addiction, she argued. As this discussion brewed, Disney was already managing a crisis with many employees who felt their employer didn’t take enough of a stand against a Florida bill that prohibits instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity for young students, known by its opponents as the “Don’t Say Gay” legislation.

Around the same time, BlackRock, the investment giant which uses socially-conscious environmental, social and governance—or ESG—criteria to guide some of its investing decisions, contacted Disney’s investor relations staff. It warned Disney that if the company did a deal with a sportsbook, ESG rules may require some of its European funds to reduce their Disney stakes, people familiar with the matter said.

Disney is also contending with a fresh push by activist investor Nelson Peltz’s Trian Fund Management to secure multiple board seats, The Journal reported this week. Trian thinks Disney’s stock is undervalued and that Disney needs a board that is more focused and accountable. It is unclear what other changes the hedge fund plans to seek. Peltz and Trian haven’t publicly taken a position on ESPN and gambling.

There are Disney fans, Disney+ subscribers and theme park visitors that likely have no idea that ESPN is part of Disney, but internally, Disney’s businesses are perceived as interconnected parts of one overarching corporate brand: a place where dreams come true. The ESPN+ streaming service is offered as part of Disney’s streaming bundle, and ESPN promotes shows from other Disney-owned networks during its broadcasts, and vice versa. This week, for example, ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel appeared on ESPN2’s football show the “Manningcast.”

“My job is to protect the brand at all costs,” said Pitaro, in an interview. “I am the custodian of the ESPN brand, and we needed to make sure that whoever we went with on this journey was someone that we could trust.”

Disney first began flirting with sports betting in March 2019, when it completed its $71.3 billion acquisition of Fox’s major entertainment assets, which included a 6% stake in sports betting company DraftKings.

At the time, some of Iger’s top lieutenants urged him to take a bigger ownership stake in the gambling company, but Iger resisted, arguing that betting wasn’t on-brand for Disney.

Without his blessing, sports-betting discussions stalled until Iger stepped down as CEO in February of 2020, and the board named his veteran head of parks, Chapek, to replace him.

Chapek had a much different view of gambling. He told associates that he was “not that precious about the Disney brand,” compared with his predecessor when it came to sports betting.

He began exploring a potential partnership with a sportsbook, and Disney started up talks with DraftKings, which now has more than 30% share of the sports-betting market. At the time, DraftKings had a marketing arrangement with ESPN, by which it would link ESPN.com readers to make online bets through DraftKings.

Despite Cohen’s objections, Disney signaled that it was seeking a new deal worth around $3 billion over a decade, and Chapek and Pitaro gave news interviews, saying that ESPN customers wanted a “seamless” betting option as part of the sports-viewing experience. ESPN had already embraced sports betting within its programming, including in its “Daily Wager” show, which analyzes odds for sports matchups.

Pitaro intensified his matchmaking efforts with DraftKings, but from the outset, the two companies were far apart. Disney asked for tens of millions of dollars a year more than DraftKings was willing to pay, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Eventually, DraftKings offered around $100 million a year for ESPN to use its sportsbook, but DraftKings wanted its brand included on any app or marketing as part of the deal. That was a nonstarter for Pitaro. He wanted solo ESPN branding.

His team began negotiating with Rush Street Interactive, a smaller, Chicago-based gambling company. RSI offered ESPN more than $100 million a year, but a deal never came together.

Pitaro felt pressure to secure ESPN’s future, particularly among young male fans who increasingly expect betting to be a seamlessly-integrated part of the sports-watching experience. By this time, Iger had returned to Disney as its CEO after the board ousted Chapek in November of last year, and the company was hard at work on plans to remake ESPN as a streaming-focused platform. Iger had told interviewers that he had seen the writing on the wall for the traditional TV business, which was showing signs of being on its deathbed.

Overall, Disney was struggling. Its foundering share price had drawn attacks from activist investors including both Peltz and Dan Loeb’s Third Point, its streaming business was bleeding cash and its whole traditional television business, more than just ESPN, was suffering as more people dropped their cable TV subscriptions in favor of streaming. Disney is currently exploring potential strategic partners for ESPN and has had talks with major sports leagues about it.

Iger quickly set about trimming fat, announcing $5.5 billion in budget cuts and the elimination of 7,000 positions, around 3% of Disney’s total global workforce.

Soon, Iger warmed up to sports betting. His adult sons’ use of sports-betting apps opened his eyes to its popularity with a younger audience, he told associates. He said that it is “inevitable” that sports-watching and sports-betting will go hand-in-hand, and he blessed Pitaro’s efforts to find Disney a partner. Getting involved with gambling was the only way to ensure that ESPN is able to continue to attract younger audiences, he reasoned.

Along came Penn, the Wyomissing, Pa.-based casino operator turned sports-betting company that also needed a makeover after it got into regulatory and reputational trouble over its ownership of sports-media company Barstool Sports, founded by Dave Portnoy. Several women have accused Portnoy of sexual misconduct—allegations he has denied.

Penn runs casinos and racetracks in smaller regional markets like Lake Charles, La., Biloxi, Miss., and York, Pa., and its CEO Jay Snowden wanted to remake the company into a digital gambling powerhouse.

Snowden first met Pitaro in his office for about a 90-minute meeting earlier this year. Pitaro left thinking Snowden was “a straight shooter” who knew what he was doing, the ESPN executive said.

Pitaro quickly deployed teams working on ESPN’s sports-betting, tech, strategy and marketing into parallel talks with Penn to flesh out what a potential partnership could look like. He said Penn’s technology, including the functionality and design of the app, stood out. In addition, Disney views Penn’s tiny market share as an advantage because ESPN can have more control over branding the app and not have to share the spotlight with a better-established player, according to people familiar with Disney’s stance.

There was a key requirement to move forward with a Disney deal. Penn had to dump Barstool.

When Penn began acquiring Barstool in a series of transactions starting in 2020, the gambling company hoped it would help it build a young customer base. Barstool runs an extensive sports-content operation that has drawn criticism for sexism and some of its employees’ crude behaviour. Gambling regulators ultimately fined Penn for violating rules about marketing to people under the age of 21 and scrutinised advertisements that appeared to promise financial success. Barstool said it was being sarcastic.

Pitaro informed Iger of the talks in an early June meeting, and the CEO liked the idea of a partnership with Penn. Pitaro had long held out hope that Disney could fashion a deal with DraftKings, a market-leading online gambling company that was seen by some inside Disney as a natural fit, but the negotiations had become bogged down.

Pitaro suggested that they end talks with DraftKings. Iger, who felt that the negotiations had gone on too long and DraftKings’ demands weren’t reasonable, agreed. Besides, Penn was offering a better price. It was time to move on.

In June, Pitaro presented the Penn deal to Disney’s board at a meeting in Anaheim, Calif., and in early August, the day before Disney was set to announce third-quarter financial results, Disney announced the $2 billion deal.

Penn needed to rebrand the Barstool Sportsbook app into ESPN Bet under the new deal. To quickly make room for Disney, the company sold Barstool back to Portnoy for $1, just six months after fully acquiring the company. Penn kept the database of 1.5 million online betting customers it has accrued, which the company aims to retain under the ESPN name.

ESPN and Penn have the option to walk away from the partnership in three years if the venture hasn’t captured a minimum market share target. Snowden declined to say the exact target, but said it was around 10%.

“There’s only one ESPN,” Snowden said. “If we were going to make a pivot, there was really one option to do that, and that was with what is the only name that is truly synonymous with sports in the United States.”

ESPN sports programming won’t be pushed into the betting app when it launches in November so as not to slow down the betting experience, Snowden said. Instead, the goal is for ESPN viewers and readers to easily switch back and forth between sports and the betting app.

Pitaro said that many on-air stars are eager to get involved with ESPN Bet, and the company plans to announce an expanded talent lineup to host and promote its gambling-related products and shows. ESPN forged a partnership with former NFL punter and foul-mouthed YouTube star Pat McAfee, who is known for hosting broadcasts in sleeveless T-shirts and making occasional off-colour jokes. He will promote ESPN Bet to his audience.

ESPN is also considering alternative broadcasts of games focused on betting, similar to the popular version of Monday Night Football hosted by former NFL stars and brothers Eli and Peyton Manning that airs on ESPN2 and ESPN+, and plans to promote betting to its growing fantasy-sports audience. Pitaro said its fantasy platform is expected to reach more than 12 million users this year, a 10% increase from the previous year.

“Getting into sports betting is a perceived business necessity for ESPN,” said John Kosner, a former ESPN executive who now runs Kosner Media. “I think this decision has to do more with ESPN’s manifest destiny than Disney’s position on branding.”

The Secret to Living to 100? It’s Not Good Habits

If you want to live to your 100th birthday, healthy habits can only get you so far.

Research is making clearer the role that genes play in living to very old age. Habits like getting enough sleep, exercising and eating a healthy diet can help you stave off disease and live longer, yet when it comes to living beyond 90, genetics start to play a trump card, say researchers who study ageing.

“Some people have this idea: ‘If I do everything right, diet and exercise, I can live to be 150.’ And that’s really not correct,” says Robert Young, who directs a team of researchers at the nonprofit scientific organisation Gerontology Research Group.

About 25% of your ability to live to 90 is determined by genetics, says Dr. Thomas Perls, a professor of medicine at Boston University who leads the New England Centenarian Study, which has followed centenarians and their family members since 1995. By age 100, it’s roughly 50% genetic, he estimates, and by around 106, it’s 75%.

Knowing what enables some people to live very long lives has consequences for the rest of us. Ongoing research into very old age may help provide insight that could eventually be used to develop drugs or identify lifestyle changes to help people live healthier for longer, says Dr. James Kirkland, president of the American Federation for Aging Research.

Who makes it to 100

Centenarians make up a growing share of the U.S. population. There are about 109,000 centenarians living in the country in 2023, according to Census Bureau projections, up from about 65,000 10 years ago, thanks in part to decades of advances in medicine and public health.

Despite a decline in life expectancy, which dropped to 76.4 in 2021, Perls estimates that roughly 20% of the population has the genetic makeup that could get them to 100 if they also make consistent healthy choices.

Not only do centenarians live longer, but data suggest they manage to avoid or delay age-related diseases like cancer, dementia and cardiovascular disease longer than the general population. Among the New England Centenarian Study participants, 15% are “escapers,” or people with no demonstrable disease at the age of 100; some 43% are “delayers,” those who didn’t develop age-related disease until age 80 or after.

Chuck Ullman, who is 97 and lives in a retirement community in Thousand Oaks, Calif., says he is free of health problems—aside from a sore right shoulder from a recent electric biking accident—and has no desire to live to a particular age. He hopes to live as long as he feels good and can do the things he loves, such as woodworking, attending political discussion groups and getting dinner with some of his many friends.

“There are 350 residents here, and I have 350 friends,” Ullman says of his community. He also spends time with Betty, his wife of 77 years. “My objective is to enjoy each and every day that comes along.”

Genes that matter

Researchers have identified some genes and combinations of them that are associated with longevity, such as the presence of a variant of what’s known as the apolipoprotein E gene called e2, a trait thought to help protect against Alzheimer’s. They emphasise each trait is a small piece in a large, complicated puzzle, which can factor in socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, and climate.

Living past 100 requires a combination of many genetic variants, each with a relatively modest effect, says Perls of the New England Centenarian Study.

Gene variants that offer protective qualities, such as repairing DNA damage, are especially beneficial, he says.

People who are curious about how long they might live should start by looking at their family histories. Your relatives’ lifespans are one of the strongest predictors of longevity, says Perls. Ullman, the 97-year-old, says his mother lived to 90.

If multiple members of your family have lived into very advanced age, “you’ve potentially won a much greater chance of having purchased the right lottery ticket,” says Perls.

Good habits

Neurologist Dr. Claudia Kawas has been tracking the habits of the “oldest old,” those older than 90, in Southern California since 2003, as part of a study at the University of California, Irvine. She and a team of researchers have found links between longevity and even short amounts of exercise, social activities such as going to church, and modest caffeine and alcohol intake.

“Super-agers,” or people over the age of 80 whose cognitive abilities are on par with those 20 to 30 years younger, reported having more warm, trusting, high-quality relationships with other people than cognitively normal participants, investigators at Northwestern University found.

“Keeping in good relationships could be one key to healthspan,” says Amanda Cook Maher, a neuropsychologist at the University of Michigan and lead author of the study.

Your outlook also matters. Harvard researchers identified a link between optimism and longer lifespans in women across racial and ethnic groups. Among the study participants, the 25% who were the most optimistic had a greater likelihood of living beyond 90 years than the least-optimistic 25%, according to the 2022 study published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

Jeanne Case, 100, says she has taken a glass-half-full approach to life.

She plans to outlive her colon and skin cancers and keep enjoying swing music and Mexican food as long as she feels physically and mentally well.

A day in her life can include walking a mile, conversing with her writing group or noshing on fish tacos with friends. The Irvine, Calif., resident has always exercised but also enjoys indulgences like cheesecake and lemon bars.

“I try not to let stress bother me,” she says.

Retirement Is a Time to Downsize—and Not Just Stuff

The first year in retirement is often the most difficult. But it also can set the stage for how you’ll fill the years ahead—both financially and psychologically. Stephen Kreider Yoder, a longtime Wall Street Journal editor, joined his wife, Karen Kreider Yoder, in retirement a year ago. In this monthly Retirement Rookies column, the 66-year-olds chronicle some of the issues they are dealing with early in retirement.

Karen

In the kitchen, I look up at my woven companions—16 baskets atop the cabinets. They’re from a dozen countries, and they radiate warm memories.

But wait, do I need so many baskets? And 40 more are around the house, many as decorations or stored in closets.

I’m trying to get rid of stuff methodically early in retirement, and it’s beginning to feel like a steady job. There’s no urgency. But when the time comes for a smaller place, I want to be ready. That time could come any time.

I want to winnow our possessions before there’s a health crisis or moving van at the door, while I can do the hard work of organizing and categorizing, of identifying what I need long-term, what to disperse and what to pitch.

It’s partly psychological. As I age, I find I have less room in my head to keep track of things. And the sheer numbers of some possessions create a growing mental tension.

We were ahead of the game when we retired. We moved a dozen times in 44 years, each time purging a bit. Helping our parents downsize inspired us often to do a sweep of our own when we got home.

Now that we’re both retired, I’ve created some downsizing categories to keep me from being overwhelmed:

• Don’t use it, don’t need it. Old electronics and orphaned cords. Knickknacks without sentimental value. My 20 thimbles from around the world, only one of which I ever use. The 150 beautifully sharpened No. 2 pencils in a row of blue-and-white ceramic pots, one labeled “Pencil Collectors Society.”

I’ll use perhaps a dozen pencils the rest of my life. The others can be off to Goodwill now, along with everything else in this category.

• Things we use now but won’t in a smaller space. Some of the guest-room furniture, extra chairs, large house plants, the piano, a rusty wheelbarrow. We should do an inventory now and label what we’ll ditch when we move.

• Stuff only I can handle. My childhood report cards, recital programs, work accomplishments, letters and such are a priority for thinning out now. Nobody else can make sense of them, but it can feel like throwing away bits of myself.

“But Mom, you have to save all of that,” says our son Isaac. “It’s like your personal legacy.” Maybe I’ll keep more than I intended, for our boys to root through as a window into my youth. (But, I wonder, will they really care about those report cards?) At least, though, I should organize it.

• Family heirlooms and mementos. These, too, are hard to part with, imbued with family history and shared memories.

We aren’t antiquers, but we do have a few elegant old Japanese tansu cabinets the kids grew up with. And I have about 25 quilts, some I made starting at age 7, and many from family and friends. They are works of art and full of memories but too many to fit in a condo.

The boys say they want some but are still too mobile, so at least I should make a plan for who gets what.

• Things I want by my side through older years. Family photos. My Japanese pottery. Journals from our travels. My quilt frame.

And baskets. I have always cherished handmade baskets. My first is from South Dakota, where at 16 I learned willow-basket making from two local weavers. I can’t part with it.

When our son Levi is home, we eat sticky rice with our fingers out of little lidded Laotian rice baskets, recalling Laos when he was age 2 and clutched his sticky-rice basket as we bicycled around Luang Prabang.

In our guest-room closet is a Japanese backpack basket—a gift from a student’s family—whose weaver was a Japanese National Treasure. In my reading room is a basket we bought in a Philippines market in 1987, not knowing it was for a baby until locals pointed and laughed knowingly. It became a bassinet to our three babies, and it’s a treasure.

Five dozen baskets is too many now. How many is just enough?

Steve

A classical guitar in its case stares at me from a corner of the bedroom. “Play me,” it taunts, and I look the other way.

Maybe it’s time I got rid of my lonely 1972 Alvarez Yairi as part of our gradual downsizing.

A tougher thought: I should probably also downsize my pipe dream of someday playing a guitar even moderately well, along with dozens of other unrequited ambitions I’ve clung to for decades. And I’ve got a few erstwhile passions I might best surrender now as well.

Karen talks of ditching stuff, and I’ve got plenty of boxfuls to sacrifice—textbooks, decrepit power tools, hardware that definitely might come in handy some time.

I also should release one or both of my vintage Honda motorcycles, which I’m sentimentally attached to but haven’t ridden in ages.

But for me, downsizing is more than getting rid of stuff. It’s about getting rid of conceptions of myself—of who I was, who I am and who I want to be.

That is, I should sell my motorcycles not just because they take space, but also because I think I’ve permanently moved on from motorcycling, my passion for decades starting at age 12.

Same with my skis and skiing.

Retirement has had a way of giving me permission to begin letting go—of my professional identity, my urge to do financial planning without help, the delusion that I’ll be fit forever. That permission makes it a good time for some wanna-do triage.

There are things I still intend to get to, now that I have more time. I want to weld better, brush up my Spanish, improve my swimming, study more history and learn to drive an 18-wheeler. There are activities we’re already stepping up, like traveling more in Africa, cycling around America, visiting family and seeking long-term volunteering opportunities that match our skills.

But finding time for all of it requires that I liberate other I-will-get-to-its that are increasingly a mental burden. I will probably never learn Arabic and should forgive myself of that, and French. I can get rid of the beer-brewing equipment I bought when I was 23 and discharge the notion that I’ll ever learn to use it.

I will probably never write a book; may I free myself from that weight? I hereby declare I can die happy enough without visiting Machu Picchu, the Galápagos or Rome as I’d once hoped to do. There are plenty of other places we want to go, and not time for everywhere.

Our house is a standing to-do list of fun projects I’ve put off and may never get to—or shouldn’t, lest I fall off a ladder and meet an untimely demise. Let’s just release some of those projects, too.

When I bought the Alvarez in 1981, my guitar teacher said I had talent. His kind words kindled my decadeslong conviction that I would learn to play it well, eventually. We moved to Japan the next year, and I took along the guitar but didn’t find a teacher—temporarily, I told myself.

The guitar moved with us many times until 2012, when Karen bought me lessons with a fabulous teacher for my birthday and I began learning again. I did pretty well, even playing in a few modest recitals. But I dropped it—temporarily, I said—when we moved out of town for a year.

Now there it sits. It’s time to set it free.

Or is it? I finally have the bandwidth. I just opened the case, and only one string is broken, a good omen. Maybe this time I really can learn to play it.

A Gilded Age Is Fading for Luxury Brands

The end of easy money is catching up with luxury brands. It took a long time, so the skills needed to protect their profit margins may be a bit rusty.

Shares in the world’s biggest luxury company, LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, fell 6% Wednesday after it reported a slowdown in sales for the third quarter the previous evening. LVMH grew sales by 9% for the three months through September compared with a year ago. That sounds impressive, but the business was growing at almost double this pace in the second quarter.

Demand for luxury goods has slowed for most products and in all major regions. One surprise was a 14% drop in sales at LVMH’s wines and spirits divisions. Shipments of cognac brands such as Hennessy have been weak in the U.S. all year as cash from pandemic stimulus checks runs out, but the trend is getting worse.

The slowdown is no longer limited to “aspirational” shoppers, as the industry lingo frames less wealthy buyers. Sales of LVMH’s expensive watch and jewellery brands were weaker than analysts expected. And wealthy European consumers who were spending freely on luxury goods early this summer turned cautious in the third quarter.

Investors knew that a slowdown was coming, but not how big it would be. After Wednesday’s share-price drop, LVMH has lost a quarter of its market value in roughly six months. The slump may be more severe at weaker rivals like Burberry or Gucci owner Kering, whose stocks also fell Wednesday. Recently, the entire luxury industry has fallen out of fashion with shareholders, who at the start of the year expected a bigger surge in Chinese demand after the country lifted all pandemic restrictions.

With business probably as good as it can get in China, there is no obvious place the industry can turn to for new growth. Weaker demand for luxury goods will damp brands’ ability to raise prices. Last year, exceptionally strong sales helped them lift prices by 8% on average, according to UBS estimates. This pricing power has been a big draw for investors, and boosted profit margins, but it is probably over for now. In the four years leading up to the pandemic, prices rose only 1.2% annually on average.

Luxury companies face a balancing act with their multibillion-dollar advertising budgets and store-rollout plans. They may need to save cash to protect margins. At the same time, they must continue to spend on advertising to maintain their trademark desirability.

Some perspective is necessary, though: Today, LVMH’s fashion-and-leather-goods division, its main profit driver, is 80% larger than it was in the third quarter of 2019, before the pandemic. The industry has had an amazing run and is expected to grow in 2024. Still, some of the sheen that made it particularly attractive to investors in recent years has faded.

Last month, LVMH was even dethroned as Europe’s most valuable company by Novo Nordisk, the Danish pharmaceutical company behind weight-loss drug Ozempic. Leaner times ahead.

The U.S. Economy’s Secret Weapon: Seniors With Money to Spend

Why has consumer spending proven so resilient as the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates? An important and little-appreciated reason: Consumers are getting older.

In August, 17.7% of the population was 65 or older, according to the Census Bureau, the highest on record going back to 1920 and up sharply from 13% in 2010. The elderly aren’t just more numerous: Their finances are relatively healthy and they have less need to borrow, such as to buy a house, and are less at risk of layoffs than other consumers.

This has made the elderly a spending force to be reckoned with. Americans age 65 and up accounted for 22% of spending last year, the highest share since records began in 1972 and up from 15% in 2010, according to the Labor Department’s survey of consumer expenditures released in September.

“These are the consumers that will matter over the coming year,” said Susan Sterne, chief economist at Economic Analysis Associates.

“Our large share of older consumers provides a consumption base in times like today when job growth slows, interest rates rise and student-debt loan repayments begin again,” she said.

Seniors’ high spending propensities reflect health, wealth and perhaps lingering psychological effects of the pandemic.

“All my life it was, save for this, save for that,” said Maureen Green, 66, of Cape Cod, Mass. “Now there’s money in the bank and I’m spending in ways that bring me closer to friends and family than I did before.”

Green, a real-estate agent with four grown children living across the country, estimated she is spending 25% more and twice as much time traveling now compared with 2019. She recently traveled to Syracuse, N.Y., to catch a photo exhibit with friends, and toured Rhode Island with her son and his girlfriend.

“The one million Americans who didn’t survive Covid—that’s part of it. That taught me not to let time go by because before I know it, that time won’t be there anymore,” she said.

Living better, longer—and larger

“The lifestyle of the senior has changed dramatically—they’re more active than ever,” said Marshal Cohen, chief retail adviser of Circana, a research firm specializing in consumer behavior. That has expanded the menu of recreation on which to spend, he said. “They’re riding e-bikes, they’re hiking, they’re traveling. And they’re doing these things for longer than they’ve ever been done.”

The average household led by someone age 65 and older spent 2.7% more last year than in 2021, adjusted for inflation, according to the Labor Department, compared with 0.7% for under-65 households. Spending by older households is up 34.5% from 1982, compared with 16.5% for younger households.

Comparable data isn’t available for 2023. However, consumers older than 60 reported spending 7.9% more in August than a year earlier, compared with a 5.1% increase among those age 40 to 60 and a 4.6% gain for younger consumers, according to a survey by the New York Fed. The data aren’t adjusted for inflation.

The growing yen to spend by the elderly is amplified by their sheer numbers. The unusually large cohort of baby boomers, the youngest of which are 59, are reaching their retirement years en masse.

American Cruise Lines, which gears its cruises toward older consumers, said it is seeing double-digit sales growth this year, driven largely by boomers. The Guilford, Conn., company this year added three ships to its fleet and expanded its season by a month for some popular routes.

“River cruising has traditionally attracted an older audience, and with more boomers retiring each year, we see both a rapid rate of growth and demand for longer experiences,” said Charles B. Robertson, the company’s president and chief executive.

The economy’s silver bullet

Another factor in the elderly’s favor: relatively strong finances. Americans age 70 and older now hold nearly 26% of household wealth, the highest since records began in 1989, according to the Federal Reserve.

While economists still see a relatively high probability of recession in the coming year, Ed Yardeni, president and chief investment strategist of Yardeni Research, isn’t one of them. An important reason: By the Fed’s reckoning, baby boomers alone have now amassed $77.1 trillion in wealth. “There’s a $77 trillion-wide hole in the theory that consumers’ running out of pandemic savings will sink the economy,” he said.

They have less consumer debt, minimal student debt and are more likely to own their homes outright. Many of those who have mortgages refinanced at the unprecedented low in mortgage rates after the pandemic hit. They are also less likely to need to move due to an expanding family or a new job than Gen Z and Millennials, shielding them from the impact of rising housing costs.

Retirees also received an 8.7% cost-of-living-adjustment bump to Social Security payments in January, the largest single-year increase since 1981, and an automatic adjustment to offset last year’s 9.1% inflation peak.

These factors have cushioned seniors from the twin scourges of inflation and high interest rates. And since most of them are retired, seniors’ spending is less vulnerable to the rise in unemployment that many economists anticipate in coming quarters.

Subscription demand for the Cincinnati Opera’s summer festival this year was surprisingly strong and driven by older patrons, said Todd Bezold, director of marketing.

“Despite the multiyear trend in subscriptions going down, down, down in every art form, we went up this year—by 3%,” he said. That jump in demand came despite a sharp rise in ticket prices to account for several years of inflation. “The vast majority of our subscribers are baby boomers; we know that much.”

A Rare Chance for Ferrari Aficionados to Own a Classic Model With Virtually No Miles

If you like your Ferrari purchases to have only delivery miles on them, this sale might be for you.

What RM Sotheby’s is calling the Factory Fresh Collection includes 17 Ferraris, many barely driven, as well as a rare Jaguar XJ220 supercar, a highly desirable E-Type roadster, and a Bentley Turbo R Drophead Coupé. The auction takes place at Marlborough House in London on Nov. 4, coinciding with the famous London to Brighton run for pre-1905 veteran cars the next day.

Pride of the Factory Fresh collection is this 1994 Ferrari 512 TR Spider with just 570 kilometers recorded.
OneSavage/sgcarshoot, courtesy of RM Sotheby’s

The star of the collection is probably the 1994 Ferrari 512 TR Spider, just one of three built that year, and the only one in its combination of Blu Cobalto paint and Blu Scuro Connolly leather interior. The odometer shows just 570 kilometres (354 miles). In keeping with the as-delivered theme, the car comes with its service book, technical manual, and a spare key. Provided it’s been serviced for the road, the owner will in effect be getting a new car. The estimate is £2.1 million to £2.7 million (US$2.56 million to US$3.3 million).

“This a truly remarkable collection,” Peter Haynes, RM Sotheby’s marketing and communications director for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA), tells Penta. “There are some very rare cars in their own right, but the standout feature across the majority of the cars is the very low mileage—barely driven in some cases. My personal highlights include the 1994 Ferrari 512 TR Spyder which is one of just three in existence, in addition to the 1992 Ferrari Mondial T, which reads a hardly believable one kilometre on the odometer.” There are two other 512 TRs in the collection, a 1992 (also blue) and a second 1992 in U.K. specification (right-hand drive) with only 3,904 miles recorded. The first of these has a high estimate of £275,000 and the second £320,000.

The 1990 Ferrari Testarossa has just 161 kilometres on the odometer.
Courtesy of RM Sotheby’s

The 1990 Ferrari Testarossa has a surreal 160 kilometres, and is one of just 438 built in right-hand drive. The high estimate is £200,000. The 2001 Ferrari 550 Barchetta Pininfarina (high estimate £350,000) was one of 48 built with drive on the right side, and has traveled only 220 kilometres. One of the two 2008 599 GTB Fioranos has covered only 267 kilometres—making it one of the lowest-mileage in existence. Its high estimate is £180,000.

The Bentley Turbo R Drophead is a performance-oriented convertible.
Robert Cooper, courtesy of RM Sotheby’s

Other Ferraris in the collection with their recorded mileage: 1994 Mondial T Coupé (one kilometre); 1992 348 TS (130 kilometres); a second 1992 348 TS (179 kilometres); 2007 F430 (104 kilometres); 1994 348 GTB (181 kilometres); 1983 400i (2,743 miles). A highly admired earlier Ferrari is a numbers-matching 1973 Dino 246 GTS by Scaglietti. Its high estimate is £450,000.

The 1993 Jaguar XJ200 two-seater is one of very few built.
(sgcarshoot, courtesy of RM Sotheby’s)

Non-Ferraris include a very rare 1993 Jaguar XJ220, one of 282 produced. In keeping with the sale, it shows only 46 miles on the odometer. It’s been recently recommissioned for spirited driving, and is high-estimated at £425,000. A 1969 Jaguar Series 2 E-Type Roadster is also being auctioned, as is a 1991 Bentley Turbo R Drophead Coupé. The Bentley convertible, which is just out of extensive refurbishment by London specialist P&A Wood, has a high estimate of £475,000.

Buyers have the choice of keeping these cars in the garage—and preserving their low-mileage status—or forgetting about all that and driving them with alacrity.

Suntory Whisky’s Chief Blender Shinji Fukuyo on Preserving a Legacy

When Shinjiro Torii founded the Yamazaki Distillery in 1923, few would have been able to forecast the enormous force his company, Suntory Whisky, would go on to become a century later.

Over the past decade in particular, Japanese whisky has evolved from a curiosity known only to connoisseurs into a powerhouse beloved in every corner of the whisky world. As chief blender for Suntory Whisky, Shinji Fukuyo has spearheaded this modern surge, and enjoys a unique position as the House of Suntory celebrates its 100-year anniversary.

“Witnessing the global impact of Suntory whiskies brings me great personal fulfilment and fuels my passion for creating beloved whiskies for everyone to enjoy,” Fukuyo says. Over the 100 years the company has been producing whisky, he is only the fifth person to hold the title of chief blender. He was named to the position in 2009 after an extensive history working for the company at the Yamazaki Distillery, Japan’s first whisky distillery.

Suntory has been hosting a year of celebrations in honour of its centennial, the highlight of which has been the release of a suite of Centennial Limited Edition whiskies. The lineup includes Yamazaki 18-year-old Mizunara (US$1,500), Hakushu 18-year-old Peated Malt (US$1,200), and a centennial bottling of Hibiki 21-year-old (US$5,000). Each of the three was blended by Fukuyo to showcase a unique flavor profile and characteristic that stands apart from its typical bottlings. The Yamazaki and Hakushu whiskies were released this May, while the Hibiki debuted in a separate release last month.

Suntory has been hosting a year of celebrations in honor of its centennial, the highlight of which has been the release of a suite of Centennial Limited Edition whiskies. The lineup includes a centennial bottling of Hibiki 21-year-old (US$5,000).
House of Suntory

Another component of this year’s ongoing Suntory centennial fete was the Sofia Coppola directed Suntory Time tribute film, as well as the Roman Coppola directed docuseries, The Nature and Spirit of Japan, both of which starred Keanu Reeves. Elsewhere around Japan, other prominent businesses have been getting in on the fun as well. For instance, a 30-minute drive from the Yamazaki Distillery, Hotel the Mitsui Kyoto’s signature restaurant Toki—which happens to share the name of a Suntory Whisky product—has unveiled an elaborate Hibiki whisky pairing dinner, while its Garden Bar has offered an exclusive menu of Hibiki cocktails.

Fukuyo spoke with Penta about the century-long legacy of the House of Suntory, as well as the creation of this year’s honorary Centennial Limited Edition whisky releases.

Penta: What does this special occasion signify for you?

Shinji Fukuyo: Shinjiro Torii’s legacy began with a dream to create an original whisky that would suit the delicate palate of the Japanese consumers that is blessed with the riches of Japanese nature and craftsmanship. As chief blender, I am dedicated to upholding Suntory’s rich legacy and traditions, while expressing our craftsmanship through the whiskies that my team and I create.

As Japanese whisky has soared in popularity over the past decade, what are the qualities that define Suntory’s whiskies and have helped make them so special for drinkers around the world?

We use high-quality natural water, which has been nurtured over many years, to produce a delicate spirit. The natural environment and climate of where our distilleries sit in Japan also influences our whiskies. Our climate highlights the dynamic changes of the four seasons, including humid, hot summers and dry, cold winters to give our whisky a deep sense of maturity.

The quality of whisky is showcased in the flavor and aroma that is developed over time by producing a rich distillate from good raw materials and placing it in high-quality casks. Also, to bring out the harmony of flavor and aroma, we carefully proceed and blend various types of whiskies in a skillful balance, which I believe embodies the delicate Japanese craftsmanship.

What was your approach with this year’s limited-edition whiskies?

The existing Yamazaki 18-year is a product that combines American oak, Spanish oak, Mizunara oak, and smoky Yamazaki malt to express complexity while highlighting the character of Spanish oak. On the other hand, the limited-edition Yamazaki 18-year-old Mizunara uses only malt whiskies aged in Mizunara barrels for a minimum of 18 years and features cinnamon and nutmeg aromas, with undertones of Japanese incense, sandalwood, and dry coconut emphasized in the finish, with subtle spices.

For Hakushu, both our existing Hakushu 18-year-old and the limited Hakushu 18-year-old Peated Malt are blended with various whiskies aged in Hakushu, including American and Spanish oak, heavy peated and non-peated, for a smoky yet fruity and sweet finish. The limited edition is balanced with several peated Hakushu malt whiskies aged in American oak for over 18 years to produce a fresh and crisp smoky taste.

Celebratory bottles for existing core whiskies include a special Hakushu 12-year-old (US$185).
House of Suntory

Looking ahead to the next few decades, how do you envision Suntory continuing to evolve? How about Japanese whisky as a category on the whole?

For these 100 years, we have been striving to create a culture where Japanese consumers can enjoy whisky. These are values we still prioritize today, as our team is constantly in the pursuit of enhancing our quality and craftsmanship. As we look to the future, we have seen a growing global interest in Japanese products and believe that there are further opportunities to spread the excellence of Suntory Whisky throughout the world.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Nobel Prize in Economics Awarded to Harvard’s Claudia Goldin for Work on Gender Gaps

BOSTON—Harvard University’s Claudia Goldin is a labor economist, teacher and mentor. She is now also a Nobel Prize winner for her groundbreaking research on women in the workforce.

Goldin was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences on Monday, the third woman to receive the economics prize since the award started in 1969. The 77-year-old Harvard economist has spent decades analysing troves of data to produce research illuminating the history of women’s job-market experiences.

Goldin’s expansive work portfolio includes pieces on the drivers of female labor-force participation, the origins of the gender pay gap and hiring biases against women. Her paper, “Why Women Won,” which documented the evolution of women’s legal rights, published this month.

“Goldin’s discoveries have vast societal implications,” said Randi Hjalmarsson, professor of economics at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden.

Goldin was admittedly tired upon entering Monday’s press conference at Harvard. She was, after all, asleep when she received the early-morning call with the news of her Nobel Prize. Still, her passion regarding decades of research and relationship-building radiated as she spoke at a press briefing.

“The increase of women in economics is important for a host of reasons,” Goldin said. “For me personally it has been important because I have had the most wonderful co-authors.”

One such co-researcher, Claudia Olivetti of Dartmouth College, said Goldin’s body of work has shaped much of the current research on women and labor markets. Perhaps less well known, Olivetti said, is Goldin’s extraordinary mentorship of women.

Goldin “has been a source of inspiration to many women in economics, generously sharing her experiences and demonstrating the possibilities of success,” Olivetti said.

Some professors view themselves as researchers, rather than teachers. Not Goldin.

“I could never do research without doing teaching,” she said. “When I teach, I am forced to confront what I think is the truth.”

Goldin was the first woman to secure tenure in Harvard’s economics department. She follows Esther Duflo in 2019 and Elinor Ostrom in 2009 as female recipients of the economics Nobel Prize.

Goldin is married to Lawrence Katz, also a Harvard economist. Both are avid bird watchers and hikers, colleagues said. She has a 13-year-old golden retriever named Pika and no children.

Around the world, 50% of women have paid jobs, compared with 80% of men, although that gap is smaller in advanced economies. Across the developed economies, women earn 13% less on average and are less likely to play senior roles in the organisations they work for.

Goldin’s research questioned the assumption that women had steadily, or would inevitably, narrow those gaps. Using data that had previously attracted little attention, she established that far fewer women worked in paid employment in the early 1900s than in 1800, while that share rebounded as the 20th century advanced, albeit slowly.

Her writing includes 1990’s “Understanding the Gender Gap: An Economic History of American Women.” Examining 200 years of data, Goldin tracked the changing fortunes of women in the workplace as it changed from farm to factory to office.

She also identified some of the considerations that affected the decisions made by women about their participation in the workforce, as well as the constraints they faced at particular times. In one well-known paper, she examined the effect of the contraceptive pill on decisions about work and marriage.

The pay gap between male and female workers had long been attributed to differences in educational attainment, with women typically spending fewer years in formal education.

But that can no longer be true of many developed countries, where women are now better educated on average than men. Instead, Goldin’s work indicates that the gap in pay occurs with the birth of a first child, with women typically devoting more time to child care.

But darker forces are also at work. In one paper, Goldin and co-author Cecilia Rouse from Princeton University showed that the number of female members of the leading U.S. symphony orchestras rose sharply in the 1980s partly because of the adoption of “blind” auditions, where the candidate for an orchestra position auditioned behind a screen, concealing their gender or race from those doing the hiring.

In their paper, called “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ‘Blind Auditions’ on Female Musicians,” the authors found data across decades of hiring by symphonies both before and after the introduction of blind auditions to show that about a quarter of the increase in female members of orchestras over that time was due to blind auditions, suggesting previous bias.