S&P 500 wavers in 2025 as 401(k) outcomes diverge

Answer: No, gains are uneven across investors

President Trump has claimed that portfolios are broadly gaining, but investment results are not uniform. Outcomes vary by who owns stocks, how much they hold, and when they invested.Portfolio performance also depends on asset allocation, fees, and ongoing contributions. Two people in the same market can have opposite results if their risk mix or timing differs.

Who benefits and who doesn’t from S&P 500 gains

According to FactCheck.org, the S&P 500 rose about 14.5% between January 2025 and mid‑February 2026, and only about 62% of Americans own any stocks, with ownership skewed to higher‑income households (roughly 87% at ≥$100,000 versus 28% below $50,000). The figures indicate that gains accrue most to those who already hold equities and have larger balances.As reported by The Washington Post, the S&P 500 fell around 7.3% during the first 100 days of 2025, illustrating how timing risk can leave many accounts flat or down despite later rebounds. Volatility means a single headline number does not capture individual experiences.A CNBC analysis in June 2025 estimated early‑term stock returns at roughly 1.58% annualized from inauguration through that point. Modest, choppy advances contrast with blanket claims that everyone is “way up.”That political messaging is not a substitute for portfolio math. As President Donald Trump said, “Everybody is up, way up.”

Why your results may differ from Trump’s claim

Stock ownership and allocation disparities

Households without equities do not participate in stock rallies, and even equity owners can trail index gains if they hold cash, bonds, or sector exposures that lag. Results further diverge by contribution rates, withdrawal needs, and rebalancing discipline.Retirement savers often mistake contributions for returns; account balances can grow even when markets are flat or negative. Conversely, near‑retirees drawing down assets can see limited benefit from index recoveries.

Announced investments versus committed capital

Companies and governments frequently publicize “announced” investments that are subject to approvals, milestones, or market conditions. “Committed” capital involves binding obligations, funding schedules, and execution risk that can span years.Yahoo Finance reported that economist Peter Schiff argued the widely cited “$17 trillion in investments” claim would imply an implausibly large GDP surge, underscoring the gap between rhetoric and verifiable flows. Distinguishing pledges from deployed capital is essential when assessing economic impact and market implications.