Invest1 publisher3 min readPublished
More than half of Gen Z investors moved investing money into sports bets that lose every month
Fifty-two percent of Gen Z investors moved money meant for investing into sports betting in the past year, a Betterment survey of 1,000 investors found. Bank of America's payment data puts what every generation recovers from sportsbooks each month below 75 cents on the dollar, so the diverted cash is a running cost.
The Investor · Invest desk
Drafted by a language model from the sources cited here and checked against its claim ledger before publication. How we use AISend a correction
What happened
- Bank of America Institute research found two in five Gen Z adults see sports betting as an investment, double the one-in-five rate for Americans overall.
- Median deposit balances in betting households in 2026 were 59% of those in non-betting households, according to Bank of America.
- A Federal Reserve Bank of New York study found credit card delinquencies among sports bettors under 40 rose 26% after legalization.
Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- contradiction As Fortune prints them, BofA's figures conflict: Gen Z cannot sit inside an all-generation result below 75 cents while most of its bettors recover above 80. If one is a dollar-weighted total, a heavy-betting minority carries most losses.
- cost At the all-generation rate, each dollar moved from investing to a sportsbook loses more than 25 cents a month, and for the 14% of Gen Z investors who redirect several times a month that cost repeats.
- exposure Betting households start with 41% less in median deposits than non-betting ones, so monthly betting losses draw on a smaller cash buffer, and the under-40 delinquency rise points to some landing on credit cards.
- constraint Garon's observation that most bettors wager rarely and in small amounts limits how far the 52% figure can be stretched into lost portfolio returns.
Sportsbooks build a fee, the vig, into every wager [5]. At under 75 cents back per dollar sent, Bank of America's payment data puts the bettor's loss above 25 cents a dollar in every month this year, in every generation [6][1]. Gen Z did best, with most of its bettors losing less than 20 cents of each dollar [7][2]. A single dollar sent back in every month at 75 cents would be worth about 3 cents after a year. At 80 cents, it would be worth about 7 [3][4].
As Fortune reports them, the two figures do not fit the same measure. Gen Z is one of the generations said to recover under 75 cents, yet most Gen Z bettors are said to recover more than 80 [6][7][8]. They reconcile if the first is a dollar-weighted total and the second describes the typical bettor. In that reading, a minority of heavy Gen Z bettors lose far more than 20 cents on the dollar and pull the total down. Fortune's report does not say which measure each figure uses, or how many dollars Betterment's respondents actually moved [1].
Survey data cited by BofA has nearly a quarter of bettors wagering daily and another third weekly [8]. Among Gen Z investors, 14% redirect investing money into betting multiple times a month [2]. A dollar-weighted total leans toward exactly those people. Thea Garon, who directs the Urban Institute's Financial Well-Being Hub, points to a smaller version of the problem: most people who bet on sports do so infrequently and with small amounts [16]. The balance sheets point the other way. Median deposit balances in betting households this year were 59% of those in non-betting households [12]. A Federal Reserve Bank of New York study found credit card delinquencies among bettors under 40 rose 26% after legalization [13].
Gen Z's lead is recent, and it came in a tournament month. In July, as the World Cup drove a spike, Gen Z accounted for 48% of online betting activity against 40% for millennials, the first time Gen Z held the largest generational share [10][11][5].
I think the payment data settles a question the surveys leave open. Two in five Gen Z adults call sports betting an investment, according to the Bank of America Institute [4], and 26% of Gen Z investors in the Betterment survey call it a deliberate part of a long-term plan [3]. No generation in BofA's payment data got its dollar back in any month this year [6]. A redirected dollar is not compounding in a brokerage account, and it is not rebuilding the deposits that betting households already hold 41% less of [6]. The counter-case rests on Garon's point about small, infrequent bets [16]: at those sizes the loss looks more like an entertainment budget than a missed contribution. The diversion thesis fails if dollar figures show the redirected money is small next to what the same investors still put into markets.
Zach Hirsch, a Gen Z podcaster and sports handicapper, told Fortune: "The confluence and surging popularity of AI legal betting apps and prediction markets have really led lots of Gen Z guys to believe that they can beat the system." [9] He said he bets rarely and only after in-depth research [19]. "I personally approach sports opportunities as I approach any other market," Hirsch said [18]. Natasha Schüll of NYU said, "I feel like contemporary financial and betting platforms kind of make the boundary between the two more porous." [17] In the Urban Institute's survey, 52% of Gen Z respondents said their generation must take more risks to reach its financial goals [14]. In BofA's data, this risk has returned less than the stake in every month this year [6].
What to watch
- Whether Bank of America publishes how its 75-cent and 80-cent figures are calculated, dollar-weighted or per bettor, which would show whether losses concentrate in a heavy-betting minority.
- Whether Gen Z keeps the largest share of online betting activity in months without a World Cup, after first taking it in July.
- Dollar amounts for how much investing money Gen Z investors redirect, set against what the same investors still contribute to markets.