$1,000 for Every Newborn? Babson Finance Professor Explains Policy’s Opportunities and Limits

A new federal program promising $1,000 for every child born between 2025 and 2028 will provide a welcome boost for parents adapting to life with a newborn—but Babson College Professor of Finance Ryan Davies said the long-term impact may be more symbolic than transformative.

The initiative automatically deposits the money into low-cost stock index funds for eligible newborns, with parents and employers able to contribute up to $5,000 annually. The so-called Trump Accounts, signed into law this summer as part of a tax and spending bill, would convert into a traditional IRA once the child turns 18.

“The policy goal appears to be encouraging families to save and improving financial literacy,” Davies said, adding that the program will likely help families with financial flexibility set aside more for their children’s futures. But for families living paycheck to paycheck, the program may offer little more than a modest government-funded nest egg.

“While this would be helpful to many families, the amount of money is not sufficient to offset the growing amount of wealth inequality in America,” Davies said. “Poorer families are unlikely to be able to take advantage of the $5,000 yearly contribution limit. These families already have numerous options to save, but do not have the financial capacity to use them. They are more worried about paying for groceries and housing.”

Here are four thoughts from Davies about the newborn savings initiative:

1. Baby Steps to Savings

Davies points to existing state-level programs for context. Massachusetts’ BabySteps initiative, which contributes $50 to 529 college savings accounts, has successfully spurred more families to open accounts, particularly among Black and Latino parents.

Even more telling, the SEED OK experiment in Oklahoma provided newborns with $1,000 toward college savings. Families in the program accumulated more assets and reported more positive long-term outlooks than control groups.

“Trump Accounts began with a similar vision,” Davies explained. “But revisions in the Senate shifted the accounts toward retirement savings rather than education, making them a less practical tool for families planning for college expenses.”

2. Investment Restrictions Raise Questions

Unlike 529 plans or other tax-advantaged savings vehicles, Trump Accounts require funds to be invested exclusively in stock index funds or exchange-traded funds (ETF). While these low-cost vehicles offer diversification, Davies warns of risks.

“The accounts don’t allow for bond funds or balanced funds,” he noted. “If the stock market falls sharply, families could see these accounts lose significant value, which might discourage them from investing in equities in the future. That could unintentionally shape risk-taking and investment strategies in a negative way.”

3. Complexity vs. Simplicity

Davies also flagged the administrative challenges and costs of introducing yet another account type into an already complex landscape of tax-advantaged savings vehicles—from 401(k)s and IRAs to HSAs and 529s.

“Congress could have chosen to enhance existing programs rather than create a new one,” Davies said. “Adding more account types increases complexity and administrative costs, which may outweigh the benefits.”

4. Alternative Approaches

Some economists advocate for Baby Bonds—government-funded investments distributed more generously to low-income families—to directly address wealth inequality. Unlike savings accounts that require family contributions, Baby Bonds are fully government-funded.

“The initial value of the Baby Bonds could be much larger for poorer families, with the goal of reducing wealth inequality over time,” Davies said.

Posted in Insights

Tagged Faculty, Advice

More from Insights »