In January of this year, the average new car cost $49,191, and that’s after prices hit an all-time record in December 2025.

Meanwhile, the days of buying a new car for less than $20,000 may be gone forever, says Kelley Blue Book. The last vehicle that sold below that point was the Mitsubishi Mirage, which was cancelled in late 2024 and has since sold out at dealerships.

Add in gas prices and insurance costs and it’s no wonder that many vehicle owners are struggling. But as car owners look for ways to save, a growing number are refinancing their loans and saving significant amounts of money in the process.

In the first quarter of 2026, roughly 111,000 car owners opted to refinance, with the average monthly savings working out to $81 per month. The typical interest rates on loans have gone down by 2.24%. Sometimes, it's a lot more.

Tears of joy

Kayla Barkdull, a 39-year-old manager at a Las Vegas bar, was one of the lucky ones. When she bought her 2019 Volkswagen Atlas in 2023, she was saddled with an 11.8 APR loan. That meant making monthly payments of $641.

After a failed attempt to refinance a year ago, she tried once more this month and was able to secure a 5.7% rate from Navy Federal Credit Union.

“I cried when I got approved,” she told The Wall Street Journal. Barkdull also opted for a loan with a shorter time period, which she said would save her almost $2,000 in interest payments.

The average original rate for an auto loan this year is 10.3%, but people who refinance are averaging 8.1%. Many banks are using that gap to lure in new customers. JPMorgan Chase went so far as to relaunch its consumer auto-refinancing refinancing a year ago.

If you’re thinking of refinancing your auto loan, it will help — as it often does — to have a good credit score. You’ll also want to have a car that has retained its value. If your loan is more than the current value of the vehicle, you’re less likely to find a bank that will be willing to offer a refinance.

Higher prices

Beyond high interest rates on vehicles, it's just plain expensive to buy a car these days. Cox Automotive’s Vehicle Affordability Index measures the number of weeks of income an average family would need to purchase a vehicle. As of the end of May, that number stood at 34.9.

That’s convincing people to hang onto their vehicles longer, especially if their car or truck is paid off. Cox estimates that 15.8 million vehicles will be sold this year, a 2.9% decline from 2025.

And it’s a real concern. A Northwestern Mutual survey released in April found 48% of Americans believe it’s somewhat or very likely they’ll outlive their savings, which shows that many people still don’t know if their money will last through retirement.

Financial advisor William Bengen published the original framework in the Journal of Financial Planning in October 1994. On a $1 million portfolio, a 4% first-year withdrawal works out to $40,000, and that amount rises with inflation each year after.

Bengen built the model using U.S. market data from 1926 and a mix of stocks and bonds designed to survive any 30-year stretch in that record. It held up for the most part, but two of its core assumptions are under real strain.

Why the original rule is showing cracks

Start with bond yields. When Bengen ran his numbers, 10-year Treasury bonds paid close to 8%. Today, they’re around 4.5%. That matters because bonds used to provide a steady cushion in the portfolio. Now that income is much lower, investors have two choices: take on more stocks and more ups and downs, or spend less each year.

Then there’s inflation. Consumer prices rose 4.2% over the 12 months ending in May 2026, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 4% rule assumes inflation stays relatively steady and manageable. When inflation runs hotter for longer, those annual increases pile up faster than the original model was built to handle.

“Let’s say we have two years of 7% inflation,” Dan Keady, a certified financial planner and senior director of financial planning at TIAA, told Kiplinger. Someone who started pulling $100,000 a year would be withdrawing $114,490 by year three, and because each increase becomes the new base for the next one, those higher withdrawals compound over time.

What the experts are telling retirees now

Bengen has raised his own estimate. In his 2025 book, A Richer Retirement: Supercharging the 4% Rule to Spend More and Enjoy More, Bengen says the new SAFEMAX — his worst-case safe withdrawal rate — is 4.7% for a more diversified retirement portfolio over a 30-year horizon. That 4.7% figure is the lowest rate that survived the toughest retirement sequence in his data.

But he also says many retirees today may be able to start a bit higher. “I believe a SAFEMAX of 5.25% to 5.5% seems like a reasonable, conservative estimate for current retirees,” Bengen wrote in his book.

Morningstar’s December 2025 State of Retirement Income report put the 2026 safe withdrawal rate at 3.9% for portfolios with 30% to 50% in stocks, based on forward-looking market forecasts and a 90% chance the money lasts 30 years. But if you’re willing to cut back in bad years and spend more in good ones, Morningstar says that number can go as high as 5.7%.

The sequence-of-returns problem

The 4% rule has one big blind spot: what happens in the first few years of retirement.

That’s called sequence-of-returns risk. If the market falls in the early years of your retirement, you’re pulling money out while your portfolio is down. That means you lock in losses by selling shares when prices are low, and those shares can’t help you when the market recovers.

How soon the bad years come also matters. In a Fidelity model, a retiree who started with $1 million and withdrew $50,000 a year ended up with more than $3 million after 30 years when the good years came first. But when the bad years came first, the same portfolio ran out in 27 years.

That’s why some advisors use the guardrail approach, developed by financial planner Jonathan Guyton and computer scientist William Klinger, instead. Instead of taking the same amount every year, you check your portfolio and inflation once a year and adjust. If the market drops, you cut back. If markets do well, you can spend a little more.

What this means for your money

The 4% rule isn’t wrong, but it doesn’t cover everything by itself. You can make it work better with a few simple adjustments.

First, use a longer retirement timeline. If you’re 65 and in decent health, plan for 90 or 95, not 85. A shorter assumption can leave you short later.

Then, keep one to two years of living expenses in cash or short-term bonds. If the market drops in year one, you can draw from that buffer instead of selling stocks at low prices.

Also check how much of your basic spending your guaranteed income already covers. If Social Security or a pension pays for the essentials, your portfolio only needs to cover the rest. That gives you more room to cut discretionary spending in a downturn without touching the basics.

The person who invented the 4% rule has been revising it ever since 1994. Your retirement plan should keep up too.

Data from the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) shows that 74% of workers say they plan to keep working well into their retirement. Despite this persistent belief in perpetual productivity, the EBRI noted that relatively few retirees actually jump back into the workforce. In 2026, only 31% of surveyed retirees are still working.

Interestingly, the myth of working into retirement hasn’t waned over the past few decades. Every year since 1999, when the EBRI has asked Americans about this topic in the Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS), there’s been a similar percentage gap between expectations about work and reality.

EBRI found that this disconnect extends to how most Americans expect to fund their retirement. According to the RCS, 75% of workers said they would use wages from a job as a form of retirement income, making it the most common response after Social Security, a workplace retirement savings plan, and personal savings and investments. In reality, just 27% of retirees used pay from work to fund their retirement.

Retirees can’t count on an easy comeback

Not only are most workers overconfident about earning wages in retirement, they also tend to miscalculate when they’ll retire.

EBRI’s RCS showed the expected median retirement age is about 65, while the actual median is 62. Study authors also noted that 46% of respondents said they stopped working earlier than they had expected, often due to forces beyond their control like a health scare (41%) or a change at their company (35%).

Once people are out of the workforce, they often find it’s difficult to get back in. Data from AARP revealed that the average length of unemployment keeps getting worse the older you get. By the time someone reaches 65, they often face 39 weeks of unemployment.

Craig Copeland, Director of Wealth Benefits Research for EBRI, explained this challenge to Moneywise, saying, “Even for those who remain healthy, it is difficult for older workers to find jobs that match their skills, particularly for those who only want to work part-time.”

And it seems like more older employees sense this anxiety, with 67% of respondents to AARP admitting they’d have difficulty finding a new job today. Another AARP survey showed that 22% of workers over 50 said they felt “pushed out of work” by their employers. A staggering 91% of respondents also said they felt age discrimination is “common” in today’s environment.

But even with all these barriers, the combination of rising costs and anxiety about savings is making people feel they need a steady income from a job. Allianz Life’s 2026 Retirement Study showed just how dire this is becoming, with 67% of respondents literally more afraid of funds drying up than dying.

Plan for retirement realities, not possibilities

​While there are plenty of people who keep working in retirement, all of these stats suggest it isn’t wise to bet on this source of income for your golden years. In fact, Copeland told Moneywise that retirees shouldn’t “expect that they can just keep working to fund shortfalls in retirement.”

​The brutal truth is that circumstances often drive retirement decisions rather than personal choices. Although you can’t plan for unexpected events like health emergencies, you could stress test your current retirement portfolio in less-favorable situations to see how flexible it is.​

It’s also worth paying attention to the true top sources of income for retirees per EBRI’s data. For instance, even though 89% of workers said they expected to rely on Social Security, that slightly underestimated how many retirees (92%) use this federal benefit.

​ERBI also found that personal retirement savings and investments were common, with 68% of retirees using these funds for income. While that’s lower than the expected 76%, it’s more in line with reality than the 75% of workers who think they can earn money through a job.​

As much as we all hope for retirement to go according to our desires, the stats show there’s a lot we can’t control, and regular work may not be in the cards. The only way to play it safe is to assume employment isn’t an option and focus more on your current investments and reliable income strategies like annuities.​

The sooner you plan for multiple possibilities — either by yourself or with the help of an accredited financial professional — the better odds your finances can weather whatever life throws your way down the line.

But that’s exactly what happened.

The nearly eight-foot-tall canvas, titled “Sleeping by the Lion Carpet,” fetched £29.3 million ($38.8 million) at Sotheby’s London, compared to original projections of $34 million.

The price tag makes it the third-most expensive work ever sold at an auction by the celebrated British artist, Lucian Freud, grandson of famed psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. It was auctioned off by British billionaire Joe Lewis, who also set a record for the most valuable single-owner sale in Europe, earning £296.3 million ($392.6 million USD) the same night.

“Sleeping by the Lion Carpet” had been in Lewis’ collection since he got it from Acquavella Galleries, Freud’s New York rep, in 1996.

“This was a perfect example of what London can do,” international contemporary art dealer Thaddaeus Ropac told the New York Times of the auction. “This was the best sale we’ve had here in years. It showed that if you offer great quality material people will go the extra mile.”

Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Tilley herself reflected on the surreal attention surrounding the artwork depicting her naked body three decades ago.

“Mona Lisa wasn’t alive when she became famous — but I am,” she said.

A chance introduction changed everything

When Freud first asked Tilley to sit for him in the early 1990s, she was just 35 years old and supervising a London job center. She also worked occasional shifts at Taboo, the legendary nightclub founded by Australian-born artist and performance designer Leigh Bowery.

Bowery had already modeled for Freud and believed Tilley would make an ideal sitter because of her willingness to embrace the unconventional. He introduced the pair, setting in motion a collaboration that would ultimately span several paintings.

Tilley told the Wall Street Journal that their first meeting took place over lunch at London’s River Cafe, where she could “feel his eyes boring into [her] the whole meal.” While she agreed to pose for him because of his fun and comforting character, she admitted to feeling “grotesque” in the images. She also recalled overhearing art aficionados calling her a “poor fat woman” and never expected that a painting of her body would bring in the big bucks.

But Freud was already internationally known for his intensely realistic portraits that celebrated the human body in all its perfect imperfections. Unlike many portrait artists, he rejected idealization and conventional beauty standards, painting subjects exactly how he perceived them. He became known for portraying bodies with striking honesty, challenging preconceived notions of beauty and embracing body diversity long before the body positivity movement gained momentum.

And the market for his work has remained remarkably resilient long after his death in 2011.

“The sexually loaded, penetrating gaze was part of his weaponry, but his art addressed the lives of individuals, whether life models or royalty, with delicacy and disturbing corporeality,” reads his obituary in The Guardian.

His sessions were famously demanding, often lasting hundreds of hours over many months. The result was a body of work that collectors now regard as among the defining achievements of postwar British art.

Why Freud’s paintings command millions

Freud’s paintings rarely appear for sale, and when major works do reach auction, wealthy collectors tend to compete aggressively for them. The newly sold “Sleeping by the Lion Carpet,” painted between 1995 and 1996, is considered one of Freud’s finest large-scale nude portraits. It belongs to the celebrated series featuring Tilley, whose relaxed, natural pose became one of the artist’s most recognizable images.

The sale also illustrates a fascinating aspect of the fine-art market: While the value of masterpieces can soar into the tens of millions, the people depicted in them often receive no financial windfall once the artwork changes hands — unless they’d retained some sort of ownership stake.

Freud paid Tilley just £20 a day (about $35 USD) at the time, and later upped it to £33 (about $50 USD at the time), according to the Wall Street Journal. Still, Tilley has become inseparable from Freud’s legacy. And nearly three decades since she first posed naked for Freud, she remains amused by her role as his muse and unanticipated fame, even without the fortune.

Unlike Leonardo da Vinci’s famous sitter, she’s still here to witness the world’s fascination with Freud’s depiction of her bare body — and the eye-popping prices it continues to command.

Among the hundreds of cases, one that stands out is that of a 49-year-old nurse practitioner Mariel Yukee from Las Vegas. Yukee, who operates mobile wound clinics in four states, is charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and healthcare fraud, as well as offering, paying, soliciting, and receiving illegal healthcare kickbacks. Not to mention, money laundering.

According to government officials, Yukee targeted terminally ill elderly Medicare patients in hospice care and billed Medicare and TRICARE for $906 million in unnecessary amniotic wound allografts. She allegedly applied allografts — tissue taken from human donors and used as an alternative to synthetic implants in patients — to wounds that had already healed, and to wounds that were not responding to the treatment.

Yukee then allegedly falsified patient medical data to make it appear like the allografts were necessary. Of the $906 million in fraudulent claims filed by the accused, an estimated $297 million was paid out, officials say. Assets valued at roughly $35.2 million were seized as part of the investigation, including $467,000, a $594,000 Ferrari 296 GTS and a Bulgari necklace purchased for $865,000.

Overall, charges were filed against 11 defendants in relation to amniotic wound allografts, according to officials — across six districts.

Other fraudulent cases of note

If you scroll through the case summaries, they become even more jaw dropping. Other charges that stand out are two against medical professionals and service providers in Texas and Virginia.

Dr. Jason Finkelstein, of Fort Worth, Texas, has been charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud and wire fraud, as well as health care fraud, in connection to an $89 million cardiovascular testing scheme. Finkelstein serves as the medical director of a cardiovascular testing company, Company 1, which conducted tests on student athletes across the U.S.

According to the Justice Department, Finkelstein conspired with others to use two other companies he owned — Cardiovascular Testing Services PA and Cardiovascular Healthcare Associates PA — to submit the false claims with made up diagnoses, without conducting examinations or reviewing tests to determine whether student athletes were at risk of cardiac arrest.

On one occasion, in October 2024, Dr. Finkelstein deemed the cardiovascular tests of one collegiate basketball player as “normal” despite tests showing potential cardiovascular abnormalities. Approximately 24 days later, the student died from sudden cardiac arrest.

In the Eastern District of Virginia, Mikia Noble, 37, the co-owner of a mental health company Advancing Communities Everywhere, was charged by information with conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Noble is alleged to have approached unhoused people with medicaid coverage, under the guise that the company would offer them mental health services in exchange for using their Medicaid ID numbers. Only those services were never completed or weren’t needed at all.

Noble and others submitted approximately $49.6 million in false and fraudulent claims to Medicaid, of which approximately $38.6 million was paid.

What else you should know about the healthcare fraud takedown

The Justice Department brought charges against 455 defendants on June 23, including 90 doctors and other licensed professionals. Their participation in healthcare fraud and related schemes is said to involve over $6.5 billion in false claims.

The 2026 takedown spanned 45 U.S. states and 56 federal districts. The healthcare fraud takedown initiative is a joint operation between the Justice Department, the FBI, and the HHS Medicare Fraud Strike Force.

In 2025, the U.S. government charged 324 defendants in connection with $14.6 billion in alleged fraud. One man, Ibrahim Khaldoon Hilmi, who fled the U.S. in May 2025, was apprehended in Kyrenia, Cyprus, in June, according to the Justice Department. Hilmi is charged with defrauding Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and private insurers for $3.7 billion in durable medical equipment that was never provided.

Analysts believe Take-Two Interactive (NASDAQ:TTWO), its parent company, could earn that entire sum back within days of the game going on sale November 19 — and unverified reports suggest the early sales pace is already running ahead of those projections.

Let's take a look at how likely these viral claims are.

How much did GTA 6 cost to make?

Rockstar and Take-Two have never disclosed a development budget for GTA VI. They never disclose budgets for any game. Every dollar figure in circulation is an estimate.

The most credible range, attributed to industry analysts and referenced in commentary around Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick, puts the cost at roughly $1 billion to $2 billion. That would make it the most expensive video game ever produced.

The "$3 billion" and "$5 billion" figures circulating on social media come from a Reddit user, who extrapolated them from Rockstar's financial filings, which reportedly showed around $2.1 billion in salaries at the Rockstar North studio alone since full-scale production began. Important to note that's one location's payroll over several years, not a budget document. Even the outlets that reported the figure noted it likely overstates the actual number by conflating future and current costs. Either way, the $3 billion to $5 billion claims remain guesswork.

The viral graphic pegs GTA 6 at "$2 billion-plus" and frames it as costing more than the tower — the high end of the estimate range, not the consensus. The Burj Khalifa cost approximately $1.5 billion to build between 2004 and 2010, with most sources citing $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion for the structure and slightly more once surrounding infrastructure is included. At the credible $1 billion to $2 billion estimate, GTA VI's development cost lands in the same neighborhood — roughly a Burj Khalifa. The "cost the same" framing holds; "cost more" only works on the unverified figures.

Can GTA 6 recoup its budget that fast?

The Burj Khalifa took six years and more than 12,000 workers to build. Analysts think GTA VI could pay for itself almost immediately.

GTA V pulled in roughly $1 billion within three days of its 2013 launch. That was 13 years ago. GTA V has now sold close to 230 million copies.

The Financial Times, citing video game research group DFC Intelligence, projected last year that GTA VI would generate $3.2 billion in first-year revenue, with about $1 billion of that coming from pre-orders alone. The standard edition carries a $79.99 price, $10 above the previous AAA console standard. B. Riley Securities estimated that increase alone could add more than $300 million in net bookings.

On those numbers, recouping the budget in days is plausible. It hasn't happened yet. But the math and the GTA V track record make it a reasonable projection.

GTA 6 pre-order sales: what's confirmed and what's rumor

Pre-orders opened June 25, and the early reports are enormous if they hold up. Reports circulating online put GTA VI at 39 million pre-orders and roughly $3 billion in revenue within 24 hours. Nothing has been confirmed by Take-Two or Rockstar. Treat it as a rumor.

If the number is even close, it would run ahead of the Financial Times projection, which pegged first-year pre-order revenue near $1 billion. It would also mean Rockstar recouped its entire development budget in a single day off a game no one outside the studio has actually played. Buyers have committed off two trailers and a batch of screenshots, with no gameplay footage released ahead of pre-orders.

Take-Two stock and analyst price targets

Take-Two shares traded around $239 in late June, near the upper end of a 52-week range of roughly $188 to $265. The stock climbed about 5% after Rockstar confirmed June 24 that preorders would open June 25, locking in the November 19 launch after multiple prior delays.

Analysts are overwhelmingly bullish: roughly 28 buy ratings, no holds and a lone sell, a consensus price target near $281, and a Street high of $368 from Bank of America, which raised its target on a more aggressive GTA Online monetization outlook. GTA VI launches as a single-player experience, with no online component confirmed at release. GTA Online is where the long-term money comes from.

In its fiscal 2026 results, reported May 21, Take-Two posted record net bookings (the industry's measure of total money spent, including in-game purchases) of $6.72 billion, up 19% year over year, and guided fiscal 2027 net bookings to $8.0 billion to $8.2 billion, a forecast built almost entirely on GTA VI. Zelnick has described GTA VI as "arguably the most anticipated entertainment property of all time."

Insiders have been selling. Executives disposed of roughly $134 million in shares over three months, including sales by Zelnick and President Karl Slatoff, with no insider purchases recorded over the period. The company's bookings guidance has also at times come in below the most optimistic analyst models. The biggest risk to the thesis is a delay or a launch that fails to meet expectations. Zelnick himself called the launch "very, very exciting. And terrifying. Because the expectations are so high."

The bottom line

GTA VI likely cost about as much to develop as the Burj Khalifa cost to build, somewhere around $1.5 billion. We're entering a new era where virtual worlds can cost as much or more to create than real-world constructs.

If the analysts are right, Take-Two won't need six years to recoup it. If the rumors are right, it already has.

We've reached out to Take-Two for comment on the development cost and the upcoming launch and will update this story if the company responds.

“These medications are a breakthrough for clinically significant weight loss,” Kanwar Kelley, MD and chief executive officer of Side Health, told Healthline. “However, in my practice, there are individuals that simply cannot afford the cost of these medications, even when the insurance pays some of the cost.”

Americans spend billions of dollars on GLP-1s per year. Without insurance, people can expect to pay between $900 to $1,400 per month, according to reporting in Forbes. But insurance companies are increasingly dropping GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, leaving people to either pay out-of-pocket or stop taking the drug entirely, NPR reports.

A new Medicare Bridge program might change that for Americans on Medicare Part D. The temporary program would allow qualified patients to buy GLP-1s for just $50 per month — a significant price savings.

“The bridge program, if it reaches its goal, will provide a road for patients to get started on these medications and get the help they need,” Kelley said.

But not everyone who uses Medicare will qualify for the plan. Here’s what you need to do to qualify — and what to know before you start.

How to know if you qualify for the Medicare Bridge program

Medicare Part D has historically excluded drugs that are exclusively used for weight loss, as laid out in the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act.

The bridge program will cover four different GLP-1 drugs — two injectable types and two pill types — and will allow eligible Part D users to pay only $50 per month to use them.

You won’t get to apply the $50 co-pay toward your out-of-pocket maximum.

In order to be eligible, you need to have Medicare Part D. Most people have to be 65 to qualify for a Medicare Part D plan, but those with an eligible disability can get on the plan before that.

You’ll need to get prior authorization to be eligible for the plan. To successfully get prior authorization, you’ll need to fit one of the qualifying criteria:

• Have a body mass index (BMI) of at least 35;
• Have a BMI between 30 and 34.99, along with at least one of these conditions: diastolic heart failure, hypertension, chronic kidney disease at state 3a or higher, prediabetes, a history of heart attack or stroke, or blocked arteries in your legs and arms; or
• Have a BMI between 27 and 29.99, along with at least one of these conditions: prediabetes, a history of heart attack or stroke, or blocked arteries in your legs or arms with symptoms.

You’ll also need to be at least 18 years of age.

If you already get GLP-1 drugs through your Part D plan — for example, to treat Type 2 diabetes or sleep apnea — you won’t be eligible for this program, even if your monthly copay is higher than $50.

Once you’re on the plan, you won’t need to get another prior authorization again as long as you stay on the same brand of medication.

The program has an end date that could leave you on the hook

The major drawback to the bridge program is that it has a pre-defined end date of Dec. 31, 2027.

This leaves seniors who decide to use the program in a pickle. GLP-1s work best when they’re taken continuously. Some providers worry that quitting the drug could lead users to regain the weight they lost, and it could leave older GLP-1 users with less muscle mass than they had before, potentially putting them at risk of frailty.

“If it’s not renewed, you’re going to have all these patients on these meds, and then they’re going to stop them,” said John Batsis, a University of North Carolina School of Medicine obesity specialist. “Not only will weight come back, comorbidities will come back, and we know from lifestyle studies … when you gain it back, you’re gaining more fat than muscle.”

Like all drugs, GLP-1s have risks and benefits that you should talk over with your primary care provider. They can go over the risks with you, help you with overall medication management, and help you decide if a GLP-1 could help you meet your overall health goals.

Nearly one in three adults under 35 now live with their parents, according to a new report from Realtor.com. And contrary to the common perception that these homebodies are struggling to find work, most already have jobs.

The report found that roughly 70% of 25- to 34-year-olds living at home are employed, suggesting that earning a paycheck is no longer enough to afford independence.

Jim Gruler, a real estate broker and co-founder of Seeking Agents, told Moneywise that this trend highlights a growing disconnect between wages and housing costs.

“For many young adults, having a full-time job is no longer enough to comfortably afford rent, save for a down payment, and cover everyday living expenses at the same time,” he said. “Employment remains important, but affordability has become the bigger challenge.”

Why people are staying at home longer

The report found that housing cost remains one of the primary reasons adults under 35 continue living with their parents. While many are employed, high home prices and elevated borrowing costs have made homeownership increasingly difficult to reach.

The pressure is evident throughout the housing market. New homes sold for an average of $540,600 in May 2026, according to Census data, and prices are virtually flat year-over-year, while sales numbers remained sluggish years after they fell to a nearly 30-year low in 2023, underscoring the affordability challenges facing many buyers.

At the same time, Realtor.com Chief Economist Danielle Hale expects mortgage rates to average 6.5% this year, roughly in line with current levels, while home prices are projected to rise another 4% in 2026.

Those higher borrowing costs can significantly affect what buyers can afford, according to Gruler.

“A few years ago, buyers could often qualify for significantly more [expensive] homes with the same income because borrowing costs were much lower,” he said. “Today, higher rates mean higher monthly payments, which can make homeownership feel out of reach even for people with stable jobs.”

Paying off debt before moving out

Housing costs aren’t the only financial hurdle keeping young adults at home.

Debt can also make it harder to achieve financial independence. While adults between 18 and 29 generally carry less debt than older generations, much of what they owe is tied to student loans, auto loans and credit card balances, according to data from the New York Federal Reserve.

Those monthly payments can eat into money that might otherwise go toward a down payment, emergency savings or other financial goals, making it more difficult for young adults to afford a place of their own.

For some, living with their parents provides an opportunity to improve their financial footing before taking on housing costs.

“Many are using the opportunity to pay down student loans, build emergency savings, improve their credit, or accumulate a larger down payment before entering the housing market,” Gruler explained.

The growing cost of financial independence

While living with parents can offer a financial advantage, it’s not an option available to everyone.

Some parents downsize as they age, leaving less room for adult children to move back in. Others live far from major employment centres, making a daily commute unrealistic for young adults who work in the city. Family dynamics, caregiving responsibilities and personal circumstances can also make multigenerational living impractical.

For those who do have the option, however, staying at home can provide a significant financial head start. On the r/Money subreddit, one user credited living with their parents until age 27 with helping them save enough to buy a home and build an investment portfolio.

“I lived with my parents until the age of 27. Saved a lot of money, bought a home, have a decent size stock portfolio,” the user wrote. “If it wasn’t for my parents allowing me to stay I wouldn’t have saved what I have now. I of course contributed and helped around the house.”

Gruler said the key is how young adults use that extra time and financial breathing room.

“The most important thing is that young adults use the extra time productively,” Gruler said. “If living at home allows someone to improve their financial foundation, it can put them in a much better position to purchase a home when the right opportunity comes along.”

In previous generations, a steady paycheck was often enough to support moving out, renting an apartment and eventually buying a home. Today, even many young adults with full-time jobs are finding that housing costs, student debt and other financial pressures make those milestones harder to reach.

As a result, the ability to live with family is increasingly becoming a financial privilege in its own right. For some, staying at home can mean the difference between living paycheque to paycheque and building meaningful savings. For others, that option simply doesn’t exist — creating yet another divide between those who can get a head start and those who have to go it alone.

For starters, federal laws dictate that only deceased individuals can be featured on U.S. currency. In fact, a living individual has not appeared on a U.S. coin or bill since 1866, the year that it was banned.

Legislation that would permit Trump’s bill to be produced has languished in Congress since it was introduced in February 2025. Now, nearly 16 months later, senate democrats are asking the Treasury Department’s Office of Inspector General to investigate the spending that’s been devoted to what they’re calling “an illegal $250 bill,” which includes designing a mockup of the banknote.

But a recent episode of NPR’s The Indicator From Planet Money podcast revealed another potentially controversial element of the $250 bill, and it has nothing to do with the president’s portrait.

‘A $250 note would be a gift to criminals’

Wailin Wong, one of the podcast’s hosts, recently sat down with journalist and economic commentator Paddy Hirsch, who’s the editor of the podcast. After briefly touching on the opposition and controversy surrounding Trump’s proposed banknote, the two introduced the episode’s theme.

“There’s one area of opposition that hasn’t received much attention, the idea that a $250 note would be a gift to criminals,” said Wong.

“Drug dealers, arms smugglers, people traffickers, money launderers — they all love to use large-denomination notes,” added Hirsch.

But before diving into that, the two discussed how the American people don’t often use cash, as this form of payment represented just 14% of U.S. consumer transactions in 2024.

The hosts then shifted their attention to the $100 bill, the largest denomination that America currently produces with nearly 20 billion notes currently in circulation. However, Wong was quick to note that the Federal Reserve estimates the majority of $100 notes in circulation are currently held outside the U.S.

“So if Americans aren’t using them, who is?” asked Wong. Oliver Bullough, a writer who focuses on financial crimes, offered his two cents on the podcast.

“Why is there so much demand for cash money, despite the fact that ordinary people aren’t using it, is something that I think is explainable, essentially, entirely by its use by criminals,” said Bullough. “The only real, useful purpose for a high-denomination bill is if you want to move a lot of value in a small space at one time, and the only people that want to do that, really, are criminals.”

With this in mind, Hirsch noted that governments around the world are aware of the criminal usage of large banknotes and many are scaling back on producing them. Europe stopped producing its 500-euro note back in 2019, while Singapore stopped printing its 10,000-dollar note back in 2014.

Wong also noted that the U.S. $100 bill is still very popular among criminals despite the rise of cryptocurrency. “That’s because there’s no blockchain attached to a $100 bill, which makes cash even more anonymous than crypto,” she said.

While the hosts made a strong case for the criminal usage of large banknotes, there’s one specific type of criminal they believe could really benefit from a potential $250 bill.

‘Tax dodgers love them, too’

As the New York Times reported in 2021, the IRS estimates it loses around $1 trillion every year to tax evasion. “We lose way more money from tax evasion each year than we make from printing new currency,” said Hirsch.

Ken Rogoff, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund who contributed to this episode of the podcast, believes many who use $100 banknotes are either not paying their taxes or aren’t paying as much as they should.

“That’s right,” Wong confirmed. “It’s not just drug dealers and money launderers who like big notes. Tax dodgers love them, too.”

As Wong noted, a $250 banknote could make it a lot easier for people to dodge taxes “simply because cash transactions are easy to make anonymous, and it’s a lot easier to transact in cash if you’re using large notes.”

Rogoff also believes tax collections would increase if America were to stop printing large denominations, which is why he doesn’t have much faith in Trump’s $250 banknote coming to fruition.

“Ken [Rogoff] doesn’t believe this note will come to pass, for a variety of reasons,” said Hirsch. “But if it did, he says, the government would end up losing a whole lot of tax money on the deal, and that would be really bad for America.”

Scarsdale, tucked into Westchester County about 25 miles north of midtown Manhattan, ranked first in MoneyLion’s 2026 analysis of the nation’s 50 most affluent suburbs, with an average household income of $612,591 in 2024. Home values there average $1,673,358 as of April 2026.

Eight of the top 10 wealthiest suburbs are in just three states — New York, California and Texas — with the last two each placing three suburbs in the top 10. California also led all states with 16 of the top 50 entries.

The hidden cost of affluence

The appeal of these communities is obvious: top-ranked schools, limited housing supply and proximity to major metro areas.

But Rudri Patel, a certified financial expert at MoneyLion, flagged a less-discussed downside in a USA Today report: “Where you see affluence, you also see risk of identity theft and wire fraud and the potential for scams.”

It’s a warning backed by federal data. According to the FBI, white-collar crimes — which include identity theft, wire fraud, investment fraud and corporate schemes — are not victimless and can “destroy a company, wipe out a person’s life savings, cost investors billions of dollars and erode the public’s trust in institutions.”

According to Huntington Bank’s private wealth security guidance, “high-net-worth individuals are specifically targeted due to their diverse and deep holdings.” Their complex financial lives — often involving multiple accounts, properties and business interests — can create more potential entry points for fraudsters than the average household.

The FBI’s 2025 Internet Crime Report recorded an all-time high of roughly $20.9 billion in cybercrime losses — a 26% increase from 2024. Investment fraud was the single largest category at $8.6 billion in losses, followed by business email compromise at $3 billion and tech/customer support scams at $2.1 billion — all schemes that disproportionately target people with significant assets and complex financial lives.

What makes these suburbs targets

Several factors that make wealthy suburbs desirable also make their residents more exposed. For example, real estate transactions — a staple of affluent suburb life — are particularly vulnerable. The FBI notes online real estate fraud losses reached $275 million in 2025, with wire fraud a primary method.

The MoneyLion ranking uses mean household income data, which can be skewed significantly upward by a small number of ultra-high-net-worth residents — exactly the profile that sophisticated fraudsters target.

Patel’s warning is backed by the scale of the problem. According to the FTC, consumers reported nearly $16 billion in fraud losses in 2025 — up 25% from the prior year and the highest on record — with investment scams alone accounting for $7.9 billion of that total.

So, residents of high-income suburbs who routinely conduct large wire transfers, property transactions and investment activity are often exposed to greater risk than others.

The geography of wealth and risk

Not every wealthy community made the cut. Some well-known enclaves — including Kenilworth, Illinois and Chevy Chase, Maryland — fell below the 5,000-household minimum required for inclusion in the MoneyLion ranking.

Among major metro areas not in the top 10, the wealthiest suburbs include Hinsdale, Illinois (11th, $367,874 average income) outside Chicago; Wellesley, Massachusetts (12th, $367,512 average income) near Boston; and Palm Beach, Florida (13th, $357,254 average income, with an average home value of $10.3 million) near Miami.

For anyone living in or aspiring to move to these ZIP codes, the financial upside is clear. But Patel’s caution is worth internalizing: the same concentration of wealth that makes these communities desirable also makes them magnets for those looking to exploit it.

Freezing your credit, using multi-factor authentication on financial accounts and staying alert to unsolicited contact about investments or wire transfers are baseline protections, with increasing importance the more assets you have.

The memorandum of understanding (MOU), which Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkain signed on June 17, says: “The United States of America undertakes, with regional partners, to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 Billion, for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

The memorandum was leaked to several press outlets on condition of anonymity.

As written, the plan gives Iran $300 billion, unfreezes the country’s frozen and restricted funds and raises sanctions the U.S. has brought against Iran. Former U.S. President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, gave Iran access to around $50 billion of their own frozen assets — something that Trump has spoken against on many occasions.

“Barack Obama gave Iranian terrorists pallets of cash. President Trump negotiated a performance-based MOU that stops Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” said White House assistant press secretary Olivia Wales in an email to Moneywise. “The failed Obama policy was defined by appeasement; the successful Trump policy is defined by American strength.”

Here’s what you need to know about the deal as it stands.

Trump says other nations will pay the $300 billion

Trump initially denied the $300 billion fund entirely. Now, both Trump and Vance deny that the U.S. will be the one paying it.

“There is no 300 Billion Dollar payment to Iran by the U.S. That’s Fake News!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on June 18. “All there is for the U.S. is Success, Lower Oil Prices, and Victory. Check out the Stock Market. Dumocrat propaganda at play!!!”

However, former national security advisor under President Joe Biden and President Obama, Jake Sullivan, isn’t so sure.

“If the U.S. is saying Iran gets $300 billion to keep the deal going, and other countries don’t step up to the plate or the private sector doesn’t step up to the plate, then, in a way, the United States is on the hook,” Sullivan told NPR.

Sullivan says that finding people to provide the $300 billion “is going to be a challenge.” But Reuters reported that a little more than half of that cost has already been covered by private-sector investments, according to an anonymous source with direct knowledge of the MOU.

The source says that companies in the U.S. have agreed to make commitments, as well as companies in South Korea, Singapore, Japan and Malaysia.

Trump has a short timeline to finalize the deal

To avoid using taxpayer money as part of this deal, the U.S. will have to find investors to contribute to the fund within 60 days, which is the time the MOU allots to figure out this plan and finish negotiating other aspects of the deal, such as what to do with Iran’s stockpile of enriched material.

“During these 60 days the fund administrators will work with Iranians and investors to plan and scope projects,” said the Reuters source.

However, Sullivan believes that isn’t enough time.

“It took us almost two years… to get a full Iran nuclear deal — the JCPOA,” Sullivan says. “The idea that they will negotiate the full terms of a nuclear deal in 60 days, I think, is virtually impossible.”

Meanwhile, if those 60 days pass without a deal, Trump doesn’t seem like he’s planning on being patient.

“If it doesn’t get done in 60 days, it’s all right,” he says. “We go back to bombing.”

Imagine Becky, a 23-year-old whose parents recently asked her to co-sign a $50,000 personal loan. Becky’s parents hope the loan will allow them to consolidate credit card balances carrying interest rates between 25% and 35%. They told her they can’t qualify for a favorable rate on their own, despite earning a combined income of roughly $90,000.

Becky’s father has tried to reassure her, stating that the loan payments would come entirely from him and that he carries a life insurance policy that could cover the remaining balance if something were to happen to him.

But Becky is still hesitant. As a recent college graduate with modest savings spread across retirement accounts, investments and a high-yield savings account, she’s concerned that having a $50,000 loan tied to her credit profile could affect her debt-to-income ratio and reduce her financial flexibility just as she’s getting her career started.

At the same time, she doesn’t feel entirely comfortable turning her parents down.

When co-signing a loan backfires

Becky’s parents aren’t the first people to ask an adult kid with a solid credit history to help them qualify for a loan. If a lender believes one borrower alone is too risky, bringing in a co-signer can sometimes unlock approval or a lower interest rate.

The catch, however, is that lenders don’t distinguish between the person who promises to make the payments and the person whose name is added to strengthen the application. In most cases, Becky would be taking on the same legal responsibility for the debt as her parents.

Assuming everything goes according to plan and her parents refinance their expensive credit card balances — making every payment on time and eventually paying the loan off — there may not be much downside, and Becky can feel good about having helped her parents in a time of need.

However, a $50,000 loan would likely show up on her credit report, and future lenders may factor the monthly payment into decisions about whether she can comfortably take on other debt. That might not matter right now, but her circumstances can change in the near future. For example, Becky may plan on buying a house, and she may need to take out a mortgage in order to do so.

There’s also the possibility that her parents hit another rough patch financially. If payments are missed or the loan falls into default, Becky’s credit could take a hit and the lender could pursue her for the balance just as easily as it would pursue her parents.

Her father’s life insurance policy may make the arrangement feel safer, but it doesn’t remove those risks. Coverage can lapse, claims can take time to process and policy proceeds don’t always line up neatly with outstanding debts.

Meanwhile, Becky is still figuring out her own finances and trying to build a bit of savings along the way. According to recent Federal Reserve data, only about 37% of adults ages 18 to 29 report having emergency savings equal to at least three months of expenses, suggesting many young adults are still trying to create a financial cushion of their own.

Shared debt, shared risk

If Becky is still thinking about helping her parents, the first step is less about pulling documents and more about getting everyone on the same page.

That usually starts with an honest conversation about income, monthly bills and how the debt built up in the first place. Whether this is a temporary stretch or something that’s been building over time makes a big difference in what comes next.

However, that conversation can also feel awkward. It’s not exactly easy to sit down with your parents and start asking detailed questions about their debt and spending habits, but it doesn’t have to be a confrontation. One way for Becky to frame it is to simply say she wants to completely understand the situation before agreeing to anything.

If there’s clarity on that, then it makes sense to get into the numbers — credit reports, balances, interest rates, minimum payments — to see whether this is mainly a high-interest problem or something tied to ongoing cash flow issues. That’s where she may be able to tell whether a consolidation loan is likely to help or just rearrange things.

In some cases, families do eventually formalize things a bit more, whether that’s sharing access to accounts or, in more involved situations, looking at legal tools like a power of attorney. But that usually comes later, once there’s a clearer understanding of what kind of support is actually needed and what everyone is comfortable taking on.

Credit card rates in the U.S. have climbed sharply in recent years, with Federal Reserve data showing averages above 20% on many accounts.

Before adding her name to a $50,000 obligation, Becky may want to suggest her parents speak with a nonprofit credit counselor. Debt management plans, for example, can sometimes help lower interest rates and roll multiple payments into a single monthly structure without bringing a co-signer into the picture or extending liability to someone else.

From a lender’s perspective, Becky would be taking on the full loan the moment she signs on the dotted line. The balance would show up on her credit report and would be factored into her debt-to-income ratio — the same metric lenders use when reviewing applications for everything from car loans to mortgages.

This would effectively tie up her borrowing capacity, even if she isn’t the one making payments on the loan. And if anything goes wrong — like a missed payment or default — the impact lands on Becky’s credit just as quickly as it lands on her parents’.

It’s completely natural to want to help family members when they’re in a pinch, especially when the request comes framed as temporary or low-risk. But early in a career, when savings are still being built and financial buffers are thin, saying no — or not yet — can also be a safe, responsible decision.

Over the same period, the X post notes, the average American household’s net worth grew by about 160%.

The comparison, shared by prominent financial commentator Steve Rattner, is about the specific mechanisms that allowed one person’s fortune to compound at nine times the rate of the broader population. Understanding those mechanisms is, in many ways, a lesson in how the wealthiest Americans build wealth on a much different scale.

Where Kushner started and how he grew

By 2009, Kushner had already been running Kushner Companies for several years, having taken over following his father Charles’s conviction on criminal charges, including tax evasion and witness tampering. Under Jared’s leadership, the firm has acquired nearly $7 billion in property.

While Kushner’s net worth at the time is difficult to pin down from public records, the approximate $65 million starting figure comes from the analysis that prompted this comparison.

Over the following decade, that foundation compounded steadily.

According to The Tradable, Kushner’s White House financial disclosures showed he and wife Ivanka Trump held combined assets of between $240 million and $740 million during that period, with Westminster Management alone generating $1.5 million in annual personal income from its portfolio of 20,000 apartment units. Then, when Kushner sold his share of real estate startup Cadre, his payout was between $25 and $50 million.

But the more dramatic acceleration came after he left Washington.

In 2021, Kushner founded Affinity Partners in Miami. According to NoonPost, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund committed $2 billion to the firm — a cornerstone investment, along with another $1.5 billion from Qatari and Emirati funds.

This transformed Affinity from an untested player into a credible global operation. By the end of 2023, Affinity’s assets went from $1.3 billion to $4.8 billion.

And by September 2025, Forbes officially placed Kushner in the billionaire club — his net worth exceeded $1 billion, a figure NoonPost reports was up from $900 million the prior year.

Affinity Partners now manages more than $5.4 billion in assets.

What the average household actually gained

The 160% comparison figure for American household wealth growth since 2009 comes from Rattner’s post on X, and the Federal Reserve’s reporting tells a consistent story.

Total household net worth rose from approximately $61.5 trillion in Q4 2009 to $182.9 trillion in Q4 2025 — roughly three times the amount. The 2010 recorded median family net worth was $77,300, while 2022’s put it at $192,900 — a nominal gain of roughly 149% over that period.

But that aggregate is heavily skewed by outsized gains at the top.

A 2022 report from the Federal Reserve notes that gains in income and wealth were experienced broadly across families but were largest toward the top of the distribution, which was “consistent with some increase in income inequality over this period.”

What drove the gap and where it leaves Americans

The distance between Kushner’s trajectory and that of the typical American household reveals the compounding advantages of starting wealthy, owning appreciating assets and, crucially, gaining access to capital that most Americans don’t.

Private equity and sovereign wealth fund capital flows represent a category of wealth-building that’s unavailable to ordinary investors. According to The Tradable, Kushner leveraged relationships he made as a senior White House advisor and when playing a role in Middle East policy to grow Affinity Partners into what it is today.

But for the typical household, the path was slower and more incremental. The Federal Reserve notes that rising home values were a primary driver of wealth gains in recent years: the median net housing value rose from $139,100 in 2019 to $201,000 in 2022, as home values increased while mortgage debt held relatively flat.

That’s a meaningful gain, but one that compounds far slower than the sovereign wealth fund capital and private equity flow that powered Kushner’s journey. Gains were broad-based but largest at the top — a pattern that has defined American wealth accumulation for decades.

What started as a string of viral TikToks showing international visitors trying ranch dressing for the first time has snowballed into an airport security issue, with travelers attempting to smuggle full-size bottles of it home in their carry-on luggage.

The trend has become so widespread, in fact, that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has issued an official reminder that ranch, too, counts as a liquid and must comply with the agency’s 3.4-ounce carry-on limit.

“If you’re visiting for a very large sporting event & you happen to discover RANCH while you’re here… pls pack it in your CHECKED BAG on the way home,” TSA posted on Threads on the first day of the FIFA World Cup on June 11.

Ranch dressing is having its own World Cup moment

For many Americans, ranch dressing is a pantry staple. But in much of Europe and around the world, it’s surprisingly difficult to come across. Even when it’s available, the flavor differs significantly from U.S. versions of it. And the scarcity of the salad dressing overseas has become obvious as countless international visitors descended on the U.S. for the World Cup.

Social media feeds are riddled with reels of British and European fans declaring ranch dressing as “life-changing,” and pairing it with everything from fries to pizza. One Swedish tourist, in particular, has amassed over 10 million views on an X comment, saying in all-caps: “EUROPE WE NEED RANCH ASAP.”

Others have described stocking up on ranch before flying home, with viral social posts circulating about gaining the “FIFA 15” and thanking America for its service… of introducing the world to ranch.

The online obsession with ranch dressing has ultimately translated into legitimate airport security concerns, with TSA reporting that travelers are repeatedly trying to carry full-size bottles through checkpoints before learning that ranch dressing is, indeed, treated like any other liquid.

The agency posted, “Days since the last airport ranch incident: 0,” responding with tongue-and-cheek social media posts telling visitors to pack ranch dressing in checked luggage or pack smaller amounts of it if they “need to dip at 35,000 feet.”

“Love (of ranch) is in the air!” TSA wrote in an Instagram post. “Travelers, take your ranch-lationship to the next level, there’s no need for a breakup! If you can’t bear to be separated from your favorite ranch dressing, pack the full-size bottle in your checked bag … You can bring it in your carry-on if it’s 3.4 oz or less. Keep your sauce close, your wings & salads closer!”

Kraft didn’t waste the marketing opportunity. The company announced plans for TSA-compliant ranch dressing packets designed specifically for travelers hoping to take America’s favorite dressing back overseas.

“Some visitors leave with souvenirs; others leave with America’s favorite dressing,” Kraft wrote in an Instagram post. “Introducing Kraft TSA Compliant Ranch, a travel-friendly way to bring the taste of America home. Stay tuned for details on how to get yours. This image was partially generated with AI. We’re working on the real thing.”

Why viral food trends can become big business

The ranch dressing obsession may seem like just another quirky internet trend, but it highlights a real phenomenon. Mega-events like the FIFA World Cup don’t just drive ticket sales, airline tickets, hotel bookings or tourism. They can introduce unprecedented numbers of visitors to products they never knew existed, also evidenced by the viral videos of Japanese tourists eating Texas barbeque for the first time.

Food brands spend enormous sums trying to enter international markets through advertising and retail expansion. Sometimes, however, exposure happens organically. Millions of visitors sampling American products firsthand creates word-of-mouth marketing that companies simply can’t buy.

Travel has long introduced visitors to regional foods that later found global audiences. Portuguese pastéis de nata, for example, have expanded well beyond Portugal in recent years, while Australian Tim Tams are now sold in many overseas grocery stores.

Ranch dressing could follow a similar trajectory. According to consumer research, the dressing has long ranked among America’s most popular condiments, outperforming many competing dressings in household penetration. And, now, thanks to World Cup visitors sharing their reactions online, ranch dressing is receiving unprecedented global attention.

For Kraft and other manufacturers, even converting a small percentage of curious international tourists into repeat customers could represent a meaningful new revenue opportunity. Licensing agreements, expanded international distribution and travel-sized products all become easier to justify with overseas demand.

At 51, Andrea has spent much of her adult life living paycheck to paycheck. She carries credit card debt, has only a modest emergency fund and hasn’t accumulated much wealth outside of her home.

Now she’s staring at several gold and silver bars and coins that could be worth tens of thousands of dollars. And she has no idea what she’s supposed to do with them.

Part of her wants to cash them in and finally take the European vacation she’s been dreaming about for years. Another part wonders whether she’d be better off paying down debt, boosting her retirement savings or simply holding onto the metals as an investment.

There’s another complication: Andrea has no records showing when her aunt bought the gold and silver, what she paid for them or even their exact value. Before making any big decisions, she wants to understand what inheriting precious metals means for her taxes, and whether selling them is really the smartest move.

The tax rules that matter

Before Andrea starts pricing out flights to Rome, she may want to figure out exactly what she has and how she came to own it.

Inheriting gold or silver usually doesn’t create an immediate tax bill. The bigger issue tends to come later, when the metals are sold, and that depends largely on whether Andrea inherited them after her aunt died or whether they were handed over while her aunt was still living.

If they were inherited, Andrea may get a break. Assets inherited from a decedent generally receive a stepped-up basis equal to their fair market value on the date of death. So, if Andrea sold the metals not long after inheriting them and their value hadn’t changed much, she might owe little or nothing in capital gains taxes.

If, instead, her aunt gifted the gold and silver to her years ago, the math gets a little more murky. Gifts generally come with the original owner’s cost basis attached. This means Andrea may need to establish what her aunt originally paid for the metals decades earlier. Without receipts or other records, she may need to rely on old account statements, dealer records, estate documents or other evidence to reconstruct the original purchase price.

There’s another potential issue, too. Physical gold and silver aren’t taxed quite the same way as stocks or mutual funds. The IRS generally classifies bullion and many precious-metal coins as collectibles, which means long-term gains can be taxed at rates of up to a maximum 28%.

None of that means Andrea should hold onto the metals forever. But it does suggest slowing down before walking into the nearest coin shop and taking the first offer that comes along.

Getting an appraisal from a reputable dealer could give her a clearer sense of what the collection is worth, help her compare offers, and make it easier to understand any tax consequences before she decides whether the European vacation is worth cashing in for.

Turning an unexpected windfall into financial breathing room

Andrea is far from alone in feeling financially squeezed. The latest data from the Federal Reserve show that only 55% of U.S. adults have at least three months of emergency savings available, while other surveys suggest roughly two-thirds of Americans say they are living paycheck to paycheck.

A separate survey from Bankrate found that only 47% of Americans have “sufficient liquidity or access to funds to cover a $1,000 emergency expense,” which demonstrates how little margin for error many households feel they have.

This is why financial planners often encourage people to treat an unexpected inheritance as a chance to buy flexibility rather than consumption. For Andrea, who has spent years making sure the rent is covered and hoping nothing major breaks between paychecks, the draw of cashing everything out and going to Europe is understandable. It’s a dream, but it’s also a reaction to years of financial stress.

For Andrea, relieving herself of that financial stress would be something like selling enough metal to create her first true emergency fund, paying off high-interest credit card debt, and setting aside money for immediate needs such as car repairs, medical bills or job disruptions.

That doesn’t mean she has to give up on the idea of traveling. She may find that setting aside a smaller amount for experiences scratches the same itch. A few weeks exploring national parks or taking a long road trip could give her a taste of the lifestyle she’s imagining.

After years of living paycheck to paycheck, Andrea can take time to build a cash reserve, review her finances, and think through longer-term goals that may give her a clearer picture of whether this windfall is best used to fund a year on the road or make everyday life a little less financially stressful.

The Kansas City, Mo. financial analyst and father of three daughters has spent years hunting for the kinds of stocks that don’t just grow, but compound into life-altering wealth over decades.

He calls them “100-baggers”: companies whose share prices multiply a hundredfold or more over time. And he’s been systematically stashing physical stock certificates into a coffee can, with a plan not to touch them for at least 30 years.

“When you actually start thinking about creating a legacy, or kind of generational wealth, for your kids ... you don’t think about it as in quarters or even years,” Ankrum told CBS News. “You start thinking about it in the decades.”

His strategy — now documented in a new book, The Coffee Can Investor, written by former CBS News and Stations president Neeraj Khemlani — rests on a simple idea: identify exceptional companies, buy shares, and resist every impulse to sell. If he picks correctly and lets compounding do its work, Ankrum believes the portfolio could eventually be worth half a billion dollars, he told CBS News.

Origins of the coffee-can investing strategy

The coffee can concept has a long history. It traces back to an experience investment manager Robert Kirby had in the mid-1950s with a client, which he wrote about in a 1984 paper published in The Journal of Portfolio Management.

A client’s husband had followed Kirby’s stock picks, but completely ignored his advice on when to sell — putting $5,000 into each recommended stock, then doing nothing.

When the man died, Kirby found a portfolio that dwarfed the actively managed account: some positions had declined to under $2,000, but several exceeded $100,000 — and one, a small stake in a company called Haloid, which later became Xerox, had grown to over $800,000 — more than the entire value of his wife’s managed portfolio, purely because it was never sold.

The lesson Ankrum drew from that history: Most investors destroy returns by trading too often. The real edge comes from identifying outstanding companies and then doing almost nothing.

“The real story behind the book is about patience, and it’s about actually finding outstanding companies and being able to allow the power of compounding to do the heavy lifting,” Ankrum told CBS News.

Why now, and why this matters

Ankrum’s approach taps into something much broader than personal ambition. The United States is in the midst of what researchers call the Great Wealth Transfer — in which the Silent Generation and Baby Boomers are expected to pass on around $84-$90 trillion to younger generations by 2044.

Yet according to SmartAsset’s analysis of Federal Reserve data, millennials and Gen Zers currently hold only about 10.7% of total U.S. wealth.

That gap is part of what drives parents like Ankrum to think in multi-decade time horizons. A survey by Fidelity arm ipx1031 found that 80% of Americans wish they had started investing earlier, and that the average American doesn’t make their first investment until age 27.

Ankrum’s daughters have a strong head start.

The human side of the strategy

Khemlani, who first heard about Ankrum’s approach through their decades-old friendship, told CBS News he was immediately captivated: “Following someone who is, in real-time, making decisions on which stocks to put into a coffee can for his daughters was riveting. That’s the ultimate lottery ticket, and I knew I had to write his story and his family’s story.”

Above all, the coffee can is designed to give the girls something money can’t buy outright: options.

“Today, (my daughter) loves nursing,” Ankrum told CBS News. “But at some point in the future, she might decide that she wants to do something different.”

That flexibility and ability to change course without financial pressure are ultimately what Ankrum is building toward. The coffee can just happens to be how he’s paying for it.

In 2021, he opened an account with Yotta, a savings app that marketed itself as a no-loss lottery — the more you save, the more free tickets you earn toward weekly prize drawings.

He set up an auto-transfer of $50 every week or two, watched the balance grow and held on to the detail that mattered most: The deposits were FDIC-insured. The app said so on its website.

“I was expecting the same thing as what I had already had in my credit union,” Fenner says in a More Perfect Union documentary, “except the potential for greater interest returns.”

By May 2024, he had $23,419 saved. Then he tried to withdraw $10,000 — but couldn’t. Two full years later, he still can’t access his money.

Fenner is one of 85,000 Yotta customers who lost access to their accounts in a collapse that co-founder Adam Moelis said resulted in $112 million of customer funds missing.

The debacle, which is still unfolding, is a painful reminder that not every company that accepts your money will take good care of it — and it’s not easy for ordinary people to know the risks.

How Yotta’s no-loss lottery worked

Yotta Technologies was not a bank. It was a financial technology company, which meant it couldn’t hold deposits itself, so it routed customer funds through a San Francisco middleware company called Synapse Financial Technologies. Synapse then placed those funds at partner banks, including Arkansas-based Evolve Bank & Trust.

Yotta pooled a portion of the interest earned on deposits and paid it out as lottery prizes. For every $25 saved, customers got one ticket in weekly drawings for a top prize of up to $10 million. And the app told customers their deposits were always safe, backed by FDIC insurance at the partner banks.

What Synapse did with that money is what made the collapse so destructive. Rather than keeping a separate account for each customer, Synapse pooled thousands of people’s savings together into large ”for-benefit-of” accounts held at partner banks. As the documentary puts it, a for-benefit-of account is like hundreds of people sharing one bank account. Only Synapse tracked how much of the pooled balance belonged to each person.

“I went through [the fine print] before we joined the bank,” one user says in the documentary, “and was like, you know what? This checks out. It is FDIC-insured.”

FDIC insurance guarantees the federal government covers deposits up to $250,000 if a chartered bank fails. For these customers, it felt like the ultimate safety net, but it wasn’t.

What Yotta had not made clear was that in October 2023, it had moved customer accounts from Evolve to Synapse Brokerage LLC (a Synapse subsidiary that did not carry FDIC protection), despite, as California regulators later found, having “serious concerns about Synapse” at the time.

When California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation fined Yotta $1 million in May 2026 for this, Commissioner KC Mohseni said: “Yotta blatantly deceived thousands of California customers regarding the risk to their accounts.”

When the middleman went bankrupt

Synapse filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April 2024. By May 11, Evolve had frozen all withdrawals through Yotta. Debit cards stopped working. Transfers stopped processing, and people just couldn’t access their money.

The reason FDIC coverage didn’t apply: the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insures deposits when a chartered bank fails. Synapse was middleware, not a bank. And because Synapse alone kept the ledgers tracking how much of each pooled balance belonged to each customer, its bankruptcy wiped out the record keeping.

Apparently, the problem had been there for years. A November 2022 email obtained by Jason Mikula, publisher of Fintech Business Weekly, showed Evolve writing to Synapse that “the balances tend to differ a couple hundred million on the daily.” Years before the collapse, the two sides knew they couldn’t reconcile hundreds of millions in customer funds.

Evolve did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“There is no playbook for the failure of a third-party technology service provider like Synapse,” Mikula says in the documentary.

When reconciliation letters started arriving, the amounts were so small that it shocked everyone. One person who said they saved $21,000 received $17 back. Another was offered $0.75 back from her $15,000 savings.

Others missed mortgage payments, drained retirement accounts and took on credit card debt. ”My mom got sick with cancer, and all of these costs compounded,” one user said.

Where things stand, and what to do with your savings

In November 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) allocated $46.2 million from its Civil Penalty Fund to compensate Synapse victims nationally. California required Yotta to notify affected California customers that they may be eligible for relief from the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund as part of its $1 million consent order in May 2026.

Yotta is still in the App Store, now operating as a gambling app with blackjack and roulette.

Hilary J. Allen, financial regulation expert and professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, told the documentary what she sees as the core problem: “The fintech industry essentially, through these partnerships, [is] trying to free ride on those benefits without having to pay for the compliance costs.”

She also acknowledges that people shouldn’t have to bear the burden of protecting themselves in these situations: “I’m a law professor who studies financial regulation for a living and it’s hard for me to parse the fine print sometimes. To say that individuals bear the burden of protecting themselves from those business models is a really messed up way, frankly, of dealing with things.”

According to the documentary, if you use Chime, Cash App, PayPal or Venmo (or any app that is not itself a chartered, regulated bank), your money may be sitting in the same kind of pooled accounts that made Synapse’s collapse so untraceable. You can check whether your deposits are insured by using the FDIC’s online tools to look up the bank and estimate your coverage.

Chad Fenner’s $23,419 is still frozen, alongside tens of thousands of other people. “Like, no one is responsible for my money,” one Yotta user said, and after two years of Yotta, Evolve and Synapse pointing at each other, that’s still the most accurate summary of where things stand.

You wouldn’t take a family vacation without your kids, right? Well, for DINKWADs, a family vacation means bringing the dog along. No matter the cost.

These child-free millennial couples may have more disposable income, leaving them free to pamper their four-legged “fur children.” Others might not be able to afford the high cost of raising human children, opting instead to baby their pets.

The travel industry has taken note, offering bespoke experiences that include pets, so that no family member gets left out when you’re booking that dream vacation.

Fewer children, more pets

Americans are having fewer children, with birthrates falling more than 20% within the last two decades. According to a report from NPR, although experts haven’t found a consensus on why this is, some believe it’s related to economic factors.

Meanwhile, in 2025, 53% of Americans owned pets, according to an American Pet Products Association report, which also found that “significantly more Gen Z and millennials reported that the economy did not affect their pet ownership,” despite ongoing economic pressure. The report found that expenditures in the pet industry were $158 billion in 2025, and expected to hit $165 billion for 2026.

Charlie Dice, a 38-year-old writer and DINKWAD from Erie, Penn., told Bloomberg that she would change her travel plans if she couldn’t bring her two Bernese mountain dogs along for the ride.

“We look for facilities that cater to dogs,” she told Bloomberg. “If our dogs can’t go, we would never leave them behind in a kennel.”

Dice’s two dogs are part of the family; the reason she has two is because, “like with kids, we think it’s good to have a sibling.”

When pet travel includes private jets and Michelin star treats

She’s taken her dogs on trips within the U.S. and to Europe, flying with commercial carriers. She told Bloomberg she has looked into private-jet booking services such as VistaJet and Wheels Up, which allow pets to travel in the cabin.

According to VistaJet’s website, one in four of their clients flies with their pet. The company offers a “VistaPet” program that includes a travel bag with grooming products, a toy and treats created by a Michelin-starred chef.

For in-flight dining, a typical menu “could include an entrée of roast tenderloin, baked salmon or roast chicken served with steamed, roasted or raw vegetables and whole grain brown rice.” That’s the meal for your pet, just to be clear.

There is also Bark Air, “the only dog-first travel service,” a charter flight service that lets pet owners book private or shared flights. A one-way ticket from New York to Los Angeles could cost about $6,000.

Hotels and resorts are also expanding their offerings for pets, likely responding to increased demand. A 2022 survey by Wag! found that 81% of “pet parents” surveyed seek out pet-friendly hotels.

Sonesta International Hotels launched its PAWS program in 2022, which sets rates hotels can charge for pets, and also requires certain amenities and retail products, according to a Hotels Magazine report.

“In all our lobbies, we have water bowls and treat jars and pets are given a welcome letter explaining local amenities. We have waste-bag stations outside of our hotel entrances. Dogs are given an in-room water bowl, waterproof mat and dog bed (in full-service hotels),” Brittany Hattingh, director of brand programming and innovation for Sonesta, told Hotels.

Ace Hotel recommends pet parents check with each specific hotel on what its pet policy is, but dubs itself as “dog friendly.” While its New York and Brooklyn hotels will cover the pet fee, at the Toronto location, pet owners get a $40 credit to Dog World Resort & Spa.

‘I like seeing the world through my dog’s eyes’

“The key to traveling with your dog is to look for a property that offers things you can do together,” Sydney Durieux, another DINKWAD, told Bloomberg.

Durieux regularly takes her pup to an actual castle for a getaway. At Kilkea Castle in County Kildare, Ireland, you can book “selected dog‑friendly lodges available on the estate.”

According to Bloomberg, dog guests at Kilkea Castle are welcome to walk in the Mullaghreelan Woods, and humans will get a “pup picnic lunch basket” to bring along. Or, you and your four-legged companion can relax at the estate’s traditional Irish pub.

Dice told Bloomberg that traveling with her Bernese mountain dogs gives her a new perspective. “I like seeing the world through my dog’s eyes — it’s probably the same as with kids. With a new place, they get all excited.”

The amount people believe they need to retire comfortably, often called the retirement “magic number,” has climbed to $1.46 million in 2026, according to a new study from Northwestern Mutual — that’s an increase of $200,000 from last year.

The research comes at a time when many Americans are already feeling uneasy about their financial future.

And with people living longer than ever, the challenge isn’t just saving enough money to retire, it’s making sure that money lasts for decades after they stop working.

Retirement targets are going up

According to Northwestern Mutual’s 2026 Planning & Progress Study, the current estimate of $1.46 million matches the record-high level recorded in 2024.

The survey of U.S. adults found that almost half, 46%, don’t think they’ll be financially ready for retirement when the time comes. Meanwhile, 48% say it’s somewhat or very likely they’ll outlive their retirement savings.

A significant 27% of Americans surveyed believe they could live to age 100. On average, Americans say they plan on retiring at age 65 — which would mean a retirement that could last 30 years or more.

Half of Gen X respondents worry they could outlive their savings, while 20% say financial concerns have already forced them to delay retirement.

The study also found about 41% of Americans say they already or are planning to work during retirement, including half of Millennials and Gen Xers.

That decision is about staying active and engaged for some, but for many other people, it’s financial. Nearly half of the respondents who expect to work in retirement say they’ll need the income to afford their desired lifestyle.

Another growing concern is the future of Social Security. One-third of Americans identified the question “Will Social Security be there when I qualify for it?” as one of their biggest retirement worries.

With rising retirement targets and growing uncertainty about future income sources, financial experts say focusing solely on hitting a specific savings number may not be enough.

How to make sure your retirement savings last

The good news is that a $1.46 million retirement target isn’t necessarily as intimidating as it sounds.

Savers can consider focusing less on a single “magic number” and more on building a realistic plan based on their expected spending, income needs and retirement goals.

To help figure out how much you may need, Northwestern Mutual points to a few retirement strategies.

One is the 25x Rule, which suggests saving roughly 25 times your expected annual retirement spending. Under that formula, someone who expects to spend about $58,000 a year in retirement would need approximately $1.46 million saved.

Another guideline is the $1,000-a-month rule, which estimates that every $1,000 of monthly retirement income requires roughly $300,000 in savings. Using that calculation, a $1.46 million nest egg could generate around $4,800 in monthly retirement income.

There’s also the traditional 4% rule, which suggests retirees may be able to withdraw 4% of their savings in their first year of retirement and adjust that amount for inflation over the following decades.

But Northwestern Mutual cautions that rules of thumb are only starting points. There are other factors to consider such as rising healthcare costs, long-term care needs, taxes or legacy planning goals. Here are some additional strategies that can help stretch retirement savings over the long haul:

Maximize retirement account contributions. The IRS increased 401(k) contribution limits to $24,500 for 2026, giving workers an opportunity to shelter more money from taxes while building long-term wealth.

Pay down high-interest debt before retirement. Carrying credit card balances into retirement can quickly drain savings. The National Foundation for Credit Counseling recommends tackling expensive debt as early as possible to reduce future financial pressure.

Build an emergency fund. According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, emergency savings can help retirees avoid withdrawing investments during market downturns or relying on costly debt when unexpected expenses pop up.

Plan for healthcare expenses. Healthcare remains one of the largest retirement costs. Fidelity estimates that the average retiree may need roughly 15% of their retirement income to cover medical expenses not paid by Medicare.

Consider delaying Social Security. The Social Security Administration notes that monthly benefits increase for workers who delay claiming beyond full retirement age, up to age 70.

At the end of the day, the goal doesn’t have to be to hit a specific dollar figure. But if you create a savings and spending strategy that can support your lifestyle for what could be a retirement lasting 30 years or more, you’re on the right track.

The latest survey shows that everyday Americans are becoming increasingly aware of that challenge. With roughly half worried about outliving their savings, having a plan could matter even more than reaching the latest retirement “magic number.”

That’s why it’s important to be careful about the advice you follow and make sure that you’re making the best investment choices that align with your goals.

For example, let’s pretend that Sarah and Fred attended a free seminar on investing for retirees, and the speaker billed himself as a financial professional with tips on helping seniors prepare for life without a paycheck.

The seminar speaker told the attendees that annuities can outperform stocks, and Sarah and Fred aren’t sure whether his claims were accurate or whether they were sold a bill of goods. So, should Sarah and Fred sink their 401(k) or other retirement assets into an annuity, or are stocks the way to go?

Can annuities outperform stocks?

Was the speaker giving Sarah and Fred bad advice or is it possible for annuities to outperform stocks?

“It depends on what you mean by outperform,” Domenick D’Andrea, founder of DanDarah Wealth Management, told Moneywise. “If you are investing for the long term and we are in a bull market, then stocks will most likely outperform annuities. But annuities can outperform stocks in certain situations.”

D’Andrea explained that annuities can offer both a lifetime guaranteed income and, in some cases, downside protection with a buffer that can potentially eliminate losses in a down market. “If you live a long life, or if we have a few years of down stock markets with a buffer in place, then annuities may outperform,” D’Andrea said.

Annuities vs. stocks: Different goals for different investors

The reality is, comparing annuities and stocks is hard because they are different financial products.

Annuities are a contract with an insurance company. You pay a lump sum or regular payments, and in exchange, the annuity can provide income immediately or in the future. Depending on the annuity type, it may guarantee a specific amount of income for a set period of time that could last as long as the rest of your life (or the rest of both spouses’ lives for a joint-life annuity).

There are lots of different kinds of annuities. But as Gainbridge Financial (which sells annuities to consumers) explains, average returns can range between 4% and 5% for fixed annuities or 6% to 8% for variable annuities.

Stocks, on the other hand, offer the chance to buy shares of companies. You can buy an ETF that tracks a market index, such as the S&P 500. Historically, the S&P 500 has delivered around 10% average annual returns over the long-term, and these ETFs typically come with very low fees.

But, while the S&P may provide a better ROI on paper, there are more downside risks. If you put your entire portfolio into the S&P when you’re retired you risk all your money being invested during a crash. In that case, you could be forced to sell when you need income and lock in losses. You have more growth potential, but you’re also more exposed.

There are other differences as well. For example, annuities can have high fees, and stocks can be more liquid. The right option for Sarah and Fred will depend on what they’re looking for.

Choosing to buy an annuity or invest

So, how should Sarah and Fred decide whether to buy an annuity or invest?

“The first thing you should look at when deciding if you should purchase an annuity is what you are looking to get out of the product,” D’Andrea told Moneywise.

“If you’re looking for guaranteed lifetime income without worrying about outliving the account, then an annuity probably makes sense as part of your plan. If you’re a conservative investor looking for a better return than a bank account, then a fixed annuity could make sense. Lastly, if you want tax-deferred growth on non-qualified money, then an annuity is a good idea.”

But, if you want the most growth potential, are willing to take on more risk or are a confident investor who wants to take your chance in the market, then the stock market is likely a better bet. Sarah and Fred will have to think about their goals to see what makes sense for them.

In fact, the median balance in their accounts is just $87,000. The common benchmark for a secure retirement ($1 million) is more than 11 times that amount. And in fact, some would say $1 million isn’t even enough anymore — if you want to retire comfortably in the U.S., you should be aiming for $1.46 million now.

The latest data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances shows just 54.3% of households have a 401(k) or individual retirement account (IRA).

And among those who do, less than 10% of households in each age group had $1 million or more saved in those accounts, according to a February 2025 Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of the same data. The highest rate was for households led by someone aged 55 to 64, the group closest to retirement, and even there, only 9.2% had crossed the million-dollar mark.

That figure is lower for every other age group — here’s what’s likely behind those troubling figures.

The 45% the headline leaves out

Before you ask why people aren’t hitting $1 million, consider who isn’t even saving at all.

More than 45% of U.S. households — roughly 60 million of the 131.3 million counted in the 2022 survey — have no 401(k) or IRA. Some of those households may still get a traditional pension from an employer, but most don’t control any dedicated retirement account. And access to even that much depends on income — higher earners are much more likely to have a plan than lower earners, because they earn more money.

Another CRS analysis of Fed data found that 91.1% of households earning $150,000 or more had money in a 401(k), IRA, or similar account, while just 13.2% of households earning under $30,000 did. Retirement savings in the U.S. is built around employer-sponsored plans, so where someone works and how much they earn make a huge difference.

Race is also a factor. In the 2022 survey, 61.7% of white households had retirement accounts, compared with about 34.8% of Black households and 27.5% of Hispanic households. And this isn’t about personal discipline. The races with lower retirement accounts show the effect of lower wages, and less access to employer plans.

Why the median balance stays stuck

For the 54.3% who are saving, the distance between $87,000 and $1 million is still huge.

Among all households headed by someone 55 to 64, the median retirement balance was only about $10,000 in 2022, once you include the many households with nothing saved at all. That’s the median for America’s near-retirement households in total, and not just for people who already have accounts.

The annual contribution limits are high, but they matter most for people with plenty of room in their budget. The 2026 standard 401(k) limit is $24,500, with a $8,000 catch-up if they’re 50 or older for a total of $32,500. Those between 60 and 63 qualify for an $11,250 super catch-up under the SECURE 2.0 Act, to raise their limit to $35,750.

But these limits only work for people with enough income to approach them. For most Americans, rent, childcare and debt comes first, and that leaves less cash to invest.

Building that kind of balance takes time and steady contributions, but that’s a tough combination for anyone who starts late or earns less.

What the research shows about who gets there

Fidelity Investments manages retirement plans for approximately 25 million workers. As of June 2024, about 497,000 of them had at least $1 million in their 401(k)s — roughly 2% of Fidelity’s total participant base.

That didn’t happen because of one lucky market year. Michael Shamrell, vice president of workplace thought leadership at Fidelity, told CBS MoneyWatch in August 2024 that the typical millionaire in the plan had been in it for 27 years and had kept saving over time.

“They have seen a lot, and they are a great example of taking a longer-term approach to continuing to save and stay on track,” he said.

So yes, reaching $1 million in a retirement account is possible, but it takes time.

Start with the employer match. If your company offers one, contribute enough to get the full match — that’s part of your compensation, and skipping it means you’re leaving guaranteed money behind.

For people 50 and older, the catch-up rules matter too. Even small increases to your contribution rate can add up over time if you keep them going.

And for the roughly 60 million households with no retirement account at all, your first contribution is the starting point.

A Federal Reserve report from 2025 also shows that only 35% of non-retired Americans think their retirement savings are on track, down from 40% in 2021, though up from a low of 31% in 2022. It’s not really a motivation problem. For a lot of households, the bigger hurdles are access, income and time.

The technology has inspired both enthusiasm and skepticism. Some users now rely on AI every day for work, school and personal tasks. Others remain wary of its tendency to make mistakes, have concerns about privacy or simply don’t see enough value to justify paying for it.

That divide may help explain a surprising finding from a new Bank of America Institute report: Despite the intense hype surrounding AI, only about 3% of households currently pay for AI services.

Most Americans still aren’t paying for AI

According to Bank of America payments data, approximately 3% of households paid for AI services in 2026, spending a median of $20 per month as of February. While adoption remains relatively low, participation is growing quickly. The number of households making AI-related payments was up 38% compared to the 2024 average.

The report suggests consumers are most willing to pay when AI saves time, simplifies decisions or combines multiple tasks into one service. Shopping for electronics and planning vacations ranked among the most common consumer uses for AI-powered tools.

Most paying customers are still spending relatively modest amounts. Roughly 60% of AI subscribers spend $20 or less per month, though spending appears to be rising. The share of households spending between $21 and $40 monthly on AI services has increased 50% since 2024, while 7% of AI-paying households now spend more than $100 per month.

Not surprisingly, higher-income households are the most likely to pay for AI services. Households earning more than $125,000 account for the largest share of AI subscribers, though Bank of America found spending growth was strongest among households earning between $75,000 and $125,000, suggesting adoption may be spreading beyond early adopters.

Age also plays a role. Gen Z and younger millennials were more likely to pay for AI services than older millennials and Gen X consumers, according to the report.

Even so, Bank of America concluded that AI subscriptions remain far from mainstream. In a CivicScience survey cited by the report, 37% of respondents said none of AI’s common uses were practical or helpful in their everyday lives.

AI has become mainstream, paying for AI hasn’t

The gap between how consumers view AI and how the industry’s leaders view it may be wider than ever.

While Bank of America found that only about 3% of households currently pay for AI services, executives at the companies building the technology are envisioning a future where AI becomes a utility that consumers use every day.

In March, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said eventually consumers will pay for AI based on usage. “We see a future where intelligence is a utility like electricity or water and people buy it from us on a meter,” Altman said.

OpenAI currently offers ChatGPT Plus for $20 per month, but it also sells ChatGPT Pro for $200 per month, which provides expanded access to its most advanced models and tools.

Those higher-priced offerings reflect a challenge facing AI companies: the technology is expensive to build and operate. As firms race to develop more powerful AI systems, they are spending billions of dollars on data centers, chips and computing infrastructure.

Anthropic, the maker of Claude, has signed a series of agreements to secure additional computing capacity and recently raised funding at a valuation approaching $1 trillion, underscoring how much money is flowing into the sector.

Yet consumers have been slower to open their wallets. Bank of America’s research found that the median AI-paying household spends just $20 per month, and more than one-third of consumers surveyed by CivicScience said none of AI’s common use cases were particularly practical or helpful in their everyday lives.

That may help explain why many AI companies are increasingly finding their biggest customers in the business world rather than among ordinary consumers. Reuters reported that Anthropic’s rapid growth has been driven largely by demand for its enterprise AI tools, particularly products aimed at software developers and workplace productivity.

For now, investors are valuing AI companies as though artificial intelligence will eventually become as essential as internet service, electricity or a smartphone. The latest consumer spending data suggests, meanwhile, that most Americans still see it as an optional subscription.

In a 7-2 ruling, SCOTUS declared that Bayer cannot be held responsible for failing to comply with state laws governing label warnings about chemicals that may cause cancer on its Roundup weedkiller because federal law doesn’t require it.

The decision reverses a lower Missouri court ruling in favor of a St. Louis man named John Durnell, who said he developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from 20 years of exposure to the chemical glyphosate used in Roundup. He’d won $1.25 million in the decision.

Durnell’s case, meanwhile, was one of an estimated 100,000 lawsuits filed in recent years against Bayer — and Monsanto, the previous owner of Roundup — that have already paid out roughly $11 billion in settlements to those who claim the weedkiller led to them developing cancer. Another 65,000 such lawsuits remain unresolved, though the SCOTUS ruling is expected to essentially put an end to those. Bayer, meanwhile, reportedly plans to move ahead to settle them with a deal worth $7.25 billion.

A Bayer statement following the decision called it “good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation,” while Tarah Heinzen, of the advocacy group Food and Water Watch, told Reuters the ruling is “a disaster for public health.”

Other than Bayer, the other immediate winners in the decision were their investors, who watched the company’s stock jump faster than it had in more than two decades, topping out on Thursday morning at more than 24% over the previous week.

When federal and state laws clash

The National Pesticide Information Center notes that glyphosate “is one of the most widely used herbicides with applications in agriculture, forestry, industrial weed control, lawn, garden, and aquatic environments” — including major uses in corn and soybean farming.

One of the problems with the chemical is that experts can’t agree on whether it actually causes cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it doesn’t, while the World Health Organization says it does.

But in the U.S., the EPA wins out. As a result, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that the EPA uses to oversee the regulation of pesticides says that Roundup doesn’t require a warning label about potential cancer risks.

The question, then, in state courts, became whether Roundup was misbranded. Plaintiffs like Durnell and others claimed it is and that Bayer failed to warn about the health risks. Bayer contends it isn’t because the EPA deemed it safe.

Durnell had previously won his case against Bayer in Missouri state court in 2023 and then again when the company appealed, upholding his $1.25 million verdict.

But the Supreme Court ruled that because the EPA is a federal agency, its rule should take precedence over state laws.

Now 75, Durnell told the Associated Press that, while his cancer is in remission, “there are thousands of cases that are like [his] that will not see court now. So that is the biggest disappointment for [him].”

The legal battle, meanwhile, happened against a backdrop of a Republican draft farm bill from February, which Chemical and Engineering News wrote preempts “state and local governments from requiring warnings that differ from those approved by the (EPA).”

As well, around the same time President Trump issued an executive order calling the U.S. production of glyphosate-based herbicides “central to American economic and national security.”

What consumers need to know

Opponents of the Supreme Court decision — which range from across the political spectrum — fear that Thursday’s ruling could make it easier for manufacturers to include harmful chemicals in products used by Americans everyday.

Bloomberg, for example, noted that industries like food and cosmetics “are governed by laws similar to the one at the core of the Bayer case,” illustrating the potentially wide reach of such a ruling.

Kelly Ryerson, an activist and supporter of the Robert F. Kennedy Jr.-led Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, told Reuters that the SCOTUS ruling “will perpetuate our cancer, infertility and general chronic disease epidemic for generations to come.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the two dissenting SCOTUS justices alongside Neil Gorsuch, called the decision “both remarkable and regrettable,” while Christopher Seeger, an attorney representing a person who says they became ill after using Roundup, told the Associated Press that the ruling “slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides.”

It’s a sentiment echoed by numerous legal representatives in a brief filed ahead of the SCOTUS decision, which advised that state tort law “actively supports and supplements” FIFRA’s rules. They added that with 57,000 FIFRA-registered pesticides, “the EPA cannot continuously monitor every one or anticipate every risk,” thus leaving state tort law “among the few mechanisms available to surface those risks and protect the public.”

The brief also provided an ominous warning that overruling state court decisions would “shield manufacturers from any accountability for marketing unsafe products, incentivizing them to use their resources to pressure regulatory agencies … instead of compensating injured consumers or improving the safety of their products.”

According to congressional disclosure filings, Pelosi purchased up to $6 million worth of call options on Intel and Uber.

With each option contract controlling 100 shares, Pelosi now controls over 20,000 Intel shares, with a strike price of $50 until March 19, 2027. She holds the same call option in Uber, with the same expiration date.

Unlike buying shares outright, call options allow investors to control a large number of shares without having to pay the full purchase price. The buyer of a call option has the right, but not the obligation, to call and purchase the stocks. The seller must sell at the predetermined price. The method is favored by experienced investors, as it allows them to speculate on whether a company’s stock will rise.

In Pelosi’s case, rather than spending millions to purchase the shares outright, she paid an option premium to secure the right to buy the shares later. It’s unclear when she purchased the call options, but she disclosed the transactions on May 29.

The investments come as Intel undergoes an impressive turnaround. The stock has surged 496% over the past year, marking a staggering comeback as the company attempts to build its manufacturing business. Intel is currently trending at about $129.

Uber on the other hand, has remained relatively stable and profitable. Uber shares are currently trading just below $70, meaning Pelosi’s $50 strike price on Uber is also sitting well below current market value.

It’s not clear what Uber and Intel’s stock prices were when Pelosi purchased the call options. But if they were higher than the $50 strike price, this options strategy is common and is known as “in the money” and can come with higher premiums.

Pelosi’s high-performing portfolio

Pelosi is no stranger to making big and strategic investments. The former House Speaker has attracted widespread attention— and criticism—over her well-performing and diverse portfolio. Trades are officially disclosed under her husband Paul Pelosi’s name and include investments in Amazon, Google, Nvidia and Apple.

The family’s portfolio has not only brought returns that outpace the S&P 500, but at times has also outperformed the track record of legendary investor and billionaire Warren Buffett.

Her husband’s portfolio has even triggered the launch of the Pelosi Tracker, a website dedicated to tracking her family’s (and other Congress members) investments. According to that site, the Pelosi’s currently have more than $40 million invested.

Her net worth sits at an estimated $234 million.

The debate around congressional stock trading

Pelosi has announced she will not seek re-election to Congress, ending nearly 40 years of public service. But the Pelosi family is far from the only politically affiliated family who’s invested in the market. Over 400 current members of Congress are trading stocks and filing disclosures.

Congressional stock trading has fuelled widespread concerns about transparency, political influence and insider trading. Research has shown members of Congress tend to outperform the broader market and regular investors.

A New York Times Investigation found that between 2019 to 2021, 183 senators or representatives traded a stock or another financial asset. More than half of them sat on congressional committees that gave them insight into the companies they were investing in.

Members are required to publicly disclose any financial transactions within 45 days of a trade — but according to the Campaign Legal Center, violations of that rule have become a bipartisan pattern, with members from both parties failing to file on time.

There have been attempts to ban federal lawmakers, presidents and vice presidents from trading individual stocks. A bill, originally named the PELOSI Act following immense scrutiny over her husband’s heavy stock trading, was advanced by a Senate committee. Pelosi herself backed the bill, after it was renamed to the HONEST Act, but it has yet to be passed into law.

Despite debate around congressional stock trading, Pelosi’s filings offer a glimpse into where she sees opportunity and how much she’s willing to wager. Investors should never blindly follow other traders. But the move indicates Pelosi’s confidence in the future of Intel and Uber.

Goldin auctions has put a number of antiquities centered around America’s founding up for bids, the crown jewel of which is one of the first printed copies of the Declaration of Independence.

The copy is known as a broadside (single pages printed only on one side) used way back in the 1700s to be read at town gatherings and posted in public places to spread the news of the historic proclamation.

Bids for the document have already topped $1.1 million—and will continue to be accepted through July 8.

A historical rarity

On July 4, 1776, a Philadelphia printer named John Dunlap was tasked with printing the first broadside of the Declaration of Independence. He started work the next day, distributing them to the colonies as well as a copy to George Washington. He originally made 200, but just 26 are known to have survived today.

This particular edition of a broadside, known as Exeter, is even rarer. Only 10 exist today. The Exeter broadside came about when a copy of the Dunlap broadside arrived in Exeter, the Revolutionary War capital of New Hampshire. Local printers then quickly began to create their own versions as the public clamored for proof of independence.

Goldin has not offered any estimates on what the rare document will fetch at auction. But another Exeter broadside that appears to be in a similar condition as Goldin’s sold for just under $5.7 million earlier this year at Christie’s auction house. Sotheby’s sold another Exeter broadside last year for $2.4 million.

“This is a document of monumental historical significance,” said Goldin in the listing. “This 1776 Exeter Broadside edition of the Declaration of Independence provides a concrete, tactile link to our nation’s founding as America celebrates 250 years of sovereignty.”

Other items up for bids

While the broadside is the highlight of the auction, Goldin has several other Revolutionary War pieces of memorabilia up for grabs.

Included among those is a 1776 letter from Washington to Col. Daniel Hitchcock seeking assistance in raising an army. Bids for that have hit $60,000 so far. There’s also a signed letter from Benjamin Franklin that articulates the basis for the Revolution. That’s currently up to $27,000. And the only surviving law register of Alexander Hamilton, which is handwritten and signed twice, has run up bids so far of $100,000.

America’s plans for its 250th birthday

The U.S. has big plans for its semiquincentennial. A 16-day State Fair, spanning from June 25 to July 10, will stretch across the National Mall to commemorate the occasion. President Donald Trump and The White House already hosted an Ultimate Fighting Championship event, UFC Freedom 250, earlier this month.

On the day itself, there will be plenty of fireworks displays across the country, along with a ball drop in New York’s Times Square.

In Philadelphia, a time capsule will be buried and remain sealed until the year 2276 — 250 years in the future.

And finally, in Los Angeles, America250 will host a concert at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

As Bloomberg reveals, federal authorities have handed him a yellow card for insider trading.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) accuse him of stealing secrets off his former girlfriend’s laptop to make $2.7 million in illegal trades between February 2022 and October 2024.

As Bloomberg reports, his ex’s former employer, New York-based public relations firm Joele Frank, said it worked with federal authorities on the investigation and she herself was not under investigation.

The DOJ has charged Jennings with breaching Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act, including eight counts of securities fraud. The SEC filed a complaint against Jennings on June 23 with the U.S. District Court in New Jersey.

The charges have not been proven in court. If convicted, Jennings faces up to 20 years in prison on each of eight charges of insider trading — as well as additional jail time for securities fraud and transacting in criminal proceeds.

Moneywise has reached out to Jennings for comment through his company.

Here’s a closer look at the case, as well as past cases where romantic cheating led to insider trading.

Bedroom access to company secrets

According to the DOJ, Jennings and his ex started dating in 2019 while he was playing soccer in Europe and she was in college. He retired from soccer in 2021.

His girlfriend got a job as a junior account executive in a PR firm whose clients included Apollo Global Management and Discover Financial Services.

Their relationship grew more serious during the pandemic. According to the DOJ, Jennings spent days at a time at his girlfriend’s place, where she worked from home on her laptop.

As a PR rep involved in corporate announcements — including draft press releases — his girlfriend was privy to information about clients’ corporate acquisitions and earnings before they were made public.

According to court documents filed by the DOJ, she trusted Jennings and didn’t sign out of her laptop while working from home, leaving him with easy access.

Federal authorities say Jennings took advantage of that access over the course of more than two years, betraying her, her firm and their clients.

The SEC and DOJ accuse him of stealing insider information to make profitable trades, buying and selling securities through his company — Wyoming-based Vortex Securities LLC — and his own brokerage account.

In light of the charges, his lawyers Robert Stahl and Laura Gasiorowski released a statement that they were confident Jennings and Vortex “will be vindicated.”

When cheating means insider trading

In 2024, The Wall Street Journal reported on a spate of cases of insider trading and linked them to the rise of remote work, suggesting it was a crime of opportunity for romantic partners.

Edward Imperatore is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who now works as a defence attorney for the law firm Morrison & Foerster. He specializes in white-collar crime.

“During Covid, there was an uptick in brazen conduct,” he told the Wall Street Journal. “In a work-from-home environment, people acted with more impunity.”

Steven Teixeira, former compliance chief of a Chinese fintech company, pleaded guilty to federal charges of insider trading in 2023, but has not yet been sentenced. He stole confidential business information from his girlfriend’s work laptop while they were in lockdown in Queen’s, New York City.

She was an executive assistant at wealth management giant Morgan Stanley. He used a mouse-jiggler to prevent her laptop from locking so he could get into it without a password.

It didn’t end there. According to the SEC, Teixeira shared the information with his friend Jordan Meadow, a stock broker at Spartan Capital at the time — who in turn shared it with his colleague Ronald Smith.

Meadow and Smith allegedly used it to make millions for their brokerage clients, raking in $500,000 in commissions. These allegations have not been proven in court. If the men are found guilty, they could face sentences of years in prison for securities fraud.

In 2023, Seth Markin, a one-time FBI trainee, was sentenced to 15 months in prison for insider trading after he tapped into his ex’s computer to steal information about pharma powerhouse Merck’s 2021 takeover of Pandion Therapeutics.

She was a law associate at the law firm working on the takeover. In turn, he shared that confidential information with 20 others.

As Imperatore told the Wall Street Journal, it’s hard to represent clients like Teixeira and Markin.

“To a juror, this is the bad boyfriend,” he said. “He’s acting badly in a relationship in a way that goes beyond the four corners of insider trading.”

According to a release from the Westmoreland County District Attorney’s Office, Jeri Mains, 43, a former bank manager of the First Commonwealth Bank in Derry, allegedly stole more than $31,000 from six different bank accounts that belonged to individuals who had died.

The district attorney’s release says that an internal investigation by the bank found “several forged internal withdrawal tickets” from accounts allegedly accessed by Mains.

“Derry Police said the accounts were accessed by Mains without authorization or permission between April of 1, 2026 until May 1, 2026, with a total of $31,769.80 removed from the six accounts,” the release says.

The police investigation also found that Mains allegedly “prepared withdrawal tickets to remove the money from an account, often while no customers were in the bank at the time of the transactions.”

The district attorney’s release also says Mains allegedly forged some of the deceased account holders’ signatures, other bank employees’ signatures and “changed accounts from restricted to active in an effort to remove the money.”

The charges that Mains is facing include forgery, theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property.

‘Shocked’ by allegations

According to a CBS News Pittsburgh report, the criminal complaint says Mains allegedly withdrew just over $4,500 on April 1, then, two days later, forged another employee’s signature to take $1,300 from a different deceased person’s account.

“Investigators said surveillance video shows her then depositing that money into her own account at the bank,” CBS reported.

Mains allegedly took about $2,200 on April 8, forging another employee’s signature, investigators said, then withdrawing nearly $5,000 from another account on the same day, CBS reported.

Police said Mains allegedly made her biggest withdrawal, more than $10,000, on April 22, and then finally took close to $9,000 on May 1 after forging a signature of an employee who wasn’t at the bank, according to the CBS report.

First Commonwealth Bank customer Tiko Murin told CBS he was “shocked” to hear the allegations.

“I’ve dealt here a long time. People are friendly, type of people you wouldn’t think would do anything out of the ordinary,” Murin told CBS.

Another customer, William Snyder, told CBS he was “disappointed” and “stunned” to hear the allegations.

“Jeri’s one of the reasons I bank there. She’s a phenomenal person. Very nice person, very kind, very outgoing,” Snyder told CBS.

“If it’s true, then of course she should pay the price, but again, I don’t like to see people convicted in the court of public opinion before having a chance at due process,” Snyder told CBS.

First Commonwealth Bank told CBS News Pittsburgh that customers impacted by the incident have been fully reimbursed.

How common is bank employee fraud?

A 2024 report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) analyzing global employee fraud found that banking and financial services was the most common industry represented. The cases studied came from survey respondents from 138 different countries and territories, with 38% of those cases coming from the United States and Canada.

The most common type of occupational fraud scheme for banking and financial services was corruption, followed by cash on hand.

The ACFE report also found that while fraud carried out by owners or executives cost the most, it was more commonly committed by employees or managers.

The most common red flags for employees who committed fraud, according to the report, were “living a lifestyle beyond known income sources, or means, which was displayed by 39% of perpetrators,” followed by financial difficulties (27%) and “unusually close association with vendor/customer” (20%).

Though the bank says families have been fully reimbursed, not every case ends that way — which is why monitoring a deceased relative’s accounts should be treated with the same urgency as closing them.

Dolly’s Tennessean Travel Stop is now open for business in Cornersville, Tenn, about an hour south of Nashville. The location has everything you’d expect to find at a mega convenience stop: a general store, gas pumps, a dog park, a café, as well as a few extras like a full-service restaurant, a lounge and an event space. The Stop also has an area for truckers, including a lounge with laundry facilities and showers.

Don’t expect carton rodents on the walls and signage, though. Dolly has left her signature touches all over the restaurant, which is filled with pictures of the singer, drawings (and murals) of butterflies and guitars and musical notes.

Parton surprises fans at the grand opening

Parton wasn’t scheduled to be at the grand opening. The 80-year old singer has been dealing with health issues that have led to her canceling a Las Vegas residency. Parton has not detailed the health troubles, but recently said she had responded well to treatment after her immune and digestive systems “got all out of whack” in recent years.

In that same announcement, she acknowledged that the medicines she is taking make her “a little bit swimmy headed, as my grandma used to say.”

Despite that, she made a brief surprise appearance at the opening.

“I’m sure some of you wondered why I wanted a truck stop,” she told fans. “Well, I couldn’t leave it to beavers.”

The line got a laugh, of course, but Parton said she didn’t view her venue to be in competition with anyone. She added that travel stop developer Gregory Sachs, who partnered with her on the project, suggested they go into business together. “I said, ‘I think that’s a great idea, because I’ve spent my whole life traveling down the road.’”

While Parton herself was only around for a moment, visitors to the travel stop can tour a replica of her tour bus for photographic moments. And on Friday July 3, the facility will host a July 4 celebration with fireworks and live music.

Why travelers go out of their way for a travel stop

Parton is a global superstar, so that alone should be enough to draw people to the Tennesseean Travel Stop, but the World Cup has also generated a tremendous amount of interest among international visitors in mega convenience stores.

In Texas, officials in Fort Worth have organized daily shuttles to ferry visitors to and from the local Buc-ee’s. Buses depart every 30 minutes from downtown Fort Worth. An all-day pass, which also lets visitors access the full public transportation network, costs $10 or $20, depending on the destination.

“We were told it was an American institution, and that you couldn’t leave Dallas or Texas without coming here,” Canadian Ryan Reynolds told The Dallas Morning News.

To keep pace, United Parcel Service (UPS) is investing $48 million to expand its global healthcare logistics network, according to an exclusive CNBC report.

The company is adding 27 cold-chain facilities across the Americas, Europe and Asia to transport medicines that require strict refrigeration. UPS said the expansion will help move sensitive pharmaceutical products more quickly while strengthening visibility and oversight throughout the delivery process.

In a statement to Moneywise, a UPS spokesperson said newer therapies are changing how medications are transported and handled.

“We’re seeing a clear shift in healthcare toward treatments that are more specialized, sensitive and less forgiving to move particularly biologics and the boom in newer therapies like GLP‑1s that need to stay within a specific temperature range the entire time,” the spokesperson said in an email.

Demand is rising

The investment comes as demand for temperature-sensitive medicines continues to grow. Research firm Growth Market Reports projects the market for temperature-sensitive biologics will grow at an 8.3% compound annual rate through 2033, driven in part by the rapid adoption of GLP-1 medications.

One factor behind that growth is the rapid adoption of GLP-1 medications. Nearly one in eight U.S. adults have taken a GLP-1 drug, according to a 2025 KFF poll.

At the same time, prescriptions for obesity-related GLP-1 drugs surged nearly 587% between 2019 and 2024, according to FAIR Health, while analysts expect the global market for the medications to approach $200 billion by 2030.

Medications like Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy and Ozempic have to stay refrigerated while they’re transported to remain effective, making dependable cold-chain shipping more important than ever.

The need goes beyond weight-loss drugs. The World Health Organization estimates that roughly half of all vaccines are wasted each year, in part because of failures in temperature-controlled storage and transportation.

A growing focus on healthcare

UPS said the investment will speed up deliveries while improving tracking and oversight throughout the supply chain.

According to the spokesperson, the new cross-dock facilities are designed to improve handling when shipments move between different modes of transportation, such as from air to ground, where delays or temperature changes are more likely to occur.

In addition to its temperature-controlled network, UPS operates a 24/7 control tower that monitors shipments in real time, helping identify potential disruptions and coordinate interventions when necessary.

CEO Carol Tomé said during the company’s first-quarter earnings call in April that healthcare has become one of UPS’s fastest-growing businesses.

“Our global healthcare portfolio has gained market share every year since 2021,” she said on the call. “And in the first quarter of this year, we generated our first $3 billion healthcare revenue quarter ever, with all three of our segments delivering year-over-year revenue growth.”

As biologic drugs become more common, UPS is betting the infrastructure needed to move them safely will become an increasingly valuable part of its business.

—

In an Instagram post — which got nearly 55,000 likes — the company wrote: “The search for a really bad photographer is on! Do you (not) have what it takes? We want to prove that even the worst photographer can take great photos of Iceland. We need you!”

By May 1, they’d received 127,642 applications.

“It turns out there are a lot more bad photographers out there than we ever expected” the airline wrote on their website.

On May 29, they narrowed it down to 13 finalists, and on June 3, after over 2,000 hours of screening and interviews, they announced their choice for the worst photographer.

Icelandair’s ‘really bad photographer’ and what she gets for holding that title

In the end, Icelandair chose Blanche Montemard — a 28-year-old who lives in Paris — as their photographer of choice.

“Blanche stood out for her unbelievable ability to take poor photos. Beyond her technical shortcomings, her personality and her authentic approach to travel were equally compelling. At Icelandair, we believe not every journey needs to be perfectly captured to be meaningful, and that’s why Blanche is perfect for the job” the airline wrote.

In her bio, Montemard wrote “I approach photography the way people pack carry ons: ambitiously but limited by reality.”

This made her perfect for the job, and now, she gets to enjoy a 10 day trip — or assignment, rather — to Iceland. Here’s what this gig offers:

• Approximately 10-day planned trip in Iceland
• Travel expenses covered
• $50,000 for taking photographs and producing content
• Photos will appear in a global campaign, and may appear in other publications and exhibitions

The aim of this campaign is to show that even the worst photographer can’t take a bad photo of Iceland. Plus, you get to watch Montemard chronicle her trip via Icelandair’s social media in a series they’re calling “The Diary of a Really Bad Photographer.” This personal touch might just be one of the most unique — and maybe best — tourism marketing tactics to date.

Icelandair is adding a fun, personal touch to their marketing

Icelandair’s really bad photographer campaign is a fun concept as is. Add in a stellar personality that everyday travelers can relate to as she documents her Iceland experience, and you’ve got content people can enjoy following that may even inspire their next trip.

According to HubSpot’s 2026 State of Marketing Report, 93% of marketers said that personalization improves leads or purchases. On top of that, short form video content generated the most ROI of any media formats companies used for their content strategy with 104% more marketers naming it their most valuable channel compared to 2024.

“For years, friends and family have asked why my photos always look disappointing. I’m thrilled to finally have an answer: I was training for this role. This project celebrates imperfection — probably the only photography competition I ever stood a chance of winning” Montemard wrote.

In the end, her imperfect adventure could translate to some more passengers for Icelandair, or maybe even inspire other airlines and tourism companies to hold contests that let everyday people shine.

According to the Justice Department, the agreement requires Chemours to pay an estimated $450 million in penalties and to relief programs, including $22.5 million in civil penalties and $90 million over 15 years to reduce contamination in West Virginia, North Carolina and New Jersey.

PFAS, known as forever chemicals because they break down slowly in the environment, are a group of chemicals used to make products resistant to water, grease and stains. They have been linked to a range of health issues, including cancer, liver damage and birth defects.

The chemicals are widely used around the world, including in the U.S. where an estimated 98% of people have traces of them in their blood.

The settlement found that Chemour facilities in the three states discharged PFAS into the Ohio River, Cape Fear River and Delaware River, violating federal and state laws. The discharge went on for more than a decade and exposed people living near the facilities to PFAS.

Under the settlement, Chemour will spend $60 million installing pollution-control systems at its West Virginia facility, $280 million to provide clean drinking water protection near its locations in West Virginia and New Jersey, and reduce releases of PFAS in North Carolina, pending independent assessment.

The agreement however, allows Chemours to continue manufacturing PFAS for commercial and military applications but prevents further contamination.

Chemour did not respond to Moneywise’s request for comment.

North Carolina bashes the settlement

The landmark settlement is being praised by the Trump administration as a sign of its promise to tackle PFAS pollution.

“This first comprehensive federal settlement against a major PFAS manufacturer delivers on the Trump Administration’s promise to make polluters pay and stop PFAS contamination at the source,” said Jeffrey A. Hall, assistant administrator at the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

Governor Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, called the settlement an encouraging first step. North Carolina, however, bashed the settlement, calling it a “backroom deal” that provided virtually nothing to the state.

“This deal is an insult to the people of eastern North Carolina,” the state’s attorney general, Jeff Jackson, said in a statement. “This deal does practically nothing to clean up our water. Chemours made this mess and Chemours should clean it up. The E.P.A. will be hearing from my office.”

The Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency said in a joint response to North Carolina that all states will benefit from the settlement.

The future of PFAS’

The settlement is the latest in a growing wave of legal actions targeting PFAS manufacturers. Last year, Chemours, DuPont and Corteva agreed to pay New Jersey $875 million to settle environmental claims related to PFAS contamination. In 2025, a federal judge ordered Chemours to halt unlawful PFAS discharges into the Ohio River.

Chemical companies have also faced substantial liability from individuals who say they were harmed by exposure to the chemicals. In 2017, DuPont paid $617 million to 3,550 plaintiffs who suffered from diseases linked to PFOA, a type of “forever chemical.” This settlement was a landmark — the first major PFAS personal injury resolution.

The move comes as the Trump administration is expected to propose weakening Biden-era limits on “forever chemicals” in drinking water. Former President Joe Biden was the first to place limits on the chemicals in drinking water. President Donald Trump’s proposal will roll back parts of those regulations.

The companies got the shout-outs for bringing jobs to the state and for their investments in American facilities. But when Trump talks positively about publicly traded companies, skeptics start probing deeper.

Since the beginning of his second term, Trump has mentioned many companies that Americans later learned he had invested in personally. Often the disclosure of those stock purchases doesn’t come about until well after the favorable mention. (He has not disclosed any ownership stake in Nokia, but holds shares in Eli Lilly.)

Trump’s assets are in a trust managed by his children. However, unlike for past presidents, it’s not a blind trust. He knows what is in it. According to reporting by PBS, having a leader who appears to profit so directly from the office is “an unprecedented practice for a sitting U.S. president in the modern era,” even though there is no specific law against it.

A favorable mention by the executive branch can be a big boost for a company. Here’s a look at what has happened with other businesses Trump has talked up in speeches and interviews.

Micron

On March 26 of this year, Trump went on Fox News’ “The Five” and said he had recently met with executives at Minnesota-based semiconductor company Micron. “I just left the head of Micron. It’s one of the hottest companies,” Trump said. What he left out was he had purchased between $50,000 and $100,000 in the company’s stock the day before — and had bought shares three times prior to that, bringing his total investments to between $217,000 and $530,000.

Shares of Micron since that date have gone up more than 230%. Much of those increases, however, are due to analyst upgrades and the AI rally. Shares were up more than 12% Thursday following a gangbusters earnings beat after the market closed Wednesday.

Dell

Shares of Texas-based computer hardware company Dell have increased more than 230% since Trump urged Americans to “buy a Dell” on Feb. 19. An account in President Donald Trump’s name bought up to $5.1 million worth of Dell stock in the first quarter, with the first purchase being made on Feb 10. That purchase also came before the Pentagon awarded Dell a $9.7-billion Air Force contract.

Intel

California tech giant and chip maker Intel shares have soared since Trump announced last year that the federal government was taking a 9.9% ownership stake in the company. New chip-supplies and additional cheerleading by Trump have resulted in the stock increasing 229% year to date. Trump has benefitted from that surge, having bought shares in the company six times in March of this year.

Palantir

Trump not only talked up the Peter Thiel-founded, Miami-based defense tech company in April, he went so far as to name check the company’s ticker symbol in a Truth Social post. That mention reversed a stock slide the company was experiencing at the time in just moments. Palantir is one of the few stocks that has continued to lose ground since that mention, but that’s more due to AI concerns and a particularly harsh note from investor Michael Burry, which called Palantir “a sand castle supported only by AI applications narrative.” Trump purchased at least $260,000 worth of the company’s stock during the first quarter of 2026. Palantir provides the surveillance technology that powers the administration’s immigration crackdown through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Apple

Trump has had a sometimes-rocky relationship with Silicon Valley tech giant Apple, but when CEO Tim Cook announced his retirement, Trump wrote a glowing review of the business leader, calling him “an incredible guy!!!” Shares have gained only a little ground since then. Trump has bought shares in the company eight times so far this year.

Pressed by host Sean Hannity, and responding to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who had dismissed the vandalism story as an imaginary problem, Leavitt insisted otherwise. "The vandalism is very real," she said, citing 17 police reports and six arrests. She doubled down on who was responsible: "Deranged individuals — many of them longtime donors to the Democrat Party, to Barack Obama, to ActBlue — have been vandalizing and desecrating our federal monument."

She offered no further detail about who the people were or how the claim had been verified — no names, and no description of how the donor ties were established.

Some Republicans gave the claim qualified backing. Asked on CNN whether he believed there was evidence of a cut, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, said, "I don't know," then added that he assumed law enforcement "has that" and that the alleged vandalism was "against the law."

What experts say peeled the paint

The renovation, ordered to turn the pool "American Flag Blue" for the country's 250th anniversary, has been peeling and turning green within weeks of completion. The administration has blamed vandals, with Trump claiming a roughly 350-foot gash was cut into the lining "by a very sharp knife or razors."

Specialists point elsewhere. The likelier explanation is a paint job rushed to hit a July 4 deadline, with the coating failing to bond and the heavy presidential motorcade that crossed the wet surface in May adding stress. The engineering points to a rushed job, not a knife.

For weeks the administration offered no evidence. Then a National Park Service official said in a court filing that police had documented a liner cut with a sharp knife or razor back on June 9 — the first specifics anyone in the administration had put on the record. The official didn't call it vandalism or name a suspect, and the cut doesn't explain the algae or the peeling across the pool floor. Park Police have since released grainy surveillance footage asking the public to identify someone who reached into the water.

The administration's own numbers keep moving. Trump first said five people were arrested, then six. The count of police reports has run anywhere from 14 to 17.

The one arrestee whose name is public cuts against that picture. David Hearn, a 67-year-old former Olympic canoeist from Bethesda, Maryland, was charged with misdemeanor destruction of government property after he reached into the pool during a bike ride to touch a piece of the already-peeling liner. "I didn't vandalize anything," Hearn told The Washington Post. "I didn't destroy or break or peel anything." His attorney, Norm Eisen, said he'll fight the charge and called the prosecution a distraction from "the corrupt no-bid contracting process." Hearn is due in D.C. Superior Court on July 9.

What it means for your money

Both renovation contracts were awarded without competitive bidding. The $14.65 million paint job went to Atlantic Industrial Coatings, a Virginia firm that had never held a federal contract but had done pool work at a Trump golf club. A separate $1.74 million filtration contract went to a company owned by John Cafaro, who has given more than $300,000 to Trump-linked committees.

The Interior Department says the White House wasn't involved in the selections, didn't know of the donor ties, and chose the firms for their expertise and ability to meet the deadline. Both contractors say nothing went wrong with the work. Sen. Richard Blumenthal calls it "blatant corruption"; Hearn's attorney, Norm Eisen, calls the no-bid awards a distraction from a "corrupt" process. Republicans call the furor overblown — strategist Ford O'Connell dismissed it as "an absurd media-manufactured crisis that only people in the Beltway care about" with "zero bearing" on the midterms.

Either way, taxpayers aren't done paying. The Park Service plans to drain the pool again for repairs after July 4, with Atlantic Industrial Coatings saying it will cover that work under warranty — but the administration has disclosed no cost for the latest round, even as it replaces grass around the pool and keeps the National Guard patrolling the Mall. For a project pitched at under $2 million, the bill keeps growing.

The unnamed “elderly customer” went to the store in mid-June to claim his $2,700 winnings and handed his ticket to cashier Tameka Hall, who offered a receipt with instructions on how to cash it in because the prize was too large to process there, as reported by news station WFLA.

That, however, is when police say the theft occurred, with security footage reportedly showing Hall handing over the receipt but pocketing the ticket as the unwitting winner left.

The man later returned when he realized the ticket was missing and, after the security footage review, police recovered the ticket from Hall’s car. Hall claimed she meant to return the ticket to a manager, but was arrested and charged with grand theft. She has not yet made a plea, and no allegations have been proven in court.

A Walmart spokesperson told Moneywise that Hall is no longer employed with the company. Moneywise reached out to the Volusia County police for comment, but didn’t hear back by press deadline.

The incident, however, underscores that no matter how exciting a lottery win feels at the moment, your prize isn’t actually secure until you’ve cashed in the ticket.

Why your lottery winnings aren’t yours until they’re claimed

Stories abound about lottery winners who almost missed out on a fortune because they didn’t protect the ticket.

There’s New Jersey resident Mike Weirsky who, in 2019, accidentally left a $273 million winning ticket on a convenience store counter because “I was paying more attention to my cellphone.” He walked out without it and returned later to discover an honest store clerk had saved it for him.

In New York, however, a 2023 lottery winner wished to remain anonymous, so they asked a cousin to cash in their ticket. The cousin did — but allegedly lied about the winnings and only handed over $13,000 while keeping more than $500,000 for herself. The cousin ultimately pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the second degree.

And, unfortunately, a California woman who says she won a $26 million lottery in 2021 walked away empty-handed because she accidentally ran the ticket through a laundry cycle.

Meanwhile, CTV News notes that more than a billion dollars in winnings go unclaimed each year.

Lottery expert Brett Jacobson told CNN that reasons for that vary but include people only focusing on the jackpot numbers and not secondary prizes, simply losing the ticket or forgetting to cash it in.

Whatever the reason for missing out, the lesson here is to stay on top of your lottery results and follow key steps to make sure you take home your rightful winnings.

How to protect yourself and your winnings

Whether you win $2 or $200 million dollars in the lottery, the first move most experts advise you make is to sign the back of your ticket.

“If you have a winning ticket, we always urge our players: sign that ticket right away,” James Carey, the executive director of the New Jersey Lottery, said at a news conference after the incident with Mike Weirsky’s lost ticket. “If you think about it, it is very difficult to say who owns a lottery ticket short of someone coming in here and saying, ‘I purchased this ticket. It’s mine.’”

It’s also recommended that you secure the ticket in a safe place, with attorney Marshall Peterson suggesting, in a video presentation with attorney Mark K. Harder for the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, that you make a copy of it for yourself and any legal representation you hire.

Of course, for those who win smaller amounts, signing and securing the ticket and bringing it to your local lottery retailer to cash it in should be enough.

For those who win larger amounts, Harder says it’s important to remain discreet and to reduce your “online profile” — including social media accounts and email addresses — as much as possible.

This is especially important because, while some states — such as Delaware, Montana or Oregon — allow lottery winners to remain anonymous, others, including New York, Pennsylvania and California, do not.

Others note the importance of hiring a lawyer for winnings of larger sums to help navigate the collection process — including deciding on whether you want to accept a smaller lump sum up front or larger payout in annuity.

Winners could also benefit from a “cooling off period,” financial planner John Loyd told CNBC, as “Money is an emotional thing. And you want to try to minimize making emotional decisions.”

Lastly — but equally as important — is to cash in before the deadline to claim. State deadlines all differ but generally fall within the range of between 90 and 365 days after the draw. Other windows for winnings, however, can close within 60 days.

So while it’s good to take your time and get your head around your big lottery win, make sure you don’t lose out on an instant fortune because the lottery clock ran out.

On May 7, Trump visited the drained pool to inspect the fresh "American Flag Blue" coating he had ordered. To get there, his motorcade, including the roughly 20,000-pound presidential limousine and armored SUVs, rolled across the pool floor while the new surface was still being applied. The moment was captured by multiple outlets, and White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung posted a video of the motorcade with the caption "they see me rolling!"

NBC footage shows the vehicles crossing a seemingly wet patch and leaving tire marks behind.

A month later, the renovation is a mess. Algae has tinted the water green, chunks of blue coating are peeling off and floating to the surface, and Trump has said the pool will likely need to be drained again for repairs.

Trump says it was vandalism. He has claimed that someone cut a "350-foot slit" into the pool lining with "a box-cutter or a knife of some kind." Experts point to something more mundane.

A rushed job, not a knife

The blue material is polyurea, a fast-curing coating often used to seal pools. To bond properly, each layer typically needs to be applied within cascading 24-hour windows. On a renovation compressed into roughly eight weeks to hit a July 4 deadline, specialists told Scientific American the coating may not have been applied well enough to hold.

Scientific American also reported that the pool floor may have been stressed by the heavy equipment, trucks and the presidential motorcade that crossed it while the coating was being applied. Polyurea isn't designed to be driven over, and photos show vehicles parked on painted sections.

No public engineering analysis has tied the motorcade to the failure. The National Park Service has since said in a court filing that a section of the liner was cut with a sharp knife or razor on June 9 — but the agency stopped short of calling it vandalism or naming anyone, and the reported cut doesn't account for the algae or the paint peeling across the pool's floor. The most probable explanation experts cite is simply inadequate surface preparation, the coating not sticking to what was underneath it.

Trump's own earlier sales pitch undercuts the claim. On May 4, he praised the coating's durability: "if you had a knife, you can't even cut it. So strong, so powerful. It's like powerful rubber." Weeks later, he said vandals had cut it "very violently."

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt is doubling down on this framing, fresh off her maternity leave.

What it means for your money

The renovation was a no-bid contract. Trump said he'd been quoted $300 million to replace the pool's granite and pegged his own fix at "a million and a half to two million dollars." The paint contract to Atlantic Industrial Coatings has since reached $14.65 million. A separate $1.74 million contract went to Green Water Solutions for the algae-killing filtration system. That brings the total above $16 million in taxpayer funds across two contracts, and the bill for the latest repairs hasn't been disclosed.

A nonprofit, the Cultural Landscape Foundation, sued in May to halt the work, arguing the administration skipped the federal consultation process required before a project like this.

Homeowners hit a smaller version of this constantly. A renovation meant to fix one thing spawns three more — and the costs spiral the same way. This time, it appears taxpayers can look forward to footing the spiralling costs.

Despite a growing number of electric vehicle registrations worldwide in recent months, the gains have not been evenly distributed. European and North American brands are lagging behind Chinese startups that offer more enticing price points, advanced tech features and lower manufacturing costs.

BMW (BMWYY:OTC), for one, has issued a bombshell fiscal update as we head into the second half of 2026. The company slashed its annual profit margin forecast from the 4-6% it initially predicted to just 1-3%. Ongoing repercussions from the military action in Iran and, crucially, waning demand in China were provided as the primary reasons for the change.

To cope, the carmaker is rolling out new cost-optimization measures, including cutting 5% of its workforce. Meanwhile, analysts at JPMorgan have called the cut “radical” and said it should serve as “a wake-up call” for the entire auto industry.

BMW’s shares hit a six-year low as a result of the news, surprising investors who thought the company was better positioned than other European luxury rivals due to its flexibility, resilience and historically strong profit margins.

BMW isn’t alone

This spring, executives at Toyota, Ford and Honda had to face the reality of China’s competitive edge. The CEO of Honda, Toshihiro Mibe, turned heads by saying his company had “no chance against” the level of automation that firms like Shenzhen-founded EV giant BYD have rapidly integrated into their operations.

In Germany, BMW and its peers, including Mercedes-Benz and Porsche, have watched profit margins fall from double-digits in 2021-2023 to between 1% (BMW) and 7.5% (Porsche) for 2026.

In the US, tariffs, the end of federal clean vehicle credits, inconsistent charging infrastructure and a lack of appealing low-cost models have slowed consumer adoption of non-fuel cars. At the same time, the tough economy has pushed new-car purchases down households’ priority lists.

Meanwhile in China, where the EV market is rife with domestic players and is especially cutthroat, rebate programs for the vehicles were also trimmed in 2026. That move dampened sales activity for the year after a late-2025 sales rush.

BMW shuttered one of its Chinese dealerships in March, reportedly due to poor sales. That followed the closure of more than 50 locations in the country in 2025.

Major pivots have led to losses

BMW saw stronger interest in its EVs than ever in 2025 and had aimed for EVs and hybrids to make up 50% of its sales by 2030. For comparison, those vehicles accounted for 18% of sales in 2024, a year when executives said the market had reached a “tipping point” of EV growth surpassing that of fuel models.

The company, under CEO Milan Nedeljković, even spent $712 million to overhaul its first-ever factory in Munich to produce only electric vehicles starting in 2027.

But, many brands have had to completely rethink their EV plan in recent months, even abandoning some models completely and losing millions in the process as China manages to pump out comparable (or even superior) battery-operated autos faster and for less, all in the face of regional market lulls, including in China itself.

An earlier push to ban the sale of new gas cars in Europe by 2035 has now been scaled back due to its impracticality and the drastic consequences it would mean for homegrown firms and jobs. BMW and others have kept combustion engine vehicles central to its long-term strategy. Still, the much-hyped battery-electric iX5 is due this summer and the hydrogen fuel cell iX5 slated for 2028.

European customers are expected to lead demand for those models as BMW deals with a 10% year-over-year decline in Chinese sales volumes for passenger sedans overall in the first quarter, whether EV or not.

On Wednesday, the AI start-up and Broadcom jointly announced the development of a custom AI chip called Jalapeño. The companies said the chip was built from scratch for inference, which is the ability for large-language models to handle user requests or questions in products like OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

It was the latest move for OpenAI in its effort to build a homegrown stack to support its growing range of AI models, products and hardware. It could also reduce OpenAI’s dependence on semiconductors from Nvidia, as more tech companies peel off to design their own chips that challenge the dominance of the most valuable publicly-traded company.

OpenAI President and co-founder Greg Brockman said the Jalapeño chip would pave the way for quicker deployment of reliable AI that’s more affordable for consumers and businesses.

“By designing more of the stack ourselves, we can serve more intelligence with greater efficiency and keep pushing advanced AI toward broader access,” Brockman said in a news release.

Last October, OpenAI inked a deal with the California-based Broadcom chipmaker to partner in developing in-house chips that could power its slate of products like ChatGPT. OpenAI said at the time it planned to use enough homegrown chips to consume ten gigawatts of electricity, enough energy to power millions of homes. To better understand the scale of energy consumption in play: Each nuclear reactor, for example, produces roughly one gigawatt of electricity, per the Department of Energy.

Broadcom President and CEO Hock Tan said the partnership with OpenAI would be a critical piece in building out the physical infrastructure to sustain AI for the next decade.

“By co-developing our industry-leading silicon directly with OpenAI, we are enabling the deployment of gigawatt scale data centers with Microsoft and other partners beginning in 2026,” Tan said. The announcement didn’t list a release date for the Jalapeño chip.

OpenAI’s dependence on Nvidia

Late last year, Nvidia said it was exploring a $100 billion megadeal to invest into OpenAI and allow the ChatGPT-maker to use its semiconductor chips within its expanding fleet of data centers. The preliminary agreement was one part of tech companies’ sprint to spend hundreds of billions on data centers.

It was never finalized. The Wall Street Journal reported in January the deal between the pair of tech behemoths was on ice for the time being.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman defended the strength of the companies’ relationship. “We love working with NVIDIA and they make the best AI chips in the world. We hope to be a gigantic customer for a very long time,” Altman wrote on X in early February.

It’s been a mutually beneficial arrangement for Altman and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang so far. Altman has said he needs Nvidia’s chips for OpenAI to reach its revenue targets, while Huang can count on OpenAI to drive sales of its semiconductors.

Investors aren’t rattled — for now

Investors don’t appear rattled by OpenAI’s in-house chip announcement. Nvidia was trading at $195 per share on Thursday, dropping just under 2% from the prior day.

Nvidia’s stock, though, has fallen over the past week, part of a broader market slump for tech companies as investors continue questioning whether AI will bring the large profits that correlate with enormous valuations in the tech sector. Nvidia is valued at over $5 trillion, making it the most valuable publicly-traded company ever.

Nvidia also reported record sales in the first quarter of the year, driven by demand for computing hardware such as graphics processing units. Nvidia’s supremacy may be challenged by AI companies seeking to go in-house for silicon chips, but it isn’t likely to get knocked off its high perch anytime soon.

When the kids are out of school, the cost of summer childcare can add up, especially for parents who have been mandated back to the office.

The cost of day camp averages $275 to $900 a week, depending on where you live. And specialty camps — such as sports, STEM, arts or academics — are typically much more.

But some parents may not be aware of a tax break that could directly reduce their tax bill.

The One Big Beautiful Bill includes an expansion of the Child and Dependent Care Credit, designed to help working parents or guardians offset the costs associated with caring for a child or a dependent of any age with disabilities.

For the 2026 tax year, you can claim up to 50% of day camp expenses — up to $3,000 for one child and up to $6,000 for two or more children under the age of 13. If your child turns 14 while at day camp, you’re out of luck.

But there are a few catches. For example, you can only claim expenses related to childcare while you’re at work or looking for work — not paying a babysitter for date night.

Here’s how to figure out if you qualify, how it works and what other options you have.

How the tax credit works

The Child and Dependent Care Credit varies, depending on your earned income. It’s a tax credit, not a deduction, which means it cuts your tax bill dollar for dollar.

A tax deduction reduces the amount of income you pay tax on. So, for example, a tax deduction of $1,000 might only reduce your tax bill by a couple hundred bucks. A tax credit of $1,000 cuts your tax bill by $1,000. This, in turn, could increase your refund.

Beginning in 2026, the percentage you can claim for qualifying expenses has increased to a maximum of 50% and a minimum of 35%.

“The credit is calculated based on your income and a percentage of expenses that you incur for the care of qualifying persons to enable you to go to work, look for work or attend school,” according to the Internal Revenue Service.

That means there’s a sliding scale that drops from a maximum of 50% to a minimum of 35%, based on your adjusted gross income (AGI).

Taxpayers in the lowest tax bracket would receive the full 50% credit. After that, the percentage of expenses you can claim is reduced on a sliding scale by one percentage point for every $2,000 of AGI above $15,000, until it reaches 35% (an AGI of $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for married couples filing jointly).

It then drops down toward a floor of 20% for high earners.

If you’re divorced or separated, the custodial parent — meaning the parent who has primary physical custody — can claim the credit.

It sounds simple, but it can get complicated. The IRS ha an online tool that can help you run some numbers and find out if you’re eligible. You can find out more by reviewing IRS Publication 503.

Which camp expenses qualify?

Eligible expenses are for summer day camps and after-school care, regardless of the type of camp — so long as those options were chosen because the parent or parents had to work. But overnight camps don’t qualify.

So, if you’re enrolling your child in a day camp that costs $500 a week for six weeks, for a total of $3,000, that would count as a qualifying expense. But an overnight camp for the same cost wouldn’t qualify. This could be a deciding factor in what type of camp to choose for your child.

Costs that qualify include day camp fees, as well as before- and after-camp care — so long as that care is being provided during or bridging your work schedule

But not every summer camp qualifies (for example, summer school or tutoring may not qualify).

When booking a summer day camp, ask if it’s eligible for the tax credit.

To claim the credit, you’ll need the camp’s tax ID, which you should be able to find on your invoice. When you do your taxes next year, complete Form 2441 to calculate the credit; then you’d file it along with your 1040 federal income tax return. If you’re married, you’ll also need to file a joint tax return.

Other ways to save

Whether or not you qualify for the tax credit, there are a few other ways you can save some cash.

If you register early, you might receive an early-bird discount (plus, you have a better chance of getting a spot).

YMCA camps are one of the most affordable options, while many community day camps offer sliding scale pricing based on your income.

You might also be able to get a discount if you enrol more than one child in the same camp or book for multiple weeks.

Some camps also offer financial assistance — it never hurts to ask.

The SAVE America Act would directly impact, and potentially benefit, Trump and his party in this year’s midterms. The law would limit mail-in voting and require voters to provide proof of citizenship — documentation that more than 21 million Americans lack — at the polls.

It’s been held up in a filibuster for months. In response to that stalemate, Trump is holding up the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. This landmark legislation, which cleared Congress this week, aims to increase housing supply and affordability amid a national housing crisis.

Trump abruptly cancelled the signing ceremony for the bill just before it was to take place on Wednesday, announcing his decision on Truth Social:

“Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency.”

As USA Today reports, this eleventh-hour announcement made things awkward for Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who the night before trumpeted on X that the bill was “another promise made, promise kept” by the President.

The move frustrated lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. House Representatives passed the bill 358 to 32 on Tuesday. Senators passed it 85 to 5 on Monday.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California) said Trump was “slapping hardworking American families in the face” by refusing to sign the bill. Meanwhile, Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) said he’d be sad if Trump vetoed the bill.

“You’d see a grown man cry,” he said.

Can Trump kill the housing bill?

As long as Congress remains in session for 10 days, the housing bill can still become law, even without Trump’s signature. It can become law even if Trump vetoes it.

That’s because the bill passed with more than two-thirds majority vote in both chambers, making it veto-proof, according to the Constitution. Again, that’s as long as Congress remains in session for 10 days.

However, if Congress adjourns and Trump still refuses to sign it, it triggers what is called a pocket veto, and the bill dies.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom railed against Trump’s ploy on X, writing:

“Wow. Donald Trump is holding affordable housing hostage until Congress passes his voter suppression bill. He is literally delaying help for families struggling to afford a home in order to make it harder for married women and Black Americans to vote.”

It’s not the only legislation Trump is holding up in a bid to get the SAVE America Act passed. He’s doing the same thing with a refusal to support a renewal of a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows the U.S. to spy on people in foreign countries without a warrant.

The difference in that case is that Democrats and Republicans are divided on that legislation. In the case of the housing legislation, they are united.

“Effective August 1, 2026, we will be updating prices worldwide,” the company said in a blog post. “The price of Xbox consoles will increase by US$100 for 512 GB models and US$150 for 1 TB models. We will also be sunsetting our 2 TB model,” it said.

In the same post, Microsoft’s Xbox team acknowledged it had to raise prices on the Xbox family less than a year ago, by $20 to $70 in the U.S. It also had to raise prices in May of last year. Matthew Ball, Xbox’s chief strategy officer, said its decision to raise prices on its Game Pass subscription service lost year “shed millions of subscribers over the span of a few months.”

“We hoped another price increase would not be necessary, and we have spent the last several months working with suppliers on options,” it said. “Unfortunately, console storage and memory prices have increased by more than 2.5x and we expect another doubling by the fall of 2027.

“The entire consumer electronics industry is struggling with the current components crisis, but the effects are particularly hard on consoles,” the company added.

In the same breath, Microsoft announced some new ways to “make Xbox consoles more accessible,” including “Buy Now, Pay Later” options on eligible hardware, interest-free financing, and working with retail partners to create new programs to “provide previously played consoles at lower prices.”

That was when he quote-reposted an X post featuring a screenshot of Claude’s response to “the air conditioning debate in Europe.”

The Claude screenshot says that “Europeans should just install air conditioning.”

But it didn’t come without a rationale.

“The emissions concern is negligible in their context, the technology works, the cost per life saved is excellent, and the cultural resistance is a vestige of a climate that (…) no longer exists,” says the screenshot.

It argues any disagreements from Europeans are “largely a way of processing the psychological discomfort of admitting that the American approach to summer was correct all along.”

“Banger,” wrote Musk.

But it’s important to take AI screenshots like this with a grain of salt. Chatbots have a tendency to agree with the human engaging with them, and the post doesn’t show the original prompt.

So is it right? Is it time for Europe to adopt the air conditioner? And are its climate implications truly as minor as Claude says they are?

Climate change has led to longer heatwaves for Europeans

The original X post might have been inspired by France’s recent unprecedented heat wave. The country recently hit record-high temperatures, and 90% of the population was on alert for “extreme, exceptional heat.”

Only about 20% to 25% of French households have AC units, compared to around 90% of US households. Historically, France hasn’t needed them. Up until recently, the country has generally had cooler summers.

“We haven’t been in the habit … of thinking about how we stay cool in the summer. It really is a relatively recent phenomenon,” Brian Motherway, the head of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Inclusive Transitions at the International Energy Agency told CNN.

Instead, French households have preferred to use passive means of cooling houses, such as utilizing blackout curtains or shutters. These methods save on energy bills and are better for the environment than air conditioners — but they aren’t as effective at dealing with heatwaves.

Unfortunately, heatwaves aren’t going away anytime soon. And excessive heat can kill. A 2003 heatwave in France with similarly exceptional temperatures ended up killing 15,000 people.

Why, then, are French households still reluctant to adopt air conditioners?

AC units may not be as harmful as the French Green Party fears

Many French households are against AC for the same reason: They’re worried about the environment.

“This summer, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to do without air conditioning!” says an article in La Monde, a French publication. “A/C is energy-intensive, representing 10% of the world’s electricity consumption (…) It is also polluting, contributing to global warming because of leaky units or the improper recycling of refrigerants.”

There’s a split between right-wing politicians in France, who are generally pro-AC, and left-wing politicians such as the French Green Party, who are generally anti-AC.

Pro-AC politicians such as Marine Le Pen argue that AC is needed to combat potentially deadly high temperatures. Anti-AC politicians counter that there are other ways to cool cities.

Make no mistake: AC is bad for the environment. Refrigerants, if they escape the AC unit, can damage the Earth’s ozone layer and release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. And AC units can actually make outdoor urban areas significantly hotter, as they move warm air from inside homes to outside.

But France, at least, already has infrastructure that makes AC units less harmful for the environment. The majority of France runs off of nuclear power, not coal-powered gas plants. That means energy-hungry AC units aren’t as likely to cause pollution in France compared to other places.

There’s no easy answer here. But no matter what, France — and Europe as a whole — will need to find a way to keep its citizens cool as temperatures heat up nationwide.

The election saw 65 staffers at the store give a union the green light, citing the need for better pay and more robust COVID policies. The vote was heralded by the National Labor Relations Board and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, along with union backers across the country, as a major victory for workers’ rights.

Now four years later, on June 20, Apple shuttered that same store along with two retail outlets in Trumbull, Conn. and Escondido, Cal., citing “the departure of several retailers and declining conditions” in the region.

While staffers at the Trumbull and Escondido stores were offered transfer deals to nearby Apple retail locations, Towson workers had to settle for being “eligible to apply for open roles at Apple in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement,” Apple said in a statement. Citing language in the union contract, Apple also said the furloughed Towson workers were ineligible for employment at other Apple retail stores.

Local Apple workers wasted no time in expressing their feelings on the deal. “I’m really sad,” said Billy Jarboe, an operations lead at the store who also served as its chief union steward, in comments to The New York Times. “I’m in the grieving and mourning phase now.”

Labor organizers also weighed in against the Towson Apple store closure, noting the legal wrangling is just heating up.

“The IAM Union is outraged by Apple’s decision to close its Towson, Md., store— the first unionized Apple retail location in the United States—and abandon both its workers and a community that relies on it for critical services and its unique access to public transit,” the IAM stated in a press release. “Apple’s claim that the collective bargaining agreement prevents relocation is simply false and raises serious concerns that this closure is a cynical attempt to bust the union. We are exploring all legal options and will work with elected officials and allies to hold Apple accountable. We stand with our IAM Coalition of Organized Retail Employees (IAM CORE) members and the community that depends on this store for essential access and support.”

Towson employees may find some relief, but it could take time

Apple says the Towson store closure was driven by declining conditions at the mall, while the union alleges retaliation. That could lead to a major legal clash, as labor experts and regulators typically examine when determining whether a store closure is a legitimate business decision or an unlawful anti-union action.

“Typically, if an Unfair Labor Practice Charge is filed with the NLRB, they will look to see what statements or threats have been made by management,” J. Ward Morrow, a labor lawyer and law professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, told Moneywise. “If a threat was made, they would close if unionized, or look for factors such as how many other stores were closed, what percentage were unionized, what was the level of sales and foot traffic at the facility.”

Banning laid-off Townson staffers from transferring to the company store could also come back to bite Apple. “Treating employees differently due to their union status could be a factor in proving anti-union animus,” Morrow stated.

Apple holds a card or two of its own, and they’re formidable ones.

“Large companies can afford to hire ‘union avoidance’ experts and law firms that will advise how to circumvent the laws in fashions that make it difficult to show that the law was violated,” Morrow said. “Rarely does one get that old ‘Perry Mason’ moment where an employer will simply blurt out that they oppose unions and are going to close any place that brings in a union.”

If labor lawyers can prove anti-union animus and a violation of the law, the NLRB has a wide range of penalties it can impose, although the fines and back pay are typically too low to discourage future violations, Morrow noted.

“In many cases, the General Counsel’s Office may settle a matter with something as meaningless as a posting that does not admit violation but agrees they will not violate the law,” he said.

For union-minded workers, retail is a tough nut to crack

Retail industry experts say organizing retail workers has been challenging due to the industry’s economics.

“Retail job postings cycle almost twice as fast as those in professional services, resulting in high levels of turnover, short tenures, and workers that may rarely stay at a store long enough to develop stable bargaining units which unions rely on to represent employees,” Lacey Kaelani, CEO of Metaintro, a career analysis services firm, told Moneywise. “The significance of the Towson store is that it showed it is possible to overcome these challenges.”

Yet a failure to sustain the first unionized store (for any reason) also leads other retail workers to believe that evidence of the possibility of organizing is weak and that the costs of organizing can be high, including the risk of losing employment.

“The reality of this chilling effect is that it goes from being a legal concept to becoming a fact of life for a lot of people in the workforce,” Kaelani noted. “When workers are thinking about whether they’re going to unionize, they’re not doing a legal analysis, they’re just asking one question: ‘Is this going to jeopardize my paycheck?”

A well-publicized shutdown by Apple may have answered that question even before the courts have ruled.

“In retail specifically, the momentum for unionizing follows wins and will stall much quicker when visible wins disappear,” Kaelani added.

The takeaway on the Towson store closing

Online commentators largely condemned the Towson store shutdown, with some citing a shift in Apple’s priorities.

“There was a time when Apple cared about its employees and being socially responsible,” said ‘Joseph NorCal’ in The New York Times story comments section. “This was before Tim Cook took over. Today, Apple is a company that only cares about profits.”

In the meantime, labor analysts say it’s time to take a more pragmatic stance.

“Perhaps the foundation community will also see that assisting workers with labor education, training, and litigation funding will promote unionization, which helps workers make a living wage and makes the necessities of life more affordable,” Warren stated.

The base MacBook Air is now $1,299 — a $200 price hike. The MacBook Pro now starts at $1,999, up $300 from before. The MacBook Neo, the newest and most affordable entry in Apple’s laptop lineup, is now $100 more expensive than it was before, and will start at $699.

Among iPads, the iPad Air got a $150 price hike and now starts at $749. The iPad Pro now starts at $1,199, which is up $200 from before. And the smallest iPad you can buy, the iPad Mini, is now $100 more expensive, starting at $599.

As for the desktop Macs, Apple raised the floor for the standalone iMac desktop to $1,499, a $200 increase, and the baseline Mac Studio with M4 Max, which is basically like a Mac Mini on steroids, now starts at $2,499, which is up $500 from before Thursday. The high-end Mac Studio, which is powered by the M3 Ultra chip, is a whopping $1,300 more expensive than before (was $3,999, is now $5,299).

Nearly two months ago, Tim Cook, Apple’s outgoing CEO, warned that “we expect significantly higher memory costs” in the June quarter. “I can tell you that beyond the June quarter, we believe memory costs will drive an increasing impact on our business. And we’ll continue to evaluate this,” he said.

To be clear, it’s not just Apple grappling with this problem — although if a company the size of Apple admits it’s an issue, you know it’s even worse for virtually every other company making consumer electronics. What’s happening here is that, basically, AI is a RAM hog – and since AI data centers require a lot of memory (in addition to water and electricity), most of the Silicon Valley giants are gobbling up supply. This is a serious issue because three companies — Samsung, Micron, and Hynix — make up over 90% of RAM production on the planet. This is partly why Anthropic is paying SpaceX over a billion dollars a month. AI ain’t cheap, and unfortunately, the rest of the tech world will pay the price (but really, pass those costs onto you, the consumer).

It’s yet another way the data center boom is affecting Americans.

Data centers require huge amounts of power and water once they’re up and running, but the demand for manpower to construct them is also massive.

It’s a boom that those in the construction industry are calling a paradigm shift, and the effects are rippling across the country.

Data centers drive demand for electricians

Data centers have been making headlines recently, with lawmakers looking to stop residents’ electricity bills from skyrocketing due to increased strain on the grid, and those who live near data centers sounding the alarm on water issues.

Communities where data centers are slated to be built have also been trying to stop them.

But tech companies jockeying in the AI race haven’t shown signs of slowing down. The start of this year marked a new high for data centers, with construction starts hitting $25.2 billion. In January, 20 data center projects broke ground in the U.S., according to ConstructConnect News.

U.S. Census Bureau figures show that data centers now make up 2.3% of all U.S. construction spending, with spending passing $50 billion for the first time in April.

According to a blog post from workforce management platform Rivet, data center construction is much different than typical commercial construction for two reasons: It’s happening away from city centers, where there is a local labor pool, and the electrical needs are a far greater share of the work.

A report from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers said that “between 45% and 70% of the entire budget for data center construction goes to the electrical subcontractor.”

In an interview with Snips News, a trade publication that covers the HVAC industry, Jay Bowman, a partner with consulting and investment firm FMI, said a shortage of skilled labor was “the number one delivery challenge where big data center and infrastructure projects are active, and it’s even more pronounced in remote areas like west Texas.”

Bowman said there has been a “clear shift” when it comes to other types of construction projects competing with data center projects for labor. “We’ve seen contractors almost accidentally become data-center-only companies,” Bowman said, noting that “for many firms that started chasing data center projects just two or three years ago, those jobs can now make up over half their revenue and backlog.”

The ‘double-edged sword’ of the Texas AI data center boom

In Abilene, Texas, a town that is home to a massive AI data center campus backed by Oracle and OpenAI, homebuilder Gene Lantrip is seeing the impacts firsthand. Lantrip told Realtor.com that the data center campus is a “double-edged sword.”

While the campus has brought new workers to the area, which means an increased demand for housing, Lantrip said that he is also dealing with longer timelines to build and repair houses, because many of his subcontractors have lost their workers to higher-paying data center jobs.

Workers can earn 25% to 30% more working on data center projects, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Lantrip told Realtor.com that there are 14,000 temporary workers in the area who need housing, and that he’s building more houses than he did “during the COVID boom” — but because there’s not enough skilled labor, it takes two months longer to complete a project.

“You have all these houses, and my electricians and plumbers and HVAC guys can’t keep their crews. My electrician hired 18-year-old kids, some in high school, and trained them,” Lantrip told Realtor.com. “But it takes time to train those kids.”

Ladd Schuiling, vice president of sales at Skilledtrades.com, told Realtor.com that while data center construction requires electricians with industrial and commercial experience, residential electricians could also be employed “to do things like pull wire, [which] almost every electrician, no matter industry or experience, knows how to do,” he said.

Scott Schwandt, president of Texas-based pipe company Gajeske, told Realtor.com that data center jobs don’t hire crews for weeks, but months, impacting the homebuilding industry.

“It exerts a quantifiable long-term pressure on the project timelines of residential and commercial builds, as the already undersupplied labor market absorbs higher numbers of skilled tradespeople,” Schwandt told Realtor.com.

In Arizona, which is seventh in the country when it comes to the number of planned and operating data centers, if your air conditioning breaks down, you may be waiting longer to get it fixed.

Danny Niemela, vice president and CFO of ArDan Construction, a licensed contractor and home remodeler in Scottsdale, Ariz., told Realtor.com he’s seeing the impacts of data centers on the local workforce.

“If your AC went out in June, you may have previously waited two days for a qualified tech to show up. Now you could be looking at five or six days, or more if you need a specialty part delivered,” Niemela told Realtor.com.

He’s seen the cost of skilled labor increase as well.

“That $3,500 panel upgrade you had done two years ago will run you $4,200 this year. Don’t get me wrong, material costs have risen, too. But often, when you’re fighting a corporation for manpower, you lose every time.”

Amidst the backdrop of this vast public health emergency, Europe’s museums are advertising themselves as places of refuge from the heat. It's a big deal considering only about 20% of homes in Europe have air conditioning, compared to about 90% in the U.S.

In London, the Imperial War Museum told Instagram followers it offered "salvation" from the heat in the form of air conditioning and a café fully stocked with cold drinks. In Paris, the Museum of the History of Immigration — which runs at about 72 degrees Fahrenheit to protect the artwork, far below the 100+ temperatures outside — offered free admission through Friday.

The marketing seems to be working. Constance Rivière, who runs the Palais de la Porte Dorée, the Paris institution that runs the immigration museum, told the New York Times that 540 people came through the museum’s front doors on Wednesday, roughly 200 more people than the same day a week prior.

That’s because Wendy’s is at the heart of the latest meme stock frenzy, even drawing comparisons to the famed 2021 GameStop stock craze.

The fast food stock rally began Tuesday, with a WallStreetBets Reddit post titled “We need to save Wendy’s” — the same day Stansberry Research noted the chain’s stock hit a 13-year low following a five-year, 70% decline, not to mention the closure of hundreds of locations.

Spurred by a nostalgia-fuelled love of the brand — and the hiring of new CFO Steven Cirulis, formerly of Potbelly, who joins former Potbelly CEO Bob Wright in leading the company — retail traders jumped on the stock, boosting it by more than 25% on Wednesday.

The Wall Street Journal notes investors bought $15 million in Wendy’s shares in one day Wednesday — essentially totaling the amount of the brand’s stock purchased in the entire first half of this year.

The stock peaked at $9.31 a share early Thursday morning — a 34% increase over the last week. A few hours later, it dropped to $7.24.

Marketbeat notes that nearly 32% of the brand’s float was sold short as of the end of May, meaning short sellers could also be scrambling to shore up their losses.

The Wendy’s frenzy, meanwhile, is unlikely to hit the level of the 2021 GameStop short squeeze, which saw the struggling video game retailer’s stock skyrocket more than 1,500%, bringing both huge profits for some and catastrophic losses for others before trading was paused.

“The 2021 meme stock playbook looks to be re-emerging,” Vanda Research wrote. “It’s too early to call this a new meme-stock cycle, but the flow profile looks increasingly reminiscent of the 2021 WallStreetBets playbook.”

Vanda added that, “While not every retail-driven short squeeze is the same, the ingredients look familiar: elevated short interest, a beaten-up consumer name, strong social media engagement and a simple retail narrative around ‘saving Wendy’s.’”

Another industry analyst simply characterised the frenzy as “Reddit crowd hijacks stock,” which is still far from its 2021 peak of $22.78.

But while the stock is likely to come back down to Earth, there is belief that the chain’s future looks much brighter.

“Between its established appeal among younger consumers, its strength with older diners, and a breakfast business that still has room to improve, Wendy’s has several levers it can pull to regain momentum,” Shira Petrack, of the consumer data platform Placer.ai wrote.

As well, the duo of Wright and Cirulis helped boost Potbelly’s fortunes significantly, including a share price increase of 500% and a boost in franchisees before selling to convenience store chain owner RaceTrac for $566 million — a magic touch that Wendy’s lovers hope will translate to the food chain.

All of which means that, even if the stock levels out as fast as it rose, there’s a decent chance that fans of the brand — not to mention Wendy herself, in the logo with the red pigtails — will have plenty of reason to smile going forward.

The crash call comes from Mark Hulbert, a long-time analyst who penned a column on the topic for Marketwatch on June 22, citing research from Harvard University economist Xavier Gabaix.

“SpaceX’s massively successful IPO, along with the expected IPOs of artificial-intelligence giants OpenAI and Anthropic, make a severe bear market much more likely,” Hulbert noted. “And by severe, I mean a drop of almost 40%.”

Driving that prediction is the notion, articulated by Gabaix, that massive IPOs could cause big investors to raid their piggy banks to snap up shares of popular new-issue stocks. In doing so, Hulbert said big market mavens steer tons of cash toward IPO standouts like SpaceX, either for future investment or for the IPO companies’ C-suites to cash in their shares.

“How bearish would it be if the money raised this year in mega-IPOs like SpaceX’s comes from investors selling other stocks and the companies investing in their future growth and/or their founders deciding to ‘take the money and run?” Hulbert asks.

Citing a 2023 University of Chicago study led by Gabaix, the research suggests that taking cash out of the market for big IPOs could drain billions from the stock market, hurtling it into a severe bear scenario within the next year.

Huge IPOs throw a bucket of cold water on the stock market

Other market trackers agree that gigantic new issues like SpaceX ($1.77 trillion valuation) and OpenAI (expected $1 trillion valuation) are a bank account drainer for other stocks.

“When a multi-billion-dollar company hits the public market, it doesn’t magically create new investing cash out of thin air,” Dan Ye, a stock market expert who teaches an “Investing in the Age of AI” course at Johns Hopkins University, told Moneywise. “The money to buy those fresh shares has to come from somewhere.”

In the real world, when a pension fund, a hedge fund, or an everyday investor decides to take a massive position in an OpenAI or a SpaceX IPO, they usually fund it by harvesting cash from their existing winners. “They sell off chunks of their highly liquid, blue-chip holdings — the Apples, Microsofts, and broad S&P 500 index funds of the world,” Ye noted.

Once that cash is handed over to the newly public company to fund massive compute clusters or rocket research and development, it’s effectively siphoned out of the secondary trading ecosystem. “If we see a rapid-fire succession of these massive offerings, we are easily looking at an aggregate capital raise north of $200 billion,” Ye added. “That is a massive, structural drain on everyday market liquidity.”

SpaceX and OpenAI may not be big enough to trigger a crash

Other market experts aren’t as concerned, because of the massive size of the overall stock market relative to the valuations of the latest big IPOs.

“While SpaceX’s IPO was the largest in history — raising a total of $85.7 billion — some people overstate its impact, citing that the IPO price valued the firm at $1.77 trillion,” Robert R. Johnson, founder and CEO at New York City-based Economic Index Associates, told Moneywise, adding the raise is “a small fraction of the total market capitalization of SpaceX.”

Johnson noted that, at the beginning of 2026, the total market cap of the US stock market was $79.4 trillion.

“While the IPO was huge, it is a minute fraction of the total US market cap,” Johnson said. “But, as with all things Elon Musk, its overall impact is magnified.”

Additionally, global stock markets have come a long way since the days when an outsized IPO or two could capsize the market, even temporarily.

Take the University of Chicago study, which claimed that for every dollar invested in the U.S. stock market, the aggregate market capitalization of the market increases by roughly $5. It follows, then, that the reverse might be true: Pulling one dollar out of the market could result in a disproportionate drop.

That means a $200-billion capital drain using that 5-to-1 multiplier would result in a staggering $1-trillion drop in total stock market value — at least on paper.

“To be fair, this multiplier isn’t a flawless crystal ball,” Ye said. “Today’s stock market has a few modern counter-forces that didn’t exist in past decades.”

For example, capital markets are highly globalized, adding a needed counterweight to imbalanced markets that may be susceptible to substantial IPO impactors. “If a massive chunk of the money funding an OpenAI or SpaceX debut comes from international sovereign wealth funds, or is drawn out of non-equity asset classes like corporate bonds, the domestic stock market avoids the direct hit,” Ye noted.

Institutional venture funds are also currently sitting on historic mountains of “dry powder” in the form of unspent cash. “If an IPO allows early insiders to cash out, that money might be rapidly recycled right back into other public equities, softening the blow,” Ye said.

Why investors need to be careful about massive IPOs

Even with global market buffers, history periodically issues a loud warning about periods of heavy IPO activity. “If you look back at 1929 or the peak of the dot-com bubble in 2000, massive waves of IPOs have consistently served as the ultimate canary in the coal mine, signaling the absolute top of a speculative cycle,” Ye said.

Keeping the University of Chicago analysis in mind, Main Street investors should be cognizant of the risks of overinvesting in times of IPO largesse, yet be pragmatic, too.

“This state of IPO activity will likely last at least for the next couple of months, but in the broader perspective, it’s best not to read too much into it,” Eugenia Mykuliak, founder and executive director of B2PRIME Group, a global financial services provider, told Moneywise.

Mykuliak notes that the stock market is still in the initial adjustment stage as it assesses powerhouse IPOs like SpaceX, which will eventually fade, and that the market will return to assessing fundamentals over temporary factors. “Whether SpaceX can successfully execute its growth strategy and justify the valuations in the long-run is the more important question,” he stated.

New data suggests those concerns aren’t going away anytime soon.

U.S.-based companies announced more than 97,000 planned job cuts in May, marking the highest level for the month since the pandemic-era layoffs of 2020, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. Employers cited AI as the primary reason for 40% of those announced job cuts.

Still, some experts caution against assuming every layoff attributed to AI is the result of a machine replacing a worker.

“Roles involving repetitive tasks that primarily require recognition and interpretation of patterns can utilize AI with greater efficiency,” Chris Hutchins, founder and CEO of Hutchins Data Strategy Consultants, told Moneywise.“If AI is assigned blame after job cuts that proceed beyond these roles, then the underlying cause is likely something other than AI.”

In other words, while companies are increasingly pointing to AI as a reason for layoffs, the technology’s role in job cuts may be more complicated than the headlines suggest.

Why the numbers don’t tell the whole story

In just five months, employers have attributed more layoffs to AI than they did in all of last year. The report shows 87,714 announced job cuts tied to AI through May, compared to 54,836 throughout 2025.

Workers’ concerns about AI are widespread. A 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that 52% of workers are worried about AI’s future impact on the workplace, while one-third said they feel overwhelmed by the technology.

Several major tech companies have announced significant workforce reductions this year while simultaneously ramping up investments in artificial intelligence.

Oracle disclosed recently that it has reduced its workforce by roughly 21,000 employees over the past year. Meanwhile, Google has continued trimming staff through performance reviews, buyout programs and reorganizations, with outside estimates suggesting between 1,500 and 3,000 engineering roles have been eliminated in 2026.

Meta also laid off roughly 8,000 employees earlier this year while shifting about 7,000 workers into AI-focused roles, highlighting how some companies are cutting jobs in certain areas while continuing to invest heavily in artificial intelligence.

Not every layoff is about AI

Not every layoff tied to AI means a worker is being directly replaced by the technology.

Hutchins, whose work focuses on the healthcare industry, says AI’s impact varies significantly from one sector to another. In healthcare, for example, persistent staffing shortages mean many AI tools are being deployed to help workers do their jobs more efficiently rather than replace them altogether.

“Consider if the company claims AI will help them do more with less,” he said. “If AI will help them do more, then they will employ AI to augment their workforce. In contrast, if they will use AI to do less with more, then the company intends to displace their workforce with AI.”

Despite growing concerns about AI-related job cuts, U.S. payrolls increased by 172,000 in May, more than double economists’ expectations, with prior months also revised higher.

Several industries continued to add workers despite concerns about AI-driven layoffs. Leisure and hospitality saw the strongest hiring growth in May, with local government and healthcare also contributing tens of thousands of new jobs.

The impact depends on the industry

Sheldon Arora, CEO of healthcare staffing platform StaffDNA, said workers should be cautious about assuming AI is the sole driver behind recent layoffs.

“Current economic conditions, changing business priorities and restructuring are big factors,” he told Moneywise. “AI is part of this, but not the whole story.”

For workers, that means the impact of AI may depend less on national headlines and more on how the technology is being used within their own industry.

“I don’t think workers should view AI as a job killer,” he said. “We’ve seen times when technology has changed jobs more than eliminated them. Employees who learn to work alongside AI will likely be in the strongest position as the technology continues to mature.”

Since 1952, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research has administered a monthly survey to gauge consumer confidence, putting a number on the nation’s attitude toward finances and spending, the general economic landscape at the time and anticipations for the future.

This year, May’s results were the lowest they’ve been in the study’s recorded history, coming in at 44.8 — lower than during the worst of COVID-19 (when the index reached 71.8), the midst of post-pandemic inflation (when it dropped to 50) and after the peak of the Great Recession (when it measured 55.3).

But how is this figure possible when stock markets have been rallying to record highs and spending across the country continues to show similar vigor?

Where the math isn’t showing the whole context

The Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index (MCSI) is widely considered to be not only a credible metric, but one of the nation’s key economic indicators. But, in this case, it seems to be at odds with other comparable and contextual data.

Regardless of what letter shape you believe the economy is taking at the moment — K or E — consumer spending levels are strong and escalating, up 0.9% month-over-month in May (the fourth monthly increase in a row) despite prices being up 4.2% year-over-year.

Yes, the difference in spending (and earnings) between classes is becoming more pronounced, which isn’t exactly an uplifting phenomenon. Individual debt is high, and so are private-credit default rates. And amid all of this spending, the average personal savings rate has fallen to 2.6%, a figure that is the worst rock bottom since the 2008 financial crisis.

But, one must also take into account that the US presently has more retirees digging into savings than ever, which impacts the data. And, people actually have more liquid assets than they did pre-pandemic, amounting to about 84% of their disposable income, according to the Fed.

Meanwhile, other respected confidence benchmarks, like the one published each month by The Conference Board, have yielded much more positive results than the Michigan index. The most recent edition of that survey appraised consumer opinion at 93.1, which marks a slight decline from the month prior, but remains around the overall historical average.

That analysis, released in late May, cites “moderately less positive” feelings about business conditions and the job market, but “modest improvements in consumers’ expectations for business conditions and the labor market six months from now.”

RIA Advisors partner Lance Roberts also recently pointed out that the hard economic data beyond consumer appetites and attitudes tells “a third story entirely,” with retail sales, corporate earnings, GDP growth and S&P 500 performance all on the rise. Part of this can be attributable to the arguably delusional AI boom, but at large, consumers’ Michigan survey responses don’t match what is actually going on.

Could methodology be partly to blame?

Some have argued that the university’s choice to shift polling from over the phone to online in 2024 has skewed results negatively, as respondents generally prove to provide less rosy answers in online settings. But, given what research says about how polling modes impact responses, recent years’ results should actually be more truthful, as phone interviews, by nature, can prompt people to respond in an overly agreeable way.

“Surveys and behavior often part ways, and the gap usually tells you more about the survey than about the consumer,” Roberts stated in his evaluation. “The labor market, spending, earnings, and credit data all line up in the same direction. They don’t agree with the sentiment survey, but they do agree with each other.”

Beyond the change in methodology, Roberts also identifies another glaring factor: people’s vehement opposition to the “current presidential administration,” whether blind or warranted.

As outlined in earlier research regarding the differences in sentiment across political affiliations, he asserts that “the partisan gap in sentiment is now larger than the gaps by income, age, or education combined … [so] the survey isn’t measuring the economy. It’s capturing tribal loyalty, and that mechanic is a meaningful slice of the consumer sentiment disconnect we’re trying to explain.”

The letters inform recipients they are among the 71,871 residents who will benefit from Monday’s announcement that the state plans to erase $74 million in medical debt.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s office says the move ensures “fewer Michigan families must choose between putting food on the table or paying their medical bills.” State Sen. Sarah Anthony called the relief “a lifeline” and an opportunity at “securing a brighter, financially secure future.”

This round of Michigan relief, done in partnership with the non-profit Undue Medical Debt, follows $144 million worth of debt forgiven for about 210,000 people in the state last summer. Each round of relief targets different jurisdictions within the state. The June 22 press release noted, “more rounds of medical debt forgiveness will take place in the future.”

That relief is desperately needed. The Kaiser Family Foundation reported that Americans owe at least $220 billion in medical debt. Debt.org noted that medical bills are consistently among the top reasons cited for bankruptcies, both because of the money owed and missed work resulting from medical issues.

And even better news: Michigan is one of multiple states partnering with Undue Medical Debt to help residents remove the burden of costly medical bills.

How $4.5 million can erase $74 million in medical debt

There are no strings attached to Undue Medical Debt’s relief. The only eligibility requirements are that the recipient’s debt equals 5% or more of their income, or they earn below 400% of the federal poverty level.

Gov. Whitmer’s office didn’t reply to Moneywise’s request for comment, but they previously noted that the $74 million in medical debt erasure was supported by $4.5 million in state funds.

That math doesn’t seem to add up, especially if you’re trying to settle a debt on your own. But Undue Medical Debt makes it work because when they buy debts from hospitals, it does so for pennies on the dollar, just like debt collectors.

For example, the state’s press release stated that “on average, one dollar given to Undue Medical Debt relieves $100 of medical debt.”

Others have said that a hospital sitting on a $10,000 unpaid surgery bill might receive as little as $100 to $550 from a debt buyer. Usually that debt buyer will then try to collect the full original amount from the person who owes, making a profit in the process.

By contrast, Undue Medical Debt purchases the debt to immediately forgive it. The organization told Moneywise that, since its founding in 2014, it has relieved over $40 billion of medical debt for over 27 million families in all 50 states.

Michigan isn’t the only state working with Undue Medical Debt. Between December 2024 and December 2025, 160,000 Connecticut residents received nearly $200 million worth of medical debt forgiveness.

In March, 27,000 Massachusetts residents received $42 million in medical debt relief. And this month in Kentucky, more than 2,000 Lexington-Fayette County residents welcomed a third round of debt forgiveness totalling more than $23 million so far.

“I think the return on your investment couldn’t be better,” Dan Wu, Lexington’s vice-mayor, said at the time. “There’s basically nothing that we do as government where we get 100 to 1 on our money in terms of return.”

How to reduce your own medical debt

If your state isn’t partnered with a group like Undue Medical Debt, or you don’t qualify for relief based on their requirements, there are still ways you can help reduce your own medical debt.

The non-profit InCharge Debt Solutions recommends negotiating medical bills whenever possible, including checking your bill for errors (always ask for an itemized receipt!), comparing rates with your insurer and others in the region to see if any discrepancies allow for negotiation, offering to settle the bill with a bigger upfront payment in return for a reduced rate, or even speaking with a medical advocate to help make your case.

They add that the amount can be negotiated before or after the billed medical procedure — especially if it was an emergency or unexpected.

CoveredUSA, which connects clients with insurers, adds that the 60% of U.S. hospitals that are non-profit must, by law, cap billing amounts to approved patients and offer a financial assistance policy.

They suggest requesting an application for financial assistance as soon as you’re able and ensuring you submit it ahead of any eligibility deadlines. They add that even if you can’t get your full bill covered, “A balance of $5,000 can sometimes be settled for $1,500 to $2,500 if you can pay quickly and you make the request in writing.”

The group also points out that different state laws — such as those in New York, California and Colorado — require hospitals to provide either free or reduced-cost care to patients whose income falls below certain percentages of the poverty line.

These rules may not always be advertised. So the next time you or a loved one goes into the hospital for medical care, be sure to ask about them.

That one question could save you years of medical debt payments down the line.

A real estate company, Village 21 Investment Partners LLC, is suing Bryan, Aldean and former Major League Baseball player Adam LaRoche for more than $1.4 million after their restaurant, E3 Chophouse Nashville, allegedly stopped paying rent and shut its doors earlier this year.

The restaurant, which opened in 2019 in Nashville’s Hillsboro Village neighborhood, announced in June that it was “hitting pause” while it evaluated future opportunities and potential rebranding plans. The company described the closure as temporary.

But according to court filings, the landlord sees things differently. Village 21 alleges that E3 Chophouse stopped paying monthly rent before abruptly closing in February, triggering a default under the lease agreement. The company is seeking unpaid rent, interest, legal costs and additional damages tied to the remaining lease term.

The landlord says the closure violated the lease

According to the lawsuit filed in Davidson County Circuit Court, Village 21 claims the restaurant failed to pay rent for multiple months before closing and that the shutdown constituted a breach of its lease obligations. The complaint also argues that Bryan, Aldean and LaRoche personally guaranteed certain lease obligations and therefore share responsibility for damages resulting from the alleged default.

Court documents cited by multiple outlets say the landlord is seeking more than $1.4 million, including past-due rent and payments that could extend through the remainder of the lease term, which reportedly runs until 2029.

Representatives for the restaurant owners have not publicly addressed the allegations in detail. However, a spokesperson told media outlets they were unaware of the complaint and were working toward a resolution.

Meanwhile, the Nashville restaurant’s website continues to describe the closure as a temporary pause while management explores new concepts for the location.

What happens when a business stops paying rent?

Regardless of how the lawsuit against Bryan, Aldean and LaRoche ultimately plays out, the case highlights a costly reality for business owners: walking away from a commercial lease can have consequences long after a company closes its doors.

Commercial leases often give landlords several remedies when tenants stop paying. Depending on the terms of the agreement, landlords may sue for unpaid rent, recover attorney fees, seek possession of the property or even pursue future rent payments that would have come due over the remainder of the lease.

Some leases also contain what’s known as an “acceleration clause,” which can allow a landlord to demand much of the remaining rent owed under the lease after a default occurs.

The stakes can become even higher when business owners personally guarantee a lease. In those situations, landlords may attempt to recover damages directly from the guarantors rather than only from the business entity itself.

Commercial real estate attorneys note that unpaid rent disputes frequently escalate into lawsuits because landlords rely on lease payments to cover property expenses and financing obligations. When a tenant leaves unexpectedly, owners can face months of lost income while searching for a replacement tenant.

That appears to be at the heart of the dispute facing Bryan, Aldean and LaRoche. While E3 Chophouse says it is evaluating the future of its Nashville location, the landlord argues the closure amounted to a lease default — one it says has already cost more than $1.4 million. A court hearing is scheduled for June 26.

Moneywise has contacted the defendant’s attorneys for a statement. We have not heard back

RMS Titanic Inc., the company that owns exclusive salvage rights to the wreck, wants to sell more than 100 recovered artifacts from a 1987 French expedition, including jewelry, currency and decorative pieces. So far, the artifacts have mostly been viewed by the public in museums and traveling exhibits, not bought and sold by private collectors.

The proposal is facing opposition from the U.S. government, which argues the sale could violate legal agreements requiring the artifacts to remain together as a single collection. For some historians and preservation groups, the artifacts represent more than valuable collectibles.

“The Titanic occupies a singular place in global maritime history,” Cathy Green, president of the National Maritime Historical Society, wrote in a letter to the court cited by The Times.

“The wreck site is both an internationally significant archaeological resource and the final resting place of more than 1,500 individuals.”

A fight over who owns history

The artifacts at the heart of the dispute are valuable for more than just their connection to one of history’s most famous disasters. Since 1986, RMS Titanic Inc., formerly Titanic Ventures, has recovered more than 5,000 items from the wreck site and largely made money by exhibiting them in museums and traveling displays.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has argued in recently unsealed court documents that the artifacts should remain together and accessible to the public rather than being sold to private collectors. The company, meanwhile, has maintained that the proposed auction would not violate existing court orders or agreements governing the collection.

Another issue is whether the collection should be governed by French ownership decisions covering some of the early recoveries, or by U.S. court orders that preservation groups say require the artifacts to remain together.

The U.S. government has argued in court filings that RMS Titanic Inc. cannot move forward with a sale without court approval.

Moneywise reached out to RMS Titanic Inc. for comment on the proposed sale, but did not hear back before publication.

Even with restrictions surrounding the wreck itself, there is already a thriving market for Titanic memorabilia that was not recovered from the wreck. Items tied to the disaster have sold at auction for hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of dollars.

In 2024, an 18-karat gold Tiffany & Co. pocket watch gifted to the captain of the Carpathia, the ship that rescued Titanic survivors, sold for nearly $2 million. A lifejacket worn by a Titanic passenger sold for more than $900,000, while a letter penned by bandleader Wallace Hartley — who reportedly continued playing music as the ship sank — sold for nearly $190,000 in 2012.

Why wealthy collectors are interested

As the market for alternative investments grows, some wealthy buyers are increasingly drawn to historically significant artifacts.

Collectibles such as artwork, vintage watches, classic cars and historical memorabilia have become increasingly popular among investors looking to put money into assets outside the stock market. Unlike stocks or bonds, however, these items don’t produce income and can be difficult to value. Their worth often comes down to how much another collector is willing to pay.

Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University School of Law, told The Associated Press that the restrictions were created to preserve the artifacts for public viewing, rather than allowing them to be sold to the highest bidder.

“If it’s something where someone can walk through their house and say ‘Yes, I bought this for $5 million and it’s original from the Titanic,’ that’s not a good thing,” he said.

Part of what makes Titanic artifacts so valuable is that each item offers a glimpse into a real moment in history and the lives of the people who were on board. More than a century after the ship sank, public fascination with the disaster remains strong, and collectors are often willing to pay a premium for a connection to a story they know so well.

The outcome of the case could determine whether those artifacts remain accessible to the public or become part of the growing market for high-end collectibles, where rarity, history and emotional significance can translate into million-dollar price tags.

Ibrahim Khaldoon Hilmi, a Florida businessman from Delray Beach, landed in South Florida on June 19, 2026, after more than a year on the run. He fled the US in May 2025 and was apprehended in Kyrenia, in the Turkish-controlled north of Cyprus, according to the Justice Department. FBI Director Kash Patel and Vice President JD Vance both took to X to celebrate his apprehension. The FBI's Critical Incident Response Group flew him home through a foreign transfer of custody.

He now faces charges of health care fraud and wire fraud conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, and money laundering. Hilmi is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

How the $3.7 billion Medicare scheme worked

Hilmi and his co-conspirators took control of two durable medical equipment suppliers — ABRH Care, Inc. and Sunshine Senior Solutions, LLC — and used them as shell companies, the Justice Department says. Between roughly August 2024 and November 2025, they allegedly billed Medicare, Medicaid, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and private insurers for $3.7 billion in equipment that was never provided: urinary catheters, orthotic braces, continuous glucose monitors and wound dressings.

Many of the patients on those claims never ordered the supplies, never received them, or didn't exist at all. The money that came in was then allegedly laundered out of the country, much of it through wire transfers Hilmi made himself, in person, in the US, according to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General.

The operation looked ordinary by design. Real companies, legitimate equipment categories, real-sounding patient records — enough to slip past the red flags that normally trigger a Medicare audit.

How Medicare fraud victims got billed for supplies they never ordered

Long before the FBI's plane touched down, the victims were already noticing. Seniors in Houston and Philadelphia found thousands of dollars in charges they never authorized — $9,000 here, $15,000 there, one man billed roughly $21,000, another nearly $26,000, all for catheters and braces they never asked for and never received, ABC13 and 6ABC reported.

None of them paid a cent out of pocket. It's taxpayer money, and the people whose Medicare numbers were used didn't know until they read their statements. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services barred Sunshine Senior Solutions from the program in June 2025, but by then the billing had been running for the better part of a year.

Why Medicare fraud is a growing threat

Prosecutors have tied Hilmi to a transnational criminal network first charged in the 2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown, which allegedly submitted more than $10.6 billion in fraudulent claims. Hilmi's $3.7 billion was an additional layer that kept running after that takedown. Two other members of the network were arrested in Estonia and extradited this month.

The June 2026 takedown that swept up Hilmi's case charged 455 defendants over more than $6.5 billion in alleged fraud. CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz put the broader number higher, estimating that roughly $100 billion is stolen from Medicare and Medicaid — money that, if recovered, would "double the life expectancy of the Medicare trust fund," he said.

The reach is wide because the schemes run on stolen Medicare numbers, which sell on the dark web for as little as $8 apiece. The victims here caught the charges only because they checked their statements. Experts said to treat a Medicare number like a credit card: don't hand it to unsolicited callers, read every Medicare Summary Notice, flag any equipment or provider you don't recognize and report it to Medicare's fraud hotline.

What happens next in the Hilmi case

Hilmi has made his initial court appearance in the Southern District of Florida. The investigation is ongoing, and it's not yet clear whether any of the allegedly stolen money can be recovered. A co-defendant, Nika Machutadze, was arrested earlier in 2026 on a money laundering charge tied to the same operation.

The case has become a talking point for the administration's anti-fraud push. "If you steal from the American people, there will be no safe harbor for you anywhere in the world," Vance wrote on X.

Hilmi's return is the second high-profile Medicare fugitive brought back in a single week. Days earlier, the FBI announced the capture of Herb Kimble, accused in a separate $1.2 billion telemedicine and equipment scheme, who was tracked down in the Philippines. Between the two cases, that's roughly $5 billion in alleged fraud. The FBI has since added two more fugitives to its Most Wanted Fraudsters List: Khalid Satary, wanted in a $547 million genetic testing scheme and believed to be in the United Arab Emirates, and Emylee Thai, wanted in a $90 million scheme, who fled to Vietnam.

The New York Post on Wednesday identified the woman in the viral video as 40-year-old Angie Báez, who had served as executive director of community and industry engagement for card and connected commerce at JPMorgan Chase. The Post cited sources familiar with the bank’s review of the matter. This kind of job would typically pay well into the six figures, according to a Moneywise analysis.

A Chase spokesperson told Moneywise in a statement: “This employee is no longer with the company.”

Báez could not be reached for comment, and her LinkedIn profile appears to have been taken down. The Post reported that she was previously the executive director of diversity, equity and inclusion at the review website the Infatuation, which was acquired by Chase. Earlier in her career, the Post reported, she worked at Squarespace and Saks Fifth Avenue.

Báez was later filmed riding the subway and smiling with the limited-edition trash can. The NYC Sanitation Department posted on Wednesday that the stolen trash can had been returned earlier without identifying who did so.

“Home sweet home!” the NYCDS said on X, with a photo of the Knicks-branded garbage can.

No charges have been filed

The New York City Police Department told the Post that no complaint was filed regarding the incident and Báez has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

The New York Knicks earlier this month clinched their first NBA championship since 1973. The team defeated the San Antonio Spurs in four out of seven games to win the NBA Finals, culminating in a June 18 ticker-tape parade through Lower Manhattan. A staggering two million people were estimated to have attended the parade.

Theft of items valued at less than $1,000 falls under petit larceny in NYC as a class A misdemeanor. Possible penalties in such cases include community service or a fine for first-time offenders.

Knicks-branded trash cans now on sale

Ahead of last week’s NYC Knicks parade, the limited edition Knicks-branded trash cans were unveiled as a partnership between New York-inspired clothing brand Only NY and the New York City Department of Sanitation. The wire mesh trash cans were decked out with the team’s trademark orange-and-blue colors along with the official seal of the DSNY as an ode to sanitation workers.

Knicks fans took to social media with a mix of jokes and warnings that enthusiastic parade goers were likely to take the garbage cans home as historic souvenirs.

“Streets are about to be filled with garbage because all of these are 100% getting stolen,” one posted on X.

Knicks fans seeking a less cumbersome way to dispose of their garbage can still get a smaller replica. An identical home waste-basket went on sale for $168 with the proceeds benefiting NYC. A Knick-branded pen holder is also available.

The New York Times was the first to report the claim on June 23. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, two employees with knowledge of the matter told the Times that Zuckerberg dispatched a small team to design a smartphone predictions market app.

One employee admitted that users would not bet money, and that the app would eventually rely on a video-game-style points system to encourage use. Though Meta has reportedly not ruled out including money bets.

The app is referred to internally as “Arena” and would run independent of Meta’s other social apps, which include Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp.

Meta did not respond to Moneywise’s request for comment.

Stocks fall in response to the report

The report has been attributed to triggering a series of stock market slips. Sports betting platform DraftKings fell more than 2% after the Times report was released. Flutter Entertainment, the parent company behind FanDuel, also fell nearly 2% but remained in the black by the end of the day.

Both DraftKings and Flutter Entertainment have begun offering prediction market contracts, but have struggled over the past year, grappling with the potential impact on traditional sports betting.

The rise of prediction markets

Prediction markets have emerged as a cultural phenomenon, evolving from a niche political forecasting tool to massive trading platforms. In 2025, Kalshi and Polymarket, two of the biggest platforms, drew a combined $50 billion in online trades. In 2026, the total has already climbed past $130 billion.

Zuckerberg has paid attention to social trends and user behavior when developing new products. The prediction market app is reportedly part of a larger trend at Meta to create new apps based on emerging online social behaviour.

This is also not the first time Meta has experimented with prediction markets. It released Forecast in 2020, a crowdsourced prediction market app that allowed people to guess what would happen in the world during the pandemic. It was shut down in 2022.

While prediction markets have become a cultural phenomenon, the platforms are also facing intense scrutiny. Suspicious trading activity has raised concerns that bettors may be using insider information for big payouts.

In April, a member of the U.S. Special Forces was charged with allegedly using confidential information to place bets about the capture of the Venezuelan president, Nicolás Maduro. He allegedly made more than $400,000 betting on the military operation.

Scrutiny follows the prediction market everywhere

Meta’s plan to enter the prediction market race is already facing criticism from one Democratic Senator.

“Meta copied slot machines to addict kids to Instagram,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal wrote on X. “Now Zuckerberg is turning his company into a prediction market. Meta’s business model is profiting from addiction — kids, gamblers, & more.”

Meta insiders say “Arena” is in development and could not even be released. Still, reports show the company remains focused on following social trends and capitalizing on user interests.

So when the “ultra-luxury condo” project The Delmore was announced in 2025, featuring sprawling 7,000 square foot residences and high-end amenities, one might have expected major demand.

Instead, the developer hasn’t yet sold a unit, construction has stalled and questions remain about whether building an ultra-luxury residence on the site of the deadly 2021 Champlain Towers South collapse was a mistake.

“Any development on this site will always carry a weight that goes beyond bricks and mortar,” Surfside Mayor Shlomo Danzinger told Moneywise. “It is hallowed ground for the families who lost loved ones and for our entire community.”

Joelle Oiknine, a Miami real estate agent who sold a listing in the Champlain Towers South right before the collapse, told Moneywise that she believes the developer overlooked the “profound historical significance” of the site.

“Nearly everyone (in the community) knows someone who was killed in the Champlain Towers collapse and we all participated in the aftermath through search, rescue and volunteering efforts,” she added, noting that a “thoughtful, beautiful “ memorial could have helped with “acknowledging the weight of this location and showing respect for the community.”

When a community’s desire to remember meets a developer’s desire to build

A spokesperson for the developer told Moneywise that “the court-mandated sale ordered that no memorial component be included on the property itself” in order to preserve its market value, and that the Delmore’s development team “has been an active, engaged, and good-faith participant in the memorial process since the moment the site was acquired” — including committing $1.5 million toward infrastructure for a memorial near the site.

That memorial, on 88th street, is also one that Mayor Danziner noted is a town priority, “so that our residents, family members and survivors have a permanent place to reflect and remember.”

Still, the scars within the community following the condo tower tragedy run deep.

The Champlain Towers South building collapsed in the early morning of June 24, 2021, killing 98 people. A National Institute of Standards and Technology report found the collapse likely began in the pool deck before progressing to the rest of the structure.

In 2022, the Dubai-based luxury real estate firm Damac International’s $120 million offer proved to be the only bid on the property, which it won for its $1.6 billion development.

The Delmore, which Damac announced last year, will boast 37 mansions over 12 floors, as well as a “flow-through canyon with sky views” and a “lush, oceanside meditation garden.”

But according to the Wall Street Journal, the inability to finalize plans for an on-site memorial to the Champlain Towers South victims — along with an attitude, as one former town representative put it, of “‘we’re here, we’re going to get what we want, we’re going to do what we want’” — drove a wedge between the developer and the community.

Damac’s spokesperson disagreed, telling Moneywise that a “record exists in writing” of correspondence and meetings over 18 months in which the company “engaged consistently and in good faith” and “proposed an easement that was declined.”

Danzinger added that Damac “reworked their designs to accommodate concerns raised by the families, demonstrating a genuine willingness to listen” and his belief that “they would remain open and amenable to continued dialogue.” The spokesperson agreed.

Construction on the development halted in February, though Damac’s rep said that it “continues to move forward” with the finalization of various requirements related to insurance, a master building permit and hiring a partner to manage operations and local sales and marketing. While nothing has been finalized, they say the project’s completion “remains on track for 2029.”

The larger challenge remains, however, that Damac hasn’t sold any units in the building more than a year after announcing the development.

Why no one is buying what Damac is selling

While it’s unclear if the past tragedy on the site has played any factor in the lack of Delmore units sold, Oiknine believes pricing has been a major obstacle.

Units were listed between roughly $15 million and $150 million — averaging around $40 million — while the average asking price for luxury condos in Surfside as of the second quarter of 2026 is just over $9 million.

“While an ultra-luxury price point is not unheard of in this market, those figures are typically reserved for beautiful condos and penthouses with expansive, panoramic views,” Oiknine said. “The entry-level units at The Delmore offered inferior views yet were still priced at a premium.”

Oiknine added her belief that Damac “did not have a strong grasp of this market” and may have been better off partnering with a local developer “who understood the community, the location’s significance and what buyers in this market are truly looking for, as they are now looking to do.”

Damac’s spokesperson, however, argues that The Delmore “operates in a different tier” than other area developments given their price points and being an oceanfront development with limited residences. The value of these units, the spokesperson says, “is determined by far more than a single view corridor.”

Damac also contends that “having no sales does not equate to no interest,” telling Moneywise that “we have received offers and rejected them, as buyers at the onset of a development of this magnitude expect a price discount we were unwilling to provide.”

The developer also disagrees that its team “lacks market understanding” and, in responding to reports that it may partner with a local developer, noted, “we recognize the value of local perspective and on-the-ground relationships,” characterizing them as “complementary” to their own vision and expertise.

Damac added that the weight of the Champlain Towers South collapse “is not lost on us” and that it remains committed to “delivering a project of exceptional quality – one that contributes positively to Surfside while remaining mindful of the significance of this site.”

“No matter what is ultimately built there, the memory of those we lost must be permanently and respectfully honored,” Danzinger said. “Beyond that, we hope to see a development that is thoughtful, that contributes positively to the fabric of our community, and that the families can one day look at and feel that their loved ones were not forgotten.”

The closure was part of the company’s damage control over a marketing debacle that ended with Starbucks Korea CEO Son Jeong-hyun fired and even booked as a criminal suspect by police.

It all started on May 18, when Starbucks Korea announced a marketing campaign for its new tumblers. Starbucks tumblers are popular enough to have inspired their own collector market.

The marketing campaign dubbed May 18 as “Tank Day.” Unfortunately, May 18 was already a notable date for South Koreans: It’s the anniversary of the Gwangju Uprising, where hundreds to thousands of pro-democracy protestors were killed by military forces using tanks and helicopters.

What’s more, the marketing copy seemed to directly reference police violence against protestors with the tagline “thwack on the desk.” In 1987, police initially claimed that student protestor Park Jong Chul died from shock when a policeman’s fist “hit the desk with a thwack.”

In actuality, Park had been tortured to death — something police admitted to later.

Understandably, many South Koreans were upset. Card payment volumes at Starbucks stores fell by 26% in one week and people started taking videos of them destroying Starbucks tumblers in protest.

Starbucks did not respond to Moneywise’s request for comment.

Here’s what Starbucks executives say led to the marketing campaign being greenlit, along with other cautionary tales of what happens when a company doesn’t do enough research into a new market.

Starbucks is joining a rising trend of blaming bad behavior on AI

Shinsegae Group, a conglomerate that owns a majority stake in Starbucks Korea, said the marketing misstep was not on purpose. It also says the Starbucks Korea marketing team chose the “thwack on the desk” slogan after consulting AI.

Starbucks Korea isn’t the first company that has pointed to AI when trying to place the blame. Companies have increasingly been blaming AI for mass layoffs — even when AI adoption doesn’t tell the whole story.

“I’m really skeptical whether the layoffs that we see currently are really due to true efficiency gains,” Oxford Internet Institute assistant professor Fabian Stephany told CNBC.“It’s to some extent firing people that for whom there had not been a sustainable long term perspective and instead of saying “we miscalculated this two, three years ago, they can now come to the scapegoating, and that is saying ‘it’s because of AI though.’”

Companies might find it helpful to blame AI for everything from layoffs to cultural missteps because that lets complaints fall into a “responsibility gap.”

Responsibility gaps were first discussed in a 2004 article in Ethics and Information Technology. The article says that, when autonomous learning machines act in ways that their creators could not have predicted, the creators can’t be held responsible for its actions.

At the same time, the machine isn’t a human being: it cannot personally be held responsible for its actions. That creates a responsibility gap, where no one can be held responsible for a specific harm.

With the advent of generative AI, responsibility gaps have been appearing more often. In one example, Stanford Medical Center failed to prioritize vaccinating its frontline workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, instead prioritizing giving vaccines to a group that included administrators and remote workers. Leadership said the mistake was due to “very complex algorithms.”

This isn’t the only time global companies have made cultural missteps

Even before AI, companies were making costly mistakes thanks to not understanding the culture of a market they were expanding into.

A common type of error is accidentally naming a product or service something offensive. For example, when Ikea marketed its products in Thailand, some of its products had Swedish names that had false cognates with sexual connotations in Thai.

Other examples include Coors — which had a slogan that, translated to Spanish, sounded like a slang phrase for diarrhea — and Ford, who found out that “pinto” has an inappropriate meaning in Brazilian Portuguese only after it started marketing the Ford Pinto there.

These types of mistakes can be embarrassing for a company. They can also affect how people see the company for years down the line.

But companies can also make more foundational mistakes when expanding to new markets. For example, Target failed to capture the Canadian market partially because Canadian customers weren’t as invested in doing all of their shopping in one place.

And Home Depot failed in China because it relied too heavily on the American “DIY” model, not taking time to understand what would appeal to its Chinese customers.

Imagine Maya, a 34-year-old graphic designer in Columbus, Ohio, who got rear-ended at a stoplight in March. The other driver admitted fault on the spot. Maya filed a police report, took photos, and opened a claim with her insurer that same afternoon. Then, a few days later, when she followed up on the claim status, she noticed the same adjuster name appearing on both sides of the correspondence — hers and the other driver’s.

Maya wants to know whether she has any real protection here. She does, but this is one of the messier spots in American car insurance, and knowing how it actually works changes what she does next.

When both drivers share the same insurer

Maya’s situation happens more often than people think. The four biggest U.S. auto insurers — State Farm, Progressive, Berkshire Hathaway (which owns GEICO), and Allstate — together controlled about 59% of the market in 2025, according to National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) data. With that much of the market concentrated in just a few companies, ending up with the same insurer as the driver who hit you is less of a coincidence.

If you and the other driver share the same insurer, the standard industry practice is that the insurer assigns two different adjusters, one for each driver. Each adjuster is supposed to investigate the crash, decide who was at fault and estimate the damages independently.

If they agree on who caused the crash, the at-fault driver’s adjuster handles the payout and the not-at-fault driver is compensated.

Insurers call the internal rules and procedures that keep the two files separate “ethical walls.” The idea is to recreate, inside one company, the same arm’s-length process you’d get if two different carriers were handling the claims.

In theory, that process should protect Maya the same way separate insurers would, but it’s more complicated in practice.

Why two adjusters still isn’t real protection

Even when an insurer assigns two separate adjusters, those two people work for the same company. They report to the same management, share the same employer’s financial incentives — and that employer is the one writing both checks.

Insurance companies have a legal duty to handle each claim fairly and act in good faith toward both customers. But those adjusters don’t operate outside their employer’s interests. The company is paying out on both sides of the crash, but it works in the insurer’s favor when blame gets shared rather than clearly assigned.

If Maya’s adjuster finds the other driver fully at fault, the company pays her injury claim in full. If they split the fault 50/50, Maya’s payout is reduced. In most states, insurers cut your compensation by whatever share of blame they assign to you. In states with a 50% fault bar or pure contributory negligence rules, being assigned even half the blame can wipe out the injury claim entirely.

The insurer doesn’t have to do anything dishonest to benefit from that situation. It just has to let the fault determination drift, and the savings take care of themselves.

When one adjuster ends up handling both files — like Maya noticed — the choice becomes obvious. That person is literally deciding which of the company’s two customers wins, which is a conflict of interest.

What to watch for, and what to do

Mike Rafi, a personal-injury attorney and founder of Rafi Law Firm, says the insurer will call. Maya’s insurer is going to reach out sounding friendly — she’s been a customer for years and they know her name, so the rep will ask a few casual questions about the accident and how she’s feeling.

That call is usually a recorded statement. Everything Maya says about her injuries, the timeline, and her current condition goes straight into the claim file (a file the company is managing for both sides of the crash). Saying “I feel fine” before she finishes treatment, or offering details that could be read as partial fault, is the kind of thing that shows up later when they’re calculating a settlement.

If you’re in Maya’s shoes, know what a recorded statement is and whether to talk to your attorney before you pick up the call.

If an adjuster is handling both sides, ask for a separate adjuster in writing as your first move. Email creates a dated record. Maya should clearly state that she’s the not‑at‑fault driver, say that she expects a dedicated adjuster handling only her claim, and ask for written confirmation of who that person will be.

From there, keep a log of every interaction: date, time, representative’s name, and summary of what was said. That record becomes the foundation for a formal complaint if the insurer delays, deflects, or pressures you to settle.

Every state has a Department of Insurance that oversees how insurers treat policyholders. The NAIC’s complaint filing page links to each state’s filing process. State-level Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Acts — built on NAIC’s model legislation — prohibit behaviors like unreasonable delays, inadequate investigations and making unfair settlement offers when fault is clear.

Your state insurance department enforces these rules and can sanction an insurer that steps out of line. In most states the act itself doesn’t give you a private right of action, though a bad-faith claim through the courts may still be available depending on where you live.

The risk of settling too quickly

Be careful about settling before you know the full extent of your injuries. Once you sign a release, the insurer is off the hook, even if new medical bills show up later. If the company pushes you to close the claim quickly, especially early on, treat that as a red flag.

There may be one upside worth asking about: if both drivers are insured by the same company, and the not-at-fault driver files under their own collision coverage to get repairs started faster, some insurers may waive their deductible or return it quickly through their internal claims process. That’s not guaranteed — it depends on the carrier and the policy, but it’s worth asking for in writing.

Maya paid for insurance that was supposed to protect her. The fact that the other driver has the same insurer does not change what she’s owed. It just means she needs to make sure the company remembers that.

One aspect of self-employment that can trip you up is doing your taxes. If you’re new to self-employment, you may want to save money by doing your own taxes. But making a mistake when it comes to your filing can cost you — in some cases, a lot more than using a professional tax preparer might have.

Here are some of the biggest tax pitfalls for self-employed people, and how to avoid them.

Estimated taxes

Imagine Jess, who made the leap into self-employment five years ago as a freelance photographer. She’s been doing her taxes herself, using tax software, but she wasn’t aware that, as a self-employed person, she was required to pay estimated taxes quarterly.

Now, she’s gotten a bill with a $9,000 penalty from the IRS.

It’s a huge hit, and once Jess talked to a tax professional, she realized she was also missing out on deductions she could have made for her business and setting up a SEP IRA.

According to the IRS, one of the common mistakes that small business owners make when it comes to taxes is underpaying estimated taxes.

If you’re self-employed, you typically have to pay quarterly estimated taxes. Estimated taxes have to be paid throughout the year, in the same way that an employer withholds taxes from employees’ paychecks and remits them to the IRS.

Estimated taxes pay your income tax and other types of taxes such as self-employment (SE) tax, which “is similar to the Social Security and Medicare taxes withheld from the pay of most wage earners,” the IRS says.

Like the imagined scenario of photographer Jess, if you don’t pay enough in your estimated payments, you could face a penalty.

“Generally, most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller,” according to the IRS.

You’ll also face penalties for late quarterly payments, even if you get a refund on your tax return.

Other errors small business owners make

For small business owners who have employees, another error that can cost you is not dealing with depositing their taxes correctly.

If you have employees, you must deposit the taxes you’ve withheld, and your share of those taxes as the employer, using electronic fund transfers. “If those taxes are not deposited correctly and on time, the business owner may be charged a penalty,” the IRS says.

Another big mistake for self-employed people and small business owners is not keeping your expenses separate.

Setting up a bookkeeping system that keeps your personal expenses out of the mix will be a big help when it comes to figuring out your taxes.

The IRS notes that while it can “be tempting to use one credit card for all expenses especially if the business is a sole proprietorship,” this can cause accounting headaches.

Not only can it be difficult to track what’s what, it could lead to mistakes on your deductions, “and become a problem if the taxpayer or their business is ever audited,” the IRS says.

It’s also important to get familiar with the deductions you can make as a self-employed person. These deductions include your home office, your self-employment tax, retirement plan contributions, health insurance premiums and vehicle use. There’s also the qualified business income (QBI) deduction, which many sole proprietor businesses may be eligible for.

It’s a lot to become familiar with. If you are new to being self-employed, or you’re not sure you’ve got a handle on taxes, even after a few years of being your own boss, it may be worth reaching out to a tax professional.

College student George Makihara appeared to be one of them. In January, he posted a video showing himself winning $100,000 on a bet that President Donald Trump would say “McDonald’s” publicly that month. Other creators touted similar success stories, describing prediction market trades as “free money.”

But a Wall Street Journal investigation found that many of those viral stories may not have been real. After reviewing more than 1,100 videos, the newspaper reported that some creators promoting Polymarket allegedly used simulated versions of the platform to create the appearance of large profits and attract new users.

The Journal identified several websites that looked nearly identical to Polymarket, including one password-protected site that used a misspelled version of the company’s web address.

‘Free money’ is an effective sales pitch

Makihara, who declined to comment to the outlet, was among dozens of college-aged creators the Journal says were paid to film themselves placing trades and showing off their earnings.

The Journal found that about 70% of the videos showed creators appearing to place bets on Polymarket, a platform where cryptocurrency is used to wager on the outcome of future events. These wagers can be on everything from election outcomes and sports championships to economic reports and world news.

The investigation, however, found that many trades — worth a combined $1.9 million — did not appear genuine. Creators allegedly reacted to old video clips or fabricated headlines to make it seem they had won money. For example, Makihara was shown reacting enthusiastically to a clip of Trump saying the world “McDonald’s” — a clip the Journal says was two months old (they also note that Trump never said the word publicly in January and that the 50 actual bets on the platform that made this prediction lost).

The investigation found that 118 videos showed creators celebrating nearly $900,000 in apparent winnings, even though those same bets would have actually lost more than $166,000.

The promise of easy profits may not match the reality for most users. A separate Wall Street Journal analysis reported that 67% of profits on Polymarket went to just 0.1% of accounts. More than 1.1 million of the platform’s 1.6 million accounts were unprofitable, per the report.

For those unfamiliar with prediction markets, Adam Bjorn, CEO of Plannatech and operator of Prime Sportsbook, says the concept itself is fairly straightforward.

“Prediction markets aren’t a new concept — they’re older than I am,” Bjorn told Moneywise. “At their core, they work just like buying and selling stock in Apple or Amazon. The key difference is that, at the end of the day, the game, or the election, the contract is worth either everything or nothing.”

How prediction markets went viral

Creators interviewed by The Wall Street Journal said they were paid between $2,000 and $3,000 a month to promote Polymarket. Some also said they were instructed not to disclose that they were being paid.

The campaign follows a familiar social media playbook: pay popular creators to showcase a product and share their experiences with followers. But unlike a typical influencer promotion, prediction markets involve financial risk and users can lose money.

That has raised concerns about transparency. According to the Journal, many creators did not initially disclose their relationship with Polymarket. Only after the newspaper began investigating did some add “@polymarket partner” to their bios.

The controversy comes as prediction markets attract a growing audience. According to Bjorn, part of the appeal is that the platforms feel familiar to people who already trade stocks and cryptocurrencies.

“If you’re trading Apple, Amazon and Microsoft through the week on Robinhood, and then the weekend arrives with no stocks to trade but a golf tournament, a football game or a soccer match on — you’re now buying and selling that event the exact same way you would a stock or a crypto asset,” he explained.

Growing scrutiny

As prediction markets grow, regulators are paying closer attention. One concern is that people with insider information could use it to profit from bets before the public knows what’s happening.

Earlier this year, U.S. authorities charged Army soldier Gannon Ken Van Dyke after alleging he used classified information about a military operation involving former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro to place bets on Polymarket. Prosecutors say Van Dyke turned roughly $33,000 in wagers into nearly $410,000 in profits before details of the operation became public. Van Dyke has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Regulators have also raised concerns about how prediction markets are promoted to consumers, especially when marketing suggests profits are easier or more likely than they really are. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which oversees prediction markets, has pushed back against efforts by several states to impose their own rules on companies like Polymarket.

In response to the allegations raised in the Wall Street Journal investigation, a Polymarket spokesperson told Moneywise the company is reviewing its promotional content to ensure it complies with company standards and disclosure requirements.

If it sounds too good to be true

Many of the videos highlighted in the investigation followed a similar formula: a creator places a trade, celebrates a big payout and suggests making money on the platform is easy.

That message could reach an even larger audience as prediction markets gain attention during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, one of the biggest sporting events in the world. As interest in the tournament grows, more people may be tempted to try prediction markets for the first time.

But Bjorn says consumers should be skeptical of anyone promising quick and easy profits.

“If it’s too good to be true, it generally is,” he said. “And if it’s too good to be true in gambling, it always is — no exceptions.”

Even so, Bjorn says prediction markets remain a relatively young industry, which can create opportunities for people who understand how the platforms work and are willing to do their homework. But he expects those opportunities to become harder to find as the market matures.

“The window won’t stay open forever,” he said.

In most developed countries, drug prices are set or negotiated by the government. In the U.S., pharmaceutical companies set the prices, based more on what the private market can bear.

That’s created a situation where unbranded generic drugs (about 90% of prescriptions in the U.S.) cost on average 2.78 times higher in this country than in 33 other OECD nations, according to a 2024 RAND report. For brand-name drugs, that gap is even higher, at 4.22 times what other nations pay.

Now, the U.S. wants Germany to follow in the footsteps of the U.K., which recently struck a deal that — in exchange for tariff exemptions — will see the country pay more for new drugs.

But America’s “most favored nation” policy framework “incorrectly deflects blame for high American prices to other countries,” according to the Center for Global Development (CGD).

Government purchasers in the US could use the power of monopsony (being a single buyer) to lower prices for current drugs, and could set up incentives to keep future drugs affordable too, CGD writes, adding the country could “look at ways to rein in pharmaceutical company marketing and patent evergreening strategies.”

Here’s why the issue is so complicated, and what you can do to lower your bill — despite the larger political issues at play.

What’s happening in Europe

In April, the U.K. government agreed to a deal with the U.S. that would see that country increase spending on drugs to avoid U.S. tariffs.

It hasn’t exactly gone over well with the public. This “geopolitical game” risks “sabotaging our carefully worked-out mechanism for keeping a lid on big pharma’s overinflated prices, and they have done so without so much as a debate in parliament,” Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, told The Guardian.

Global pharmaceutical companies, for their part, are threatening to pull investment to pressure policymakers in Europe. And Germany is next on the list.

Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly have all warned Germany that they may not launch new medicines in Germany — or might scrap investment — if Germany’s proposed healthcare changes go ahead.

Thanks to a 20-billion-euro public healthcare budget shortfall, Berlin is proposing reforms such as higher discounts and rebates on pricey new drugs. This is what Washington is taking issue with. But German Chancellor Friedrich Merz says the U.S. must respect Germany’s pharma pricing as a domestic matter.

What’s happening in the US

In other OECD countries, governments are the biggest purchasers of any given drug. They negotiate directly with drug companies on behalf of their citizens. According to the Trump administration, “Inflated prices in the United States fuel global innovation while foreign health systems get a free ride.”

But the U.S. has a fundamentally different system than the rest of the world. It has chosen not to have a single public healthcare system that can negotiate drug prices for everyone.

“Other countries are not receiving ‘discounts’ against the US ‘real’ price. Instead, everyone is paying prices somewhere below their willingness to pay (the value of the drug to the purchaser) and somewhere above the marginal cost of producing the drug (the minimum price it is worth selling at for the producer),” the CGD writes.

If the price is too high, “they frequently just wouldn’t buy the drugs.”

So, while the U.S. does, in fact, pay much more for prescription drugs — and those high prices do help fund R & D — the pharmaceutical sector “has systematically fought efforts to negotiate or lower prices for Americans,” according to CGD.

And, despite Washington’s recent deals with pharmaceutical companies to bring down costs, those companies have announced price increases on at least 350 branded drugs for 2026 by a median of 4%, according to healthcare research firm 3 Axis Advisors.

“The United States has deliberately chosen a system permitting manufacturer pricing autonomy, protected by patent laws and regulatory exclusivity provisions, subject to relatively weak constraints from government negotiation and market competition,” notes the nonpartisan educational site GovFacts.

About a quarter of revenues from drug companies are reinvested into R & D, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. The rest goes toward other expenditures, including marketing, lobbying and shareholder profit.

How to keep medication costs under control

With high drug prices, some Americans end up rationing their meds, skipping doses or simply not taking them. And that can lead to worse health outcomes and higher healthcare costs over the long-term.

So how can you reduce your out-of-pocket costs without compromising your health?

Generic medications typically cost less than branded ones, so you can ask your healthcare provider if you can switch to unbranded medications that will treat the same condition.

You can also use price comparison tools (such as GoodRx and Pharmacy Rx) to search prices at different pharmacies. Prices can vary widely for the same medicine (and can change, just like the price of gas), since pharmacies set their own prices.

For Medicare beneficiaries, once you reach your Part D out-of-pocket cap ($2,100 in 2026), you don’t have to pay for the rest of the year — at least for covered meds. You could also be eligible for lower co-payments through the Extra Help program, based on your income.

Some drug companies have patient assistance programs, which could include co-pay assistance and co-pay cards, which provide rebates when you purchase their drugs. Some charities and nonprofits also offer patient assistance or grant programs.

You could also check if your employer offers a Health Care Savings Account (HSA) or Flexible Spending Account (FSA). This can help you save money (and earn interest) specifically for healthcare expenses — and these accounts can be transferred to a new employer.

The Aldi Blind Box is being given out for free each day from June 22 through June 25. If you’re hoping to get your hands on one, you’ll want to head to AldiBlindbox.com a little before noon ET and start hitting refresh constantly.

Boxes are distributed on a first-come, first-served basis and they go fast. Real fast.

In fact, the speed at which these disappear has caused a bit of a blowback from the Aldi faithful, who are upset at just how quickly the boxes are disappearing.

“Got online right at noon, waited in a queue for 20 minutes, and got shut out. Ridiculous,” wrote one fan on Reddit.

(Aldi, in fairness, warns on the drop site that the boxes go fast and tells users “if you’re directed to the checkout queue, inventory has likely already been claimed.”)

What’s inside?

While the contents of the blind box are, by definition, not disclosed in advance, Aldi has let people know the themes of each day’s box.

Monday saw a box filled with snacks and Tuesday’s theme was fiber. On Wednesday, a protein box will go up for grabs and Thursday’s box is labeled “mystery.”

“Fans can expect a surprising mix of products from across the store that are about to become their new foodie obsessions,” the company wrote on its website.

The company is giving away less than 100 boxes per day. Shoppers are only allowed one box per day and people in Hawaii, Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Washington, Montana, New Mexico, Guam and Puerto Rico are not eligible.

Food-flation

The boxes are free for people who are lucky enough to snag one, but they contain roughly $50 worth of food products. And for some families, that’s a big help.

Food prices were up 0.2% in May and are 3.1% higher than a year ago, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The food at home index was up 0.1% for the month and 2.7% compared with last year.

Restaurants were even worse. The BLS food away from home index was up 0.3% on a monthly basis and 3.5% year over year.

While some categories, like meats, poultry and fish prices were down month over month, they’re still higher than they were a year ago. Beef and veal prices are 12.9% higher than at this point in 2025. And fruits and vegetables cost 6.1% more than a year ago.

They’re likely to go higher. The Federal Reserve’s Summary of Economic Projections expects headline inflation to hit 3.6% by year-end, a big jump from the expected 2.7% in March.

Many fidget toys — especially specific brands like NeeDoh — have gone viral to the point of being sold out at retail stores after customers wait outside in line for hours to get the latest edition.

According to Fortune Business Insights, the global fidget toy market size was valued at $9.01 billion in 2025 and is expected to grow to $17.65 billion by 2034.

The fidget toy craze has gotten so popular that a TikToker who goes by the username of Mrs. Bench has capitalized on the popularity and opened up her own storefront in Sarasota, Florida dedicated to selling — and trading — fidget toys.

The store is called Fidget Toys Plus, and if you book an appointment, you can bring in your own fidget toys and trade them for different ones with Mrs. Bench herself. The videos of these trades have garnered millions of views, but some commenters aren’t so sure that the kids Mrs. Bench is trading with are getting a fair deal.

Moneywise reached out to Mrs. Bench for comment and is awaiting a response.

How trades works

Mrs. Bench lays out a laminated sheet for traders to place their toys on. If she thinks the offer is fair, she’ll tap the check mark. If she doesn’t, she’ll tap the plus symbol indicating that the trader needs to add more to make a deal.

In one of her fidget trading videos, she offers three fidget toys, for the young trader’s blue NeeDoh stress ball, which retails at an average of $30.

One commenter (@agirlandagrossdog) wrote: “Mrs. Bench gave the little girl dollar tree crap for an original NeeDoh.”

While it’s difficult to confirm the exact cost or retail source of what Mrs. Bench traded, a reverse image search of the items indicates the total value of her offering at around $15.

What this social media trend says about kids’ financial literacy

Fidget toy trading is just one trend that highlights where kids and young people are at with financial literacy, and what social media is teaching them. Another example is the lucky scoops trend, which is quickly introducing children to gambling-esque behavior.

With kids being exposed to these kinds of videos online, it’s worth taking into consideration what financial lessons they could really benefit from to combat the effects of these online trends. At the end of the day, these trends impact kids’ understanding of saving and spending money, and its value overall.

A recent survey by Intuit revealed that 64% of parents say money is tight, and it’s leading them to be more open with their kids about money.

Surveyed parents said that hands-on experiences such as earning their own income, having regular conversations about money and saving up for non-essential items on their own prove to be an effective tool in teaching children about money. These parents find it of the utmost importance to teach their kids about money, seeing as 51% received no financial literacy education in school and 83% wished they had received more financial education as a kid overall.

While these fidget trading endeavors might seem like harmless fun, it’s worth taking a closer look at what it says to kids about the value of a dollar — and improving their financial literacy could make all the difference.

During a June 15 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, Dimon was blunt in forecasting an eventual stock market contraction. For him, the only question left to answer is when.

“We’re in a bull market. It’s like a little tsunami,” he said. “When that kind of thing happens, it’s very hard to stop. But it will stop.”

What caught Dimon off-guard about the economy

Dimon argued that a set of economic developments has insulated the U.S. economy from amplified turmoil so far this year.

He listed a low 4% unemployment rate, a capital spending boom among hyperscalers to build out data centers to fuel the AI boom, and a fresh wave of deregulation from the Trump administration that contributed to growing balance sheets among giant Wall Street banks. He also pointed out that the U.S. economy grew 2% in early 2026.

Still, Dimon said he’s been caught off guard by Wall Street’s complacency with global volatility given pervasive geopolitical tensions with Iran, Russia and China that may not be resolved anytime soon. The U.S. war with Iran, in particular, led to the closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz commercial waterway, blocking the transit of oil, fertilizers and other energy products that caused a surge in commodity prices. For nearly four months, financial markets mostly brushed it aside.

Since the start of the war, both the tech-heavy Nasdaq and S&P 500 indexes are up about 14% and 8%, respectively.

“I am surprised… that stuff is really important for the free world, but it’s not necessarily the economy today,” Dimon said.

“I do think the probability of something bad happening is higher than I think it’s probably embedded in the market,” he said, adding he believed investors were minimizing the odds of inflation that sticks around longer than they anticipate.

Dimon’s recent economic anxiety

Dimon has been piping up about his economic worries in recent months, and it’s not unusual for the JP Morgan CEO to share cautious or pessimistic assessments on the state of the economy.

Earlier this year, Dimon cited a history of past financial crashes, such as those in 1987 and 2008. He’s concerned a stretch of excitement among Wall Street investors is inflating stock valuations that will only end in a market crash. Much of that enthusiasm stems from over $700 billion in AI-related spending from the largest tech companies with scarce signs of reaching a ceiling.

“There will be a cycle one day,” Dimon said in February. “I don’t know what confluence of events will cause that cycle. My anxiety is high over it. I’m not assuaged by the fact that asset prices are high. In fact, I think that adds to the risk.”

For now, the U.S. economy has continued defying recession predictions from analysts and Wall Street titans alike. The euphoria among Wall Street investors, though, isn’t reaching Main Street, with Americans grappling with more than a year of wage gains erased from the spike in gas prices.

As Business Insider reports, the program was collecting sensitive data that was later found to be accessible throughout the entire company. Screenshots obtained by Business Insider reportedly show the program was tracking the keystrokes, performance data and private conversations of its employees.

On a scale of zero to five — with zero being the most serious — this incident has been classified as SEV 2.

‘We’re pausing it while we investigate’

Meta introduced its AI training program — the Model Capability Initiative (MCI) — back in April. The program, which was made mandatory for most of Meta’s staff, was intended to use employees’ mouse movements and keystrokes as training data to improve Meta’s AI models.

At the time, the company made it clear the program would be tracking employees and their actions online.

“For agents to understand how people actually complete everyday tasks using computers, we need to train our models on real examples,” stated an internal announcement about MCI, which Business Insider obtained.

And while the company was transparent with its intentions, employees were quick to voice their displeasure. Many reportedly reacted with the angry-face emoji, while the top-rated comment in response to the MCI announcement was, “This makes me super uncomfortable. How do we opt out?”

An already frustrated staff was then angered even further when the program’s data leaked and was made accessible to the entire company.

“I am incensed,” wrote one employee in an internal group, according to Business Insider. “I don’t see any evidence of malicious access, but the fact that this data wasn’t locked down as originally promised is super frustrating.”

Moneywise reached out to Meta for comment and received the below statement.

“We have carefully designed this program with privacy safeguards and while we have no indication at this time that any data was improperly accessed by Meta employees, we’re pausing it while we investigate,” the spokesperson told Moneywise.

Another controversy for Meta

This leak, and the uproar it’s created, is yet another controversial security incident for Meta in 2026.

In early June, hackers reportedly tricked Instagram’s AI support tools into providing them with access to random users’ accounts. The hackers were then able to change the passwords for the breached accounts by faking location data and prompting the AI to change the email addresses attached to them.

“This issue has been resolved and we are securing impacted accounts,” Andy Stone, a Meta spokesperson, shared in a brief statement on X.

And in March, a rogue AI agent reportedly triggered a security incident that Meta categorized as SEV 1. After an engineer posted a question in an internal forum, a different engineer ran that question through the company’s internal AI.

“The [AI] agent analyzed the question and posted a reply to the thread on its own — without asking the engineer for permission or review, even though the engineer expected a human-in-the-loop confirmation step,” wrote Tim Freestone in an article for Kiteworks.

But big tech companies aren’t necessarily the only ones at risk of these incidents. With AI tools increasingly handling sensitive data across industries — from healthcare to banking to hiring — the line between innovation and exposure could be getting thinner.

But, while software platforms position their programs as complements to human professionals — helping with risk management, data analysis, and trend identification/prediction — companies may soon be reserving their mortal staff for only their wealthiest clients, relegating the rest to AI support.

At least, that’s what Debasish Patnaik, senior partner McKinsey & Co., has gone viral for implying this week.

Speaking of wealth management customers with investments ranging from $100,000 to $1 million, Patnaik stated in an interview with Bloomberg that “The mass-affluent client now gets something close to private-banking quality from AI,” while advisors tend to the needs of higher net worth groups.

It’s a shift that is now “fundamentally changing” how candidates are selected in the sector, he said, as the demand for someone who can offer standardized advice suitable for the everyday consumer takes a back seat to the demand for someone who can provide highly customized, personal attention for a certain clientele; or, as Bloomberg puts it, who can meet the “emotional needs of the truly rich.”

Though McKinsey itself doesn’t deal with individual retail banking customers, it does advise the nation’s top financial institutions and shape how they serve their users.

AI may already be managing your money

While it’s nearly impossible to determine the degree to which algorithms may be dictating where your money goes, it’s almost guaranteed that even if you aren’t one of the many who use AI directly to make financial management decisions, artificial intelligence has some role behind the scenes, as AI adoption across the industry is high (and rising).

Active ETFs that are entirely run by AI may represent a very small portion of the landscape, but the majority of asset managers have been using tech in their work for years, at the very least for research to inform strategy.

As much as AI advocates want to see the tech as a panacea for human error, though, it has actually been shown to underperform in the realm of wealth management (even worse than active funds generally, which almost always fall behind passive funds over time).

Globally, analyses have found that funds utilizing AI for investment strategies “have not delivered significantly higher or lower performance and have had mixed success among investors.”

As one set of researchers wrote in a paper about using algorithms in the stock market: “While [AI programs] can find statistical patterns, they cannot judge whether these patterns are reasonable or meaningless. Only when AI algorithms can understand the meaning of words and their relationship with the real world will they become reliable in important decisions, including investments.”

Some argue, though, that with the breakneck speed of AI development, language models like ChatGPT have already started to “encode something like the causal constraints of the real world… in a way that is predictive of human judgments of these categories,” and thus may eventually be able to outperform humans.

For now, though, experts aren’t convinced that algorithms can autonomously handle portfolios more successfully than workers with distinctively human “soft” skills working with AI-powered tools — at least not just yet, even if executives at firms like McKinsey are suggesting otherwise.

The reality is sobering but not hopeless. While catching up to traditional retirement savings targets may be out of reach, there are still some strategies he can take that can improve his retirement security over the next decade.

Millions of older Americans are approaching retirement with limited savings

Steve isn’t alone in his situation.

According to the Federal Reserve’s most recent Survey of Consumer Finances, only 54% of Americans held retirement account assets in a 2022 survey.

Social Security remains the main source of retirement income for millions of retirees. The Social Security Administration estimates that over 72 million people received benefits in 2024, with 55% of the beneficiaries being women.

Workers in lower-paying industries such as retail, hospitality and food service are especially at risk, where employer-sponsored retirement plans are often limited or nonexistent.

A recent Gallup survey found that about 69% of non-retired Americans worry they won’t have enough money to live comfortably in retirement, highlighting growing anxiety about rising housing, healthcare and everyday living costs.

Being 60 with only a few thousand dollars saved puts you behind, but it doesn’t mean you can’t start saving now.

Here’s what you can focus on now

Instead of chasing risky investments and trying to build a six-figure nest egg overnight, you can consider homing in on some more reliable ways to boost your retirement security:

Pay down high-interest debt first: Credit-card balances charging 20% or more can drain your finances quickly. Prioritize paying off expensive debt.

Build an emergency fund: Even setting aside a few hundred dollars a month can help prevent unexpected expenses, such as a car repair or medical bill, from ending up on a credit card and adding to debt, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Maximize your Social Security strategy: For workers with limited retirement savings, Social Security may become their most valuable retirement asset. While benefits can begin at age 62, delaying benefits can significantly increase monthly payments.

Look into government assistance programs: Programs like SNAP, utility assistance, housing support and healthcare subsidies could help lower monthly expenses and help stretch a limited budget further.

Consider adding income: A worker with decades of retail experience may qualify for supervisory, training or management roles. Even a small raise over the next five to 10 years can have an impact on retirement readiness.

Prepare for Medicare at 65: Healthcare costs are one of the biggest financial risks for older Americans. Medicare can help reduce those expenses and bring more predictability to a retirement budget.

If you can, stay working: If your health allows it, staying in the workforce can keep your paychecks coming, delay withdrawals from savings and potentially allow for larger Social Security benefits later.

The reality is that Steve, or anyone else in their early 60s with a similar amount saved for retirement is facing an uphill climb. But retirement success isn’t only determined by the size of a retirement account. Managing debt, maximizing benefits, controlling expenses and creating reliable income streams can make a significant difference, even for Americans who feel like they’ve fallen behind.

The company’s public debut on June 12 pushed Musk’s net worth up to $1.1 trillion. But are there more trillionaires in the making?

To put the sheer size of his wealth into perspective, Musk now has enough money to pay off the credit card debt of every American, erase all medical debt and student loans, end world hunger and mail every American a $1,000 check and still have $1.9 trillion left over.

He has more money than the entire annual state economy of Pennsylvania and Illinois, annual funding for Medicare, the valuation of Berkshire Hathaway and the annual economies of both the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia.

He is now worth more than Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos combined.

So, is there anyone who can climb to his trillionaire status? Prediction markets seem to think so.

Want to make a bet?

Speculators on the prediction market app Kalshi are betting Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg will become the world’s second trillionaire. According to Forbes, his net worth is just under $200 billion, meaning he’d have to quadruple his money to hit the status. But betters are giving him a 32% chance of achieving the trillionaire title.

The bets related to this question are set to expire in 2033. That means Zuckerberg has about 7 years to become a trillionaire. Event contracts related to this question are low, with just over $7,500 traded.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang had the next best odds. He has a 21% chance of hitting the target with his net worth at just over $174 billion. Finally, Michael Dell, CEO of Dell Technologies, has the third-best chance at 6%. Interestingly, Dell has a higher net worth than both Zuckerberg and Huang, with $231 billion.

Are trillionaires the future?

For many, trillions of dollars may seem like an unfathomable amount. But research suggests Musk’s achievement may not be a one-off event.

A January 2025 report from Oxfam estimated the world will see five trillionaires within a decade. The forecast came just one year after the organization predicted there would be only one trillionaire within a decade, and before Musk reached the milestone.

According to the report, billionaire wealth increased by $2 trillion in 2024, while 204 new billionaires were created.

On average, billionaires saw their fortunes grow by $2 million a day. For the world’s 10 richest billionaires, including Zuckerberg, Huang and Dell, wealth increased by roughly $100 million a day. Oxfam predicts that if those trends continue, four more trillionaires could emerge within a decade.

Who those other four trillionaires might be, or whether they’ll emerge at all, remains to be seen.

For now, Zuckerberg remains hundreds of billions of dollars away from joining Musk in the trillionaire club. With his current holdings, he’d likely need to see Meta’s value grow dramatically to reach the status. The tech company is investing heavily in AI infrastructure and products, with most of its $125 billion to $145 billion in 2026 capital expenditures directed toward the technology. If those investments pay off, Meta’s valuation could increase substantially.

The same forces that helped cement Musk’s trillionaire status, technological innovation, soaring company valuations and concentrated ownership stakes, continue to reshape the fortunes of the ultra-wealthy. If those trends persist, the age of trillionaires may be just beginning.

That’s what makes it all the more frustrating if you pony up for a used vehicle and it turns out to have problems.

Let’s take the case of Riley, for example. Riley is 21, and she purchased a used car for $25,000 with 75,000 miles on it. She bought the car as-is, and three hours after she drove it home, the engine blew.

While the dealer provided some help with that issue, putting in an old engine for a reduced cost, Riley has had a series of other problems and can’t go more than 24 hours without a new issue. She’s already spent thousands on repairs and is regularly taking Ubers to work.

Now, Riley owes $10,000 more than the car is worth and is faced with deciding whether to fix it, trade it in and pay the $10,000 difference, or let the lender repossess it, ruin her credit, and still potentially end up with a judgment against her for the balance.

Is there any recourse after buying an as-is vehicle with major issues?

Unfortunately, because Riley purchased her car as-is, her recourse is somewhat limited. She doesn’t have a warranty and the dealer has already provided all the “help” it is willing to give by putting in the used replacement engine. Still, she does have some potential avenues to pursue.

“An as-is sale can make a claim more difficult, but it doesn’t eliminate all legal recourse against a dealership,” advised Blaine Rogers, Attorney at Davis Levin Livingston in an interview with Moneywise. “If the dealer misrepresented the vehicle’s condition or made promises that contradict the as-is disclaimer, the buyer may still have claims under state consumer protection laws.”

Riley may have a claim under Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices laws, or under consumer fraud laws. If the dealer engaged in deceptive, unfair, or unconscionable practices by failing to disclose known defects or making false oral promises about the car, Riley may have a right to actual damages, attorneys’ fees and even punitive damages in some circumstances.

Rogers recommended reviewing invoices, inspections, and correspondence to look for signs the dealer may have known of the issues and not disclosed them, or may have made false promises. “Contractual disclaimers do not protect a business from liability for intentional misrepresentations or deceptive conduct,” Rogers said.

If she thinks she may have a claim, some lawyers offer a free consultation and some will take cases on a contingent-fee basis, so Riley could get legal help and pay any fees due out of the money recovered.

Should she fix the vehicle or trade it in?

If Riley doesn’t want to pursue legal action, she’s left with a choice of keeping the car and paying for repairs, trading it in and cutting her losses or letting it get repossessed and ruining her credit. The third option doesn’t really make sense, since she could end up owing the unpaid balance plus fees anyway. So she’ll need to choose between trade-in or repair.

“As a general rule to follow, one issue on its own is very rarely a reason to replace or change your car,” said Luke Oswald, an automotive specialist at Wheels Away, in an interview with Moneywise. “We’re actually seeing vehicles last longer than ever, with some well-maintained cars doing more than 150-200,000 miles. The one thing they usually have in common: they are all well-maintained, looked after by their owners, and have been serviced regularly.”

However, Oswald warned that when cars have a series of repair bills over a couple of months, it’s often because they haven’t been maintained properly. “This is the real warning sign to look for: Lots of issues cropping up over a few months or years. That’s when you know it’s time to upgrade.”

Oswald suggested that drivers focus on the vehicle’s reliability when making a decision on whether to keep it or trade it in. “Think about the cost of breakdowns, not just for the car but for the disruption it causes too — for example, getting to work.”

Since Riley’s car has had repeated issues — and since the dealer seems shady and the old engine they put in may not even be a good one — trading it in at least limits her losses. She’ll lose $10,000, but won’t keep facing continued surprise bills. And she’s young enough that she can work hard on paying that loan off ASAP and recover financially.

So, Riley should first schedule a free consultation with a lawyer to see what her options are. If she can’t pursue a claim, she should research dealers carefully, find a used vehicle with a warranty, even if it’s a less fancy car, and see if she can roll her negative equity into the new car loan.

She can consider the whole situation to be an expensive lesson and can try to keep her “new” used car for a very long time to make up for the loss she took on her first one.

But Medicare has some significant gaps, and only finding out about them after you’ve retired is not only a nasty surprise — it’s a very expensive one, too.

Here’s what you need to know about three of the most common (and most expensive) healthcare expenses Medicare won’t cover. Together, they can easily run you six figures a year. Knowing what’s coming, and saving for it now, can make a real difference.

Routine dental care

Many older Americans are surprised to learn that Medicare won’t pay for routine dental care.

How much these services cost can vary a lot depending on your oral health, where you live and the provider you go to.

A standard dental cleaning without insurance runs about $100 to $250, according to Healthinsurance.org. If you have a cavity and need a filling, you can expect to pay between $50 and $150 to restore one or two teeth with dental amalgam. It’s between $90 and $250 to restore one to two teeth using composite resin or glass ionomer material.

Of course, if you require a more involved procedure, the costs will be even higher. The average cost of a root canal is around $1,200. The cost of dentures runs anywhere from $450 to $12,000-plus, depending on the type needed.

Vision exams and care

Medicare doesn’t cover vision care, and that can get pricey. Without insurance, a comprehensive eye exam typically costs $100 to $250, though the price can go higher depending on your provider and location. You can save by going to a retail chain — Walmart Vision Centers start at $65, and Sam’s Club exams start as low as $45.

If you need a new pair of glasses, that could cost you a bundle, too. A complete pair of prescription eyeglasses without insurance typically runs $200 to $600. Costs can vary significantly depending on the frames you choose and the type of lenses you need.

Long-term care

Eventually, you may need some form of long-term care — whether that’s a home health aide to help with daily tasks, an assisted living community, or even a nursing home. Medicare won’t cover these costs because they aren’t considered medical services.

If you have to pay for long-term care needs on your own, these are the yearly costs you may be looking at, according to CareScout’s 2025 Cost of Care Survey:

• $80,076 for a non-medical caregiver (home health aide), based on 44 hours per week
• $74,400 for an assisted living community
• $114,972 for a shared nursing home room
• $129,576 for a private nursing home room

How your HSA can help fill the gap

Since Medicare won’t pay for all of your future healthcare needs, it’s a good idea to contribute to an HSA during your working years and reserve that money for retirement. HSA funds never expire, and any money you contribute and don’t use right away can be invested for tax-free growth.

Fidelity puts the average cost of health care in retirement for a 65-year-old ending their career today at $172,500. This figure accounts for Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket costs as well as expenses Medicare doesn’t cover. However, it doesn’t factor in dental services and long-term care.

It could be a good idea to max out your HSA contributions if you can afford it. In 2026, that means contributing up to $4,400 for individual coverage or $8,750 for family coverage. If you’re 55 or older (and not yet enrolled in Medicare), you can add $1,000 to whichever limit applies to you. Note that HSA limits change from year to year.

This assumes, of course, that your health insurance plan is compatible with an HSA. To qualify this year, you need a minimum $1,700 deductible for individual coverage or $3,400 for family coverage. You also need an out-of-pocket maximum no bigger than $8,500 with individual coverage or $17,000 for family coverage. Like HSA limits, the rules for deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums change annually.

If you’re not eligible for an HSA now but switch health plans in 2027, you may be eligible in the new year. Otherwise, you can increase your IRA or 401(k) plan contributions to account for not just general retirement expenses, but healthcare needs as well.

If you’re still years from retirement, figuring out what your future healthcare costs will look like can be tough. Your current spending isn’t a great guide — your employer may be covering a big chunk of your bills now, and your health needs could be very different once you’re older.

That’s why maxing out an HSA is a good idea if you can afford to do so. And you don’t have to worry about whether those funds might go to waste sitting in your account because once you turn 65, you can take non-medical HSA withdrawals with no penalty.

Before you turn 65, taking money out of your HSA for anything other than medical expenses comes with a nasty 20% penalty. But after 65, things get a lot more flexible. Non-medical withdrawals are taxed just like a traditional IRA or 401(k), but there’s no extra penalty.

If you can max out your HSA each year and save it for retirement, it can become a powerful tool to help pay for all kinds of expenses down the road.

The New Yorker has published a detailed account of the argument to take over Denmark. For Tom Dans, a Trump appointee to the United States Arctic Research Commission (USARC), gaining control of the country was seen as a way to possibly bring about the return of a beloved (and expensive) promotion: Red Lobster’s Endless Shrimp.

“When I met [Dans] for lunch in Washington, earlier this year, he declined to speak further on the record, except to articulate a narrow, symbiotic vision for the future: ‘My view is that the United States could take all the seafood Greenland could produce, and cut out the middleman, and keep it from China — and you could bring back all-you-can-eat shrimp at Red Lobster,’” The New Yorker’s Ben Taub wrote.

Trump appointed Dans as director of USARC in December. The article also alleges he was running a private “influence operation” in Greenland, and was a key part of the reason Greenland has become a fixation for Trump in his second term.

“You have to get meetings with people, you have to coach an idea, and you have to work it and sell it and help people understand why it makes sense,” Dans is quoted as saying. “Ultimately, it has to become their idea, not yours. There’s no end to what you can accomplish in D.C. if you are willing to give other people the credit.”

Greenland was back burnered during Iran conflict

Trump’s obsession with Greenland has faded from the headlines in recent months, as the U.S. has launched military actions in Iran, then attempted to negotiate a peace deal. But the territory remains on guard.

Greenland residents have been watching, worried, as the Trump administration carries out killings in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean against what it claims are drug-smuggling vessels. Then there was the raid in Venezuela, which resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Trump has also talked about a possible invasion of Cuba. When asked by Axios if that could follow a path similar to actions in Venezuela, Trump said, “Possibly. It’s possible.”

The life and death of Endless Shrimp — and what it has to do with Greenland

Whether Dans’s comments were tongue-in-cheek or serious, they may not have taken the Endless Shrimp promotion’s impact on Red Lobster into account.

Endless Shrimp was first introduced 21 years ago and was a fan favorite. In the third quarter of 2023, however, the company reported an $11-million operating loss, blaming the promotion, in part, for the shortfall.

That summer, Red Lobster had started offering the deal during all opening hours instead of just on Mondays. People responded — vigorously. And that was doubly true of social media influencers.

“The proportion of the people selecting this promotion was much higher compared to expectation,” Ludovic Garnier, chief financial officer of Thai Union Group (which owns a stake in Red Lobster), told investors on a call in November.

The restaurant brought back Endless Shrimp without Greenland earlier this year, though with a few more limitations than last time.

Incidentally, Red Lobster says it does not source shrimp from Greenland or anywhere close to it. It says its shrimp come from Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, China, Ecuador and Guatemala.

The protests were originally ignited in early June over a proposed $1.4 billion resort development by Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner, on Sazan Island, as well as a nearly $5 billion development along Albania’s Zvërnec coast.

Anti-government demonstrators often carry inflatable pink flamingos, one of the species at risk if the resort plans go forward. But the protests shifted in the ensuing weeks from simply aiming to block the luxury developments to an anti-government corruption movement.

“The demonstrations are huge because people are tired of this injustice,” protester Lizander Saraci told The Guardian. “They’re tired of all the corruption. One of our slogans is ‘stop the dictatorship of dirty money’ because we’ve learned from experience that similar projects only ever benefit a wealthy few.”

In addition to the protests, organizers this weekend presented a list of demands that includes the resignation of Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama, the formation of a transitional government, a new constitution and renewed environmental protections.

Rama, for his part, told the Financial Times that “I’m not the Godfather” when addressing corruption allegations. He also argued the protests are only happening because Trump and Kushner are involved, saying otherwise, “nobody would give a s— about flamingos, about Albania, about nothing.”

Origins of the project

The controversy comes as Trump and Kushner continue to move forward with a years-long plan to build a luxury resort on Sazan Island.

Speaking with podcaster David Senra, Ivanka Trump, President Trump’s eldest daughter, described how she first “found” Sazan Island while vacationing on a friend’s boat.

The group swam to Sazan and hiked barefoot across the island. She said she was so “captivated” by the experience that it remained top of mind ever since.

“We developed the opportunity to help realize its potential and transform it, but with a lot of restraint and care because the land is so beautiful,” she said, adding that the project was the “culmination” of her real estate experience.

Since 2024, Kushner has worked with Albanian government officials to obtain development rights, according to The New York Times. The resort is set to be built on Sazan Island, a former Cold War-era military base that’s now abandoned.

Kushner’s private equity firm, Affinity Partners, is providing financial backing for the Albanian development.

Part of the Zvernec Peninsula has also been set aside for a second project. Environmental groups have raised concerns because the area includes wetlands that are home to flamingos, pelicans and sea turtles. If completed, the developments, then over 10,000 hotel rooms will be built alongside seaside villas.

Formerly part of the Soviet-aligned Eastern bloc, Albania remains one of southern Europe’s poorest countries, with a poverty rate of about 20%. Although it is not a member of the European Union, the country hopes to join by the end of the decade.

Protests grow against the Kushner-linked projects

The projects drew the support of Rama, who has promoted them as an opportunity to encourage foreign investment in the country.

“The fact that such a renowned American entrepreneur shows his interest in investing in Albania makes us very proud and happy,” a spokesperson for Rama told The New York Times last year.

He’s also shared his desire to “make Albania a country that [is] a destination to be envied in the region, and this project is part of this effort.”

Opposition to the resort projects, however, has continued to grow. Environmental organizations have warned about their impact on flora and fauna, while critics accuse the government of approving the projects to curry favor with members of the Trump family.

Anti-government demonstrations have featured tens of thousands of protesters chanting “Albania belongs to Albanians!” Public outrage grew after a viral video showed Albanian police dragging away a protester from the construction site in late May.

Albania’s anti-corruption officials from Special Prosecution Against Corruption and Organized Crime (SPAK) have frozen assets tied to the project and have opened an investigation into how the project secured development rights on a protected island.

According to Politico, prosecutors seized assets belonging to Albania Land Development, the developer connected to the Kushner-linked luxury resort, valued at an estimated $1.4 billion. Investigators are digging into whether the project’s development rights were obtained legally and whether changes to the island’s protected status complied with Albanian law.

Meanwhile, the European Commission warned the Albanian government to hold off taking action against protesters that could threaten its path to join the European Union, according to EuroNews.

A similar project met its demise in Serbia. In November 2025, Serbia’s Parliament passed a law to allow a luxury complex in Belgrade financed by an investment firm tied to Kushner.

Then, in December, Serbia’s prosecutor for organized crime, Mladen Nenadić, indicted Minister of Culture Nikola Selakovic and three others for illegally removing the cultural heritage status of the bombed Yugoslav Army headquarters in Belgrade to pave the way for Kushner’s development.

With files from Mike Crisolago.

Imagine Jason, a middle-aged homeowner who recently discovered his house listed for rent on Zillow. A friend had stumbled upon Jason’s property while house hunting online and casually asked when he'd decided to become a landlord. Jason, however, had no idea that his home was listed on Zillow.

Curious to see how far the apparent scam went, Jason submitted an inquiry pretending to be a prospective tenant hoping to schedule a tour. Before long, the person behind the listing was asking for a "refundable application fee" to lock in an appointment.

Jason eventually got the listing removed and reported what he could to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). But the experience left him wondering whether there was anything else he could have done to protect his property — and whether the same scammer would move on to someone else.

The FTC says consumers have reported nearly 65,000 rental scams since 2020, with losses totaling about $65 million, though the agency believes the real toll is likely much higher because many victims never report being targeted.

How your home can become a scam listing

The listing used Jason’s address and photos of the property, but the contact information belonged to someone he had never heard of.

In many cases, fraudsters aren’t “choosing” a specific homeowner at all — they’re simply scraping whatever they can find online, pulling photos from old real estate listings, rental archives or even cached pages, then pairing them with addresses that look legitimate enough to pass a quick glance.

While he had his suspicions, Jason officially knew his home had been pulled into a scam when his inquiry was met with a request for a refundable application fee. Once he’d confirmed what was happening, he pulled back. Experts who deal with these cases say that’s typically the right line to draw — engaging just enough to document the fraud, then stopping before the conversation goes any further.

Jason saved screenshots of the listing and the messages, along with the usernames, email addresses and payment instructions tied to the alleged scammer. Even when no money is lost directly by the homeowner, that kind of detail can still help investigators connect repeated patterns across different complaints.

Jason also reported the incident to the FTC. Depending on the situation, homeowners often go a step further and flag it to local law enforcement or the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, particularly if there’s any sign that financial information or deposits have been involved.

The difficult part is that removing the fake listing doesn’t always feel like closure. A fake listing can disappear from one platform and reappear elsewhere under slightly different details, using the same basic playbook.

That’s why some homeowners quietly keep tabs on their own address after an incident like this — setting alerts or checking periodically to see if anything resurfaces. It doesn’t stop someone from trying again, but it can shorten the window between when a scam goes live online and when it gets taken down.

How to make your home a harder target

In this instance, the scammers didn’t lose anything. They didn't own the property, they didn't have to meet anyone in person and, after the listing vanished, they likely moved on to another address.

However, homeowners still have a few ways to make their homes less attractive targets.

For starters, Jason should keep his records showing ownership of the home readily accessible. If a fraudulent listing reappears, being able to provide a deed, tax bill or mortgage statement can sometimes speed up the process of removing a fake listing.

He may also want to let nearby neighbors know what happened. In some cases, scam victims still may show up expecting to tour the premises. If neighbors are aware of the situation, they can flag anything unusual — like strangers asking questions or trying to access the home — adding an extra layer of early warning.

The person who might send the scammer an application fee could be a college graduate moving for work, a father trying to secure a place for his family before their lease runs out, or someone relocating from out of state who couldn’t easily view the property in person. In many cases, scammers lean on that pressure — pushing for application fees, deposits or rent payments upfront to “hold” a place before someone has time to think twice.

While Jason’s situation involved a property being falsely listed, data from U.S. rental fraud cases show just how common this tactic is. The FTC reports that consumers lose millions of dollars each year to fake rental listings and impersonated landlords, and rental scams consistently rank among the agency’s most frequently reported fraud categories.

The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center similarly tracks real estate and rental fraud as a persistent nationwide type of scam, often involving stolen images, fake listings and requests for upfront deposits before any property is ever seen.

But by monitoring his address periodically, preserving evidence and reporting suspicious activity whenever it appears, Jason can improve the odds that the next scam involving his home gets caught before someone else's money disappears into a stranger's account.

“What about all the entrepreneurs that risked everything and failed?” Cuban stated in a June 20 X post. “Or the ones that are grinding it out, trying to build a business? You know, the ones that create more than 60 pct of the new jobs in this country. The more successful they are, the more you hate them? . . . You don’t care if they go broke?”

Cuban was responding to critiques from politicians and social media mavens over the recent Elon Musk/SpaceX ‘trillionaire versus the economically downtrodden’ debate. After Musk became the world’s first trillionaire in June 2026, politicians argued that the issue wasn’t just wealth but power.

“Our democracy cannot survive when one man, who contributed $290 million to get Trump elected, becomes $700 billion richer since Trump’s election,” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (D) said.

Sanders was hardly alone.

“Elon Musk just became the world’s first trillionaire,” noted Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (D). “The typical American household would have to work more than 11 MILLION years to make Elon Musk’s level of wealth. We need a wealth tax.”

Noting that 10% of people in the U.S. are entrepreneurs, Cuban said there are plenty of discussions to be had about income inequality and helping people who are struggling economically, but blaming business owners for the issue is over the top.

“I’ve talked about a lot of them in my timeline,” he said in his X post. “But in reality, saying ‘Eat the rich’ will end up helping no one except maybe politicians trying to raise money. And probably hurt those in need, as more money is spent playing politics than helping.”

More so, ideology is “not a strategy,” Cuban continued. “Nor is it a plan that has lasting impact on people who need help. I’m not a believer in trickle down. It’s a joke. I am a believer in trickle up.”

Business experts say Cuban has a point. . . To a point

Cuban argues that entrepreneurs create most new jobs and are often unfairly demonized in debates about wealth inequality, but economic specialists say his larger message is skewed.

“They’re two different things here,” Nic Puckrin, a Dubai-based entrepreneur and founder of Coin Bureau, told Moneywise. “He’s right that entrepreneurs create a large proportion of new jobs — as many as nine out of ten when it comes to small businesses in the US.”

Yet Puckrin disagrees with Cuban’s accusation that demonization, in the sense of “entrepreneurship is bad,” is the right message. “I don’t think anyone really wants to crush small businesses that are trying to build something from the ground up,” Puckrin noted. “I think it’s more about taxing the billionaires or the very rich individuals, who happen to be entrepreneurs.”

Other business owners say entrepreneurs get a bad rap, and actually build businesses to give people a leg up, economically.

“In my experience, Mark Cuban is basically right about entrepreneurs and job creation,” Lisa Lane, founder of household cleaning products company Rinseroo and a Shark Tank winner who met Cuban on the iconic show, told Moneywise. “Most founders I know, including myself, didn’t start a business thinking about building wealth. They started because they saw a problem and wanted to fix it.”

Business owners can do better on wages

In his X post, Cuban noted that he’s sensitive to criticism that businesses don’t pay solid wages, especially for those workers just starting out.

“We do all we can (to) get appreciable assets and higher wages into the hands of people who have to live paycheck to paycheck,” he said. “I’ve said before I think raising the federal minimum wage to $20 is smart. When I heard people who worked for a company I invested in (but didn’t run) needed government assistance, I made sure they all got raises. It was embarrassing to me that we didn’t pay enough.”

There’s also a good case to be made that there’s room for both “trickle up” ideas and entrepreneurship to coexist.

“Paying fair wages and giving more people access to ownership can actually strengthen companies in the long run,” Lane stated. “The key to smaller businesses like mine is making sure policies support companies as they grow, not just once they are already large and established.”

Lane also believes that having to pick between taxing the wealthy and supporting entrepreneurs isn’t helpful. “The real goal is to build a system that rewards risk-taking while still making sure success benefits a wider group of people,” she said. “Things like easier access to capital and policies that help small businesses scale matter a lot.”

Other entrepreneurs agree, noting that “trickle-up” labor pay policies align with how smart business owners think. “These ideas are more compatible than the debate suggests,” Jonathan Katz, founder and CEO at Boston-based Blendi, a rechargeable cordless blender products company, told Moneywise. “I want my employees to earn well — happy, fairly-compensated people build better products.”

The tension only appears when policy treats wealth creation as a zero-sum game. In Katz’s view, it isn’t. “Higher wages and broader asset ownership can absolutely coexist with a thriving founder ecosystem if policies are designed thoughtfully,” he added.

The political realm needs to step up and support their communities

In his social media post, Cuban took politicians to task over harsh words towards entrepreneurs in the Elon Musk/SpaceX trillionaire dustup earlier this month.

“I’m not saying there aren’t greedy, blood-sucking business people that will do anything for a dollar,” Cuban said. “But they are a small minority. Most entrepreneurs realize they are blessed. They want to find ways to help. They think they can use the same skills that built their business to help people. And they can.”

Cuban added that entrepreneurs can help close the wealth gap by hiring more and giving more raises, yet the burden on business owners should be shared.

“I’ve sat with Democrats and Republicans, incumbents and candidates, and asked them why they aren’t meeting with businesses that make and sell the products that have become unaffordable, and asking them what can be done to reduce prices,” Cuban said. “Why (the politicians) aren’t you meeting with them and asking them to change? Offering to support those that do raise wages, lower prices, improve benefits. Politicians just won’t do it. They prefer the donations.”

Cuban also noted that he participated in Shark Tank, which launched on ABC in 2009, for 15 years, purely to show people they can start small, grow their businesses, and help not only themselves but their employees and their communities as well.

“That’s exactly what has happened,” he said. “Demonizing those that have success is counterproductive to every benefit you want to bring to people.”

Sure, the house was overgrown with vegetation, the owners hadn’t been seen by neighbors “in years,” and the house went into foreclosure last August after said owners mysteriously stopped paying their mortgage and never publicly acknowledged the foreclosure.

All of the signs — including a literal “Keep Out” sign that mysteriously popped up on the property — pointed to something strange afoot, but not enough to prevent the sale from going through, NBC CT reports.

But when the new owner, Edward Marchion, entered the home on June 14 and found three sets of skeletal remains, it became clear that this was no ordinary real estate transaction.

On June 22, police announced that they’d identified two of the skeletal remains as 54-year-old Sally Ann Cash and her 23-year-old son Brian Cash. The third body is still being identified. Sally Ann Cash, however, was one of the listed owners of the home prior to the foreclosure, along with her husband, Paul Cash. No cause of death was given and police do not suspect foul play.

According to reporting from CT Insider, three state agencies are investigating the deaths. A carbon monoxide gas leak was identified as a potential culprit, but firefighters did not detect any on the premises after the bodies were discovered — an expected result, as utilities had been turned off for months. The mortgage had not been paid since December 2024 and the Cashes had fallen out of touch with friends and family, CT Insider reports.

Attorney Christopher Thogmartin, who managed the sale and filed a court motion before the remains were identified, called the situation a “disturbing mystery.” He also told Moneywise that there’s a chance the foreclosure could be invalidated because of the discovery.

“The short version is that the owners would have had to have been deceased back in August of 2025, when the bank filed a notice of lis pendens on the land records,” he said. “Given the state of the remains, this could be a possibility.”

What it means to buy a home “as-is”

The situation with the Burlington home, though extreme, does highlight the potential complications when purchasing a home as-is, such as at a foreclosure auction.

Owners may sell as-is because they inherited the property, can’t afford repairs, attracted interest from investors, or simply need a quick sale.

Foreclosures most often also fall into the same “as-is” category, as the banks or lenders have taken ownership after a mortgage default or and simply want to make some of their money back.

Purchasing a home as-is comes with advantages. Zillow noted that as-is homes can sell for 10-20% below market value due to the risk that the buyer takes and potential repairs required after purchase. Foreclosed homes, meanwhile, can go for as much as 30% below market value (for the Connecticut home, it was 36% less).

For investors and flippers, those on a tight budget, or even buyers who need to find a home fast, as-is purchases, including foreclosures, can be a viable option for getting into the market and — especially if you’re planning to flip the property — make a decent profit.

But buyer beware: once you sign on the dotted line, it’s yours. If you didn’t do your due diligence beforehand, and the seller didn’t technically deceive you, you’re stuck. Which means if it comes to light later that there’s asbestos in the walls, or repair costs will be through the (damaged) roof, that’s your problem now.

Aside from potentially getting stuck with the ultimate fixer-upper, buying a home as-is could also limit your ability to qualify for home loans or financing.

What to do before buying a home as-is

One of the first things to do before buying a home as-is to schedule a home inspection. Many experts point out that even if the seller doesn’t plan to fix any defects, a thorough inspection ensures that you, at least, have the best possible idea of what added costs might await you, and if the property is worth the expense.

To that end, sellers are also required to disclose any known issues or problems with the property.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Burlington house where the skeletal remains were found was purchased without an inspection — though it’s unclear why none took place.

Chase Bank, meanwhile, suggests negotiating the final price with the seller after the inspection and factoring in potential repair costs into the price. It’s also important, they note, to ensure that “the home meets minimum property requirements required by your lender, typically through a home appraisal.”

Others warn about potential complicated legal issues popping up with foreclosed properties, such as homes with tax or HOA liens that could complicate the title.

Working with an experienced real estate attorney and paying for a title search of the home, can save you time and lots of headaches. That will alert you to any liens on the home.

Overall, it’s important to weigh your ability to handle the financial risk with the potential issues that could crop up even after a thorough inspection — which can help you avoid the nasty experience of discovering your new fixer upper is actually a money pit with no possibility of a refund.

Still, Thogmartin cautioned Moneywise that “In this day and age, with housing at such a premium, the odds of finding, much less winning a ‘good deal’ at a foreclosure auction are somewhat remote.”

He advised that “There may be some [difference] between what a professional flipper would be willing to pay and what someone might be willing to pay to purchase a home for themselves, but those opportunities are few and far between.”

Given memory care costs between $5,538 to $14,399 a month in long-term care facilities, it may look enticing.

The market for a cure — and hope — is enormous. This year alone, Americans will spend $409 billion on care for 7.4 million Alzheimer’s patients nationwide.

No wonder many are investing in the hope that Dr. Dale Bredesen is selling with his ReCODE (Reversal of Cognitive Decline) protocol. While the California neurologist does not advertise it as a cure, he does say it is a way to reverse dementia.

He promotes it through his company Apollo Health as well as in research papers, best-selling books, video and film.

Floridian Judy Benjamin is a devoted follower, describing herself as Breseden’s “Patient Zero” in the Palm Beach Post. She consulted with Dr. Bredesen 15 years ago at the age of 67 when she was diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer’s. Now she’s 82, traveling the world to promote the treatment.

“I have eliminated my symptoms of Alzheimer’s, so I don’t forget names,” she told the Post. “I don’t forget my phone number, I don’t get lost when I go out driving.”

Turns out many of Bredesen’s biggest fans are in Florida, which has one of the highest incidences of the disease in the U.S. An estimated 580,000 Alzheimer’s patients live there, according to the Alzheimer’s Association.

Here’s a closer look at the treatment and concerns around the pricey protocol.

A healthy lifestyle mixed with IV drips and hyperbaric chambers

ReCODE patients receive an initial evaluation involving blood work, genetic and cognitive testing as well as sleep tests. Prices vary, but one clinic — Colorado Concierge Functional Medicine — charges upwards of nearly $2,000 for that initial testing with add ons.

Based on results, patients get a computer-generated report recommending a range of lifestyle changes including things like a healthy diet (e.g., the Mediterranean diet), nutritional supplements, regular exercise and proper sleep.

Then there are the detox regimens. Oral health is a big part of the ReCODE protocol, as research points to a link between oral bacteria and Alzheimer’s.

Most of this is straightforward stuff a person might be able to do on their own — with support. But there’s more to ReCODE than that.

The protocol includes IV drips and oxygen therapy sessions in a hyperbaric chamber. An oxygen therapy session in a hyperbaric chamber can cost between $150 and $600.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy sessions are not covered by Medicare as a dementia treatment because they’re considered an experimental approach for the disease.

In fact, ReCODE itself is still considered experimental, even though Dr. Bredesen published a paper on it in the National Library of Medicine 12 years ago, involving a clinical trial of 10 patients.

Now he has another paper awaiting peer review involving a nine-month clinical trial with 73 patients.

One of the patients in the latest trial estimated she received $30,000 worth of ReCODE treatments (including hyperbaric chamber sessions) over nine months. That works out to a little over $3,300 a month, though as a clinical trial volunteer, it was free to her.

As it stands, not everyone is convinced it is ready to be approved as a treatment.

Jury’s out on whether an unproven protocol is worth it

In a Substack post commenting on Bredesen’s latest clinical trial, neuroscientist Dr. Christin Glorioso noted that ReCODE appeared to improve “some aspects of cognition” for patients, but not their performance on Alzheimer’s cognitive tests — nor their brain volume.

She said issues with the trial, including the “inability to attribute effects to specific components” mean it’s hard to determine whether ReCODE works.

Neurologist Dr. Joanna Hellmuth has raised concerns about Bredesen’s clinical trials in the past, noting that much of the research he cites is his own. She adds that in a 2018 paper, he failed to declare his financial interest as Chief Science Officer for Apollo Health.

She notes that much of the ReCODE protocol involves advice that is freely offered at dementia clinics and by the Alzheimer’s Association, including engaging in mental and physical activity and eating a Mediterranean diet.

It is the more costly therapies in the ReCODE protocol — like oxygen therapy in a hyperbaric chamber — that have yet to be proven as treatment for dementia.

What has been proven? An FDA-approved drug called Lecanemab for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s. It only slows the disease; it doesn’t cure it. But at least it’s covered by insurance.

The scientific jury is still out on whether ReCODE, which is not covered by Medicare, is worth the investment.

A recent Vanguard survey found that while more than 70% of women feel confident about saving money, yet nearly half are keeping their savings in accounts earning less than 3% interest.

That caught the attention of personal finance expert Suze Orman, who says many savers are unknowingly leaving hundreds or even thousands of dollars on the table each year. According to Orman, the problem often comes down to loyalty.

Her solution? They may need to break up with their savings account.

“That’s a steep price to pay for convenience,” Orman wrote in a recent blog post, adding it’s “not hard” to find alternatives that will “pay you much more” these days. However, she goes on, many people stick with low-paying accounts despite the fact that a simple switch could help them earn hundreds more each year for “doing essentially nothing.”

Your loyalty could be costing you

According to Orman, the cost of sticking with a low-interest savings account can add up faster than many people realize.

Imagine a prospective homebuyer has $80,000 set aside for a future down payment. If that money is sitting in a savings account earning 1% interest, it would generate about $800 over the course of a year.

Move that same $80,000 into an account earning 3%, and the annual payout jumps to roughly $2,400. That’s an extra $1,600 in a single year. The gap becomes even larger over time as interest compounds. Money that might otherwise be left behind could help cover closing costs, moving expenses, new furniture or simply bring a buyer closer to their down-payment goal.

Compound interest allows savers to earn returns not only on their original deposit, but also on the interest they’ve already earned — creating a snowball effect over time.

“The power of compounding is something that is truly hard to understand until you see it over and over again,” personal finance expert Ramit Sethi told Moneywise.

So why don’t more people make the switch?

For many savers, it’s the same reason people stay in any long-term relationship: comfort. Their savings account is linked to their checking account. They’ve had it for years and comparing interest rates falls to the bottom of the to-do list.

Like an ex who hasn’t technically done anything wrong, a low-interest savings account can seem harmless. The problem is what it’s not doing for you.

Signs it’s time to move on

For savers who discover they’re earning less than 3% on their cash, the next step is to explore what alternatives are available.

Many banks continue to offer savings accounts with rates below 1%, while some high-yield savings accounts, money market accounts and cash management accounts offer significantly more. The right option will depend on your financial goals and how quickly you may need access to the money.

For example, someone building an emergency fund may prioritize safety and liquidity, while a prospective homebuyer saving for a down payment may focus on maximizing growth without taking on additional risk.

If you’re unsure which account best aligns with your goals, consider speaking with a financial advisor. A professional can help you evaluate your options and determine where your money can work hardest while still supporting your long term financial plan.

Fortunately, breaking up with a savings account doesn’t have to mean ending your relationship with your bank entirely. Many savers keep their everyday checking account where it is and move only their emergency fund or long-term savings to a higher-yield option.

Before making a move, compare annual percentage yields (APYs), check whether the account is federally insured and review any fees or minimum balance requirements. A few minutes of research could translate into hundreds of extra dollars a year.

A week before the earnings report, Meta had notified roughly 8,000 employees they were losing their jobs. And six weeks before that, it had quietly granted six senior executives stock packages that could be worth as much as $921 million each, if Meta becomes the most valuable company of all time. To do this, Meta would need to beat out Nvidia for that title. That being said, for now, those options pay nothing.

A closer look at what these numbers mean

Huge layoffs followed by a successful earnings report might seem a bit contradictory, so here’s a closer look at the numbers Meta is dealing with.

The $56.3 billion was the most Meta had ever made in three months. The company runs one of the most efficient advertising businesses on the planet: more than $55 billion of that Q1 total came from ads, with a 19% rise in ad impressions and a 12% jump in the average price per ad. When both volume and price climb together, it’s a clear sign the business is growing its audience, and also getting better at monetizing it.

There’s a catch on that huge profit, though. Meta’s $26.8 billion net income looks like a 61% year-over-year jump, but $8.03 billion of that was a one-time tax benefit tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Take that out, and the adjusted earnings were $7.31 per share. This is still above the $6.79 analysts expected, but not a 61% boost in the actual business.

What really rattled investors was the spending forecast. Meta said it now expects capital expenditures of $125 billion to $145 billion for the year, up from an earlier estimate of $115 billion to $135 billion — and that’s almost twice what it spent last year.

Most of that money is going into AI chips, data centers and the infrastructure to support all of it. “This reflects our expectations for higher component pricing this year and, to a lesser extent, additional data center costs to support future year capacity,” The company said in its April earnings release.

The spending forecast was only part of the reason that the stock fell about 7% in extended trading. Another concern was that Meta’s combined daily active people across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger fell quarter-over-quarter for the first time since the company began reporting the metric.

Big promises and lost jobs

Six weeks before Q1 earnings, SEC filings disclosed a new stock option plan for six senior executives.

Each executive got 653,865 stock options, which was Meta’s first executive option grant since its 2012 IPO, according to Bloomberg. The payout depends on the stock price hitting a series of milestones, from $1,116 on the low end to $3,727 on the high end, and the awards expire by 2031. If the stock never gets to $1,116 by then, the executives get nothing from the plan. If it reaches the top target, each option package would be worth $625.6 million, according to Equilar. With the added restricted stock grants for certain executives, their total potential payout rises to $921 million each.

To hit the top payout, Meta’s market value would have to reach $9.5 trillion — a level no company has ever touched. Even Nvidia, at $5.053 trillion and now the most valuable company in the world, hasn’t come close.

A few weeks later, on April 23, Meta’s chief people officer, Janelle Gale, sent out the memo to announce that about 10% of the company’s 77,986 employees — roughly 8,000 people — would lose their jobs on May 20. Meta also cut 6,000 open roles and moved about 7,000 employees into newly created AI-focused teams. In Singapore, some workers got the news at 4 a.m.

Gale said the cuts were part of Meta’s effort “to run the company more efficiently and to allow us to offset the other investments we’re making.”

Zuckerberg had already hinted at the thinking in January. “We’re starting to see projects that used to require big teams now be accomplished by a single, very talented person,” he said on Meta’s Q4 2025 earnings call.

What this means for your money

If you own Meta stock, you’re basically making the same bet the executives are making. The company says it will spend $125 billion to $145 billion on capex in 2026, and that money is going out whether the AI payoff materializes fast or not.

For now, the Family of Apps is still doing the heavy lifting: Q1 ad revenue came in at $55.024 billion, up about 33% from last year’s $41.392 billion. The question is whether all that AI spending eventually produces better efficiency, better engagement and enough growth to justify the bill.

If you work in tech, Meta isn’t the only company that’s affected. Amazon, Salesforce and Snap all made significant cuts this year, and each one said it was about becoming more efficient with AI. Companies are replacing headcount with infrastructure, and treating the two as substitutes, but no one knows how well that would work yet.

Meta’s six executives are betting on it working, even though they haven’t seen the payoffs.

Often, those bucket-list trips get pushed to retirement; when you’re younger, you might be too busy raising kids, building careers, paying off the house and saving for retirement. But leisure travel in retirement requires financial planning, especially for those on a fixed income.

When it comes to discretionary income, a majority (86%) of Americans aged 50+ identify travel as one of their top priorities, according to the AARP 2026 Travel Trends survey. And nearly two-thirds (64%) expect to travel this year.

“The desire to travel is incredibly resilient,” Lona Choi-Allum, AARP’s senior consumer insights manager, told AARP. “Despite challenges or barriers, older adults are adapting how they travel, not whether they travel.”

However, cost continues to be a major roadblock to travel, as inflation takes its toll. “We noticed a significant increase in the [anticipated] annual dollar spend, from over $6,800 last year to a little over $7,200 this year,” Choi-Allum said.

For example, even as the price of jet fuel comes down, airfares are expected to remain elevated.

That doesn’t mean retirees (or soon-to-be retirees) should put their travel plans on hold — but preparation is key. Here are three retirement travel mistakes that could quietly drain your savings and what you can do instead.

1. Overspending in your go-go years

The ‘go-go years’ are the earliest phase of retirement, when retirees are generally at their healthiest — and they’re ready to spend some of that money they’ve been saving up for decades. Discretionary spending tends to decline in the slow-go years (between ages 75 to 85) and the no-go years (85+).

But without a financial plan and withdrawal strategy that includes leisure travel, it’s easy to end up overspending on travel in your go-go years. Not only can that eat into your nest egg, but it also makes you vulnerable to sequence-of-returns risk during market downturns.

In other words, if you withdraw more money from your retirement savings in the first few years of retirement and your portfolio drops in value during those years, your nest egg could be whittled down even faster.

2. Underspending out of financial anxiety

On the other hand, underspending can be a risk, too. For some retirees, it can be a tough transition from accumulating money to withdrawing it. And even someone with a substantial nest egg — and guaranteed income sources such as a pension or annuity — may cling onto their savings and investments at the risk of not fully embracing their golden years.

Indeed, about a third of retirees still have 100% or more of their initial savings intact by the time they reach their mid-80s, according to a study by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).

“Although outliving one’s savings is often viewed as the primary concern in retirement, it is also important for retirees to use their resources in ways that support consumption, security, autonomy and intended bequests,” according to EBRI.

Without a plan in place, retirees could face a massive tax bill when required minimum distributions (RMDs) kick in.

There’s another risk, too: “It represents a life not lived, the vacations you didn’t take because you were afraid you were going to run out of money,” Marianela Collado, a certified financial planner in Plantation, Florida, told CNBC.

3. Not adjusting for inflation

While you want to avoid overspending and underspending, you’ll also want to account for inflation, especially if you have a long retirement timeline. Failing to adjust your spending over time could deplete your nest egg faster than anticipated.

For example, the cost of travel is rapidly rising, with travel-related prices outpacing overall inflation. The Travel Price Index (TPI) increased 9.8% year over year (YOY) in May, with motor fuel prices soaring 40.9% YOY, airfares jumping 26.7% YOY and hotel prices rising 5.1% YOY.

As costs rise — including travel costs — your purchasing power erodes, meaning your money won’t go as far as it used to. This is particularly hard on retirees who rely on guaranteed income sources such as Social Security and pensions.

While Social Security recipients receive a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), many pensions don’t include increases to keep up with inflation. One rule of thumb is to plan for an inflation rate of 3% over retirement to improve the longevity of your portfolio.

How to protect your nest egg — and still travel

This doesn’t mean you should shelve your retirement travel plans. But you’ll want to work travel into your retirement budget, taking into account everything from cash flow, taxes and inflation so you know how much you can spend without putting your long-term savings at risk.

If you’re not close to retirement, consider creating a travel savings account separate from your retirement portfolio. By the time you retire, whatever you’ve accumulated in that account could be used specifically for travel — and you won’t have to worry about how that will impact your nest egg.

Another option is to use a flexible withdrawal strategy, in which you adjust your withdrawal rate depending on how the market performs — rather than following a fixed withdrawal schedule — and dynamically adjusting your spending. This could help protect against sequence-of-returns risk during market downturns.

You could also consider waiting until after Social Security benefits kick in before embarking on major trips, since you’ll have a guaranteed source of income (and will be less reliant on portfolio withdrawals). However, if you’ve taken early retirement, that option may not be appealing.

Whatever your circumstances, you can also travel smarter. In AARP’s 2026 Travel Trends survey, most respondents (89%) said they shop for bargains when planning trips, such as comparison shopping, searching for online travel deals and using loyalty perks.

In retirement, you likely have more time to look for deals and travel in the off-season, so you can still pursue those bucket-list trips without putting the rest of your retirement at risk.

In a new interview with Don Lemon, St. Clair said she feels “disgust and remorse” watching clips of her past comments, including remarks about trans people, DEI and George Floyd. She told Lemon she was young, seeking belonging and financially dependent on the MAGA media world, a world she now describes as cult-like and difficult to leave.

But the biggest revelation came when St. Clair discussed Elon Musk, with whom she says she shares a child.

St. Clair claimed Musk’s team offered her a non-disclosure agreement worth roughly $40 million: $15 million upfront, plus $100,000 a month for 21 years, in exchange for long-term silence about Musk, his employees, affiliates and related matters. Similar details were reported after the interview aired. She said she refused.

“I would rather go to a studio apartment with both my children than sign this,” St. Clair told Lemon.

Inside the alleged NDA offer

According to St. Clair, the offer began when Musk sent a message instructing his money manager, Jared Birchall, to “wire Ashley 15 million for a home and reserve capital.” She said Birchall later called her and told her there would need to be “some sort of NDA.”

St. Clair told Lemon she was willing to review it, but not sign it.

When the proposed agreement arrived, she said it included $15 million in cash and $100,000 a month for 21 years. That would come to $25.2 million in monthly payments, or about $40.2 million in total before taxes and any legal conditions.

The agreement, as St. Clair described it, would have barred her from disparaging Musk or speaking about him, his employees, affiliates or related matters “into eternity.”

Her stated reason for rejecting it was moral, not financial. St. Clair said she believed signing would have been wrong for her, her children and her ability to speak honestly. She also pushed back against critics who call her a “grifter” or “gold digger,” saying she had turned down more money than she could likely make by speaking publicly.

Whether she regrets it, at least publicly, the answer appears to be no. St. Clair framed the NDA as the moment that forced her to decide what kind of person she wanted to be.

Other public figures who chose to challenge silence agreements

St. Clair’s decision to reject what she described as a $40 million NDA offer would be unusual for almost anyone. But she is not the first public figure to argue that the ability to speak freely was worth more than the money attached to staying quiet.

One of the most prominent examples is former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who alleged she had an affair with Donald Trump. In 2016, American Media Inc. paid McDougal $150,000 for exclusive rights to her story in what later became known as a “catch-and-kill” arrangement — a deal critics said was designed to prevent the story from becoming public. McDougal later sued to be released from the agreement, and the company eventually dissolved the contract, allowing her to speak publicly.

Another well-known example is Stormy Daniels. Shortly before the 2016 presidential election, Daniels received a $130,000 payment in exchange for signing a nondisclosure agreement regarding her alleged relationship with Trump.

The agreement became the subject of years of legal battles and public scrutiny after Daniels challenged its validity in court. She ultimately spoke publicly about the allegations, published a memoir and repeatedly argued that the NDA should not prevent her from telling her story.

Not every example involves celebrity relationships. Former Facebook product manager Frances Haugen became one of the most prominent corporate whistleblowers in recent years after disclosing internal company documents and later testifying before Congress about concerns she said the company was prioritizing profits over public safety.

Haugen didn’t turn down a multimillion-dollar NDA payment, but she did risk a lucrative career in Silicon Valley to disclose information she believed the public needed to see.

These examples highlight a common trade-off: Large payouts can provide financial security, sometimes for life. Yet for some people, the ability to speak publicly, defend their reputation or disclose information they believe matters ultimately proves more valuable than the money.

A group of Amazon workers has filed a complaint with Seattle officials, alleging the company launched investigations into employees who publicly criticized the rapid expansion of AI data centers and called for stronger government oversight.

Amazon has denied retaliation

The showdown began earlier this month when five Amazon employees stepped up to the microphone at Seattle City Council meetings to urge lawmakers to hit the brakes on the AI infrastructure boom.

The workers, who are affiliated with Amazon Employees for Climate Justice (AECJ), supported a proposal that would temporarily pause construction of new large-scale data centers while city officials craft rules governing future projects. They warned against what they called an “all-costs-justified AI build out” by Big Tech companies racing to dominate artificial intelligence.

Seattle’s leaders ultimately sided with the critics, unanimously approving the moratorium on June 9.

But it was a short-lived victory.

According to a complaint filed with the Seattle Office for Civil Rights, several of the employees were later called into meetings with a human resources representative who said concerns had been raised about their public testimony.

The complaint alleges that three workers were informed they were under investigation and could face disciplinary action. One employee was allegedly told the consequences could include termination.

The complaint further alleges Amazon monitored workers’ political advocacy and attempted to identify other employees involved in similar activism.

“Seattle is one of just a few jurisdictions in the country that prohibits private employers from discriminating against their employees based on the political beliefs they hold and the organizations they belong to,” Abby Lawlor, an attorney at Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt who is advising the employees, told WIRED.

“Here, we have legal tools to fight back and ensure that tech workers can be full democratic participants in these important local discussions. We hope the city of Seattle will do its part to ensure that this vital Seattle law is enforced,” she said.

Amazon strongly disputes the retaliation claims.

In a statement to Moneywise, company spokesperson Margaret Callahan said Amazon supports employees’ rights to express their personal views but the company believes these employees may have been speaking as representatives of Amazon.

“As we looked more closely at how these employees represented themselves, and how their comments were received by others, it became clear that they may have been speaking in their capacity as Amazonians and not as private citizens,” Callahan’s statement said.

Callahan also denied that employees were threatened with termination and said Amazon does not tolerate any form of retaliation.

The rush to build AI infrastructure

Tech companies are spending at a staggering pace to build the data centers needed to power AI systems. Amazon alone has said it expects to spend as much as $200 billion this year on capital expenditures, with AI infrastructure accounting for a significant share of that investment.

At the same time, the company has shed roughly 30,000 corporate jobs since October 2025 as CEO Andy Jassy pushes to streamline operations and accelerate AI adoption.

Data centers have become one of the most contentious symbols of the AI boom. Supporters see them as the backbone of the next technological revolution. Critics argue they consume vast amounts of electricity and water while offering relatively few benefits to the neighborhoods that host them.

A recent Gallup survey found roughly seven in 10 Americans oppose the construction of AI-focused data centers in their own communities, citing concerns ranging from energy demand and environmental impacts to broader quality-of-life issues.

The latest clash also revives memories of an earlier battle between Amazon and employee activists. In 2020, two members of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice were fired after publicly criticizing the company and advocating for stronger COVID-19 protections for warehouse workers. Amazon later settled complaints the workers filed with federal labor regulators.

The AI boom is creating winners and losers in the workforce

The clash between Amazon and its employees is unfolding against a much larger backdrop: the rapid transformation of the workforce as companies race to build and deploy artificial intelligence. The result is a growing collision between the enthusiasm for AI and concerns from workers, regulators and local communities.

For investors, the spending spree has helped fuel one of Wall Street’s biggest growth stories. Amazon’s stock has climbed sharply since the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022 as investors increasingly view AI as a major driver of future profits.

While AI is creating demand for engineers, data center construction workers and specialized technology roles, it is also raising concerns about displaced workers.

For Amazon employee Darius Irani, those questions are part of what motivated him to speak out. In public comments, he encouraged Seattle officials to require data centers to run on renewable energy, adopt advanced cooling technologies and help fund broader city efforts to combat climate change.

“I should be able to speak out about what’s important to me, and what’s important to me is that Seattle should be regulating AI and data centers, and that’s why I’m reporting Amazon for violating city law,” Irani told WIRED.

As AI investment accelerates, debates over jobs, workplace rights and who benefits from the technology’s growth are becoming as central to the AI boom as the technology itself.

The Dublin banker, nicknamed “Pico,” was balancing a day job in finance with part-time soccer for Shamrock Rovers when the message arrived in 2018. Written in Portuguese and sent by someone he didn’t know, it was easy to dismiss.

Then came a follow-up.

Nine months later, Cape Verde national team coach Rui Águas reached out again, this time in English, asking whether Lopes had seen his original note. Curious, Lopes copied the message into Google Translate.

‘We’re looking at getting new players into the Cape Verde squad and would you be interested in declaring for Cape Verde?’” Lopes told BBC Sport.

That overlooked message ended up changing the course of his career. Today, the 33-year-old is helping Cape Verde compete at its first-ever World Cup after trading a career in banking for professional soccer.

“I was not enjoying the work,” Lopes said of his former desk job.

A life-changing message

Once the paperwork was sorted, things moved quickly. Within weeks, Lopes was representing Cape Verde for the first time, stepping onto the field against Togo.

Over the next seven years, Lopes helped transform Cape Verde from an underdog into a World Cup qualifier. The feat is even more remarkable given Cape Verde’s size. Home to roughly 530,000 people, it’s one of the smallest countries ever to qualify for the men’s World Cup.

“From when I was a young child, and I imagine every aspiring footballer when they were young, they wanted to play at the highest level possible and, for me, it doesn’t go any further than the World Cup,” Lopes said.

Leaving a stable paycheck behind

While the chance to represent Cape Verde was exciting, there was no guarantee it would translate into a long-term career in soccer.

“It was risky because I was in a solid job,” Lopes said in a FIFA video. “Where our league was at that moment, there wasn’t much security in terms of a career in football, so when [Águas] spoke to me about his plan, his ideas, and what he had going forward, I had to be a part of it.”

His concerns weren’t unfounded. While fans often associate professional soccer with multimillion-dollar contracts, FIFA has cited research from players’ union FIFPRO showing that more than 45% of professional footballers worldwide earn less than US$1,000 per month.

The tradeoff between stability and opportunity extends far beyond sports. Priya Rathod, workplace trends editor at Indeed, says pursuing a passion can mean accepting uncertainty.

“A stable job may offer predictable hours, benefits, and a clear career path, but it might not align with your creative or purpose-driven aspirations,” she told Investopedia. “On the other hand, pursuing what you love could mean irregular income, fewer traditional perks, and a less linear trajectory.”

Cape Verde’s dream run continues

For Lopes, the decision to take a chance on soccer has led farther than he ever imagined.

Cape Verde followed its scoreless draw against Spain with a 2-2 result against Uruguay, keeping alive the possibility of a spot in the knockout stage. The tournament newcomer has emerged as one of the biggest surprises of the expanded 48-team World Cup.

After the match, Cape Verde coach Pedro Leitão Brito said the team’s success shows that smaller nations can compete with far larger and wealthier opponents.

“We’re also here to show that a country may be small, may struggle financially, but if they are resilient, if they can endure struggle, they can also stand shoulder to shoulder with other major teams and with players who are on another level,” he said through an interpreter.

Not every LinkedIn connection changes your life. Seven years after replying to one he almost ignored, Lopes is helping Cape Verde keep its World Cup dream alive.

“Being able to represent my family playing for the national team and being able to put our family name out there at one of the biggest sporting events in the world fills me with great pride,” Lopes said.

Worse, the new blue paint is already peeling, leading President Donald Trump to announce that contractors “will probably be forced to release and drain much of the water in order to do the necessary repairs, but will have them done as quickly as possible.”

The announcement of further repairs, for which no cost was revealed, comes after the Trump administration already spent between $14 million and $16 million, roughly, on the Reflecting Pool makeover — which itself drew criticism for the inflated cost of the no-bid contract awarded for the work completed earlier this month. Trump himself originally touted a $1.8 million price tag for the renovation. The White House declined Moneywise’s request to comment, while neither the Department of the Interior nor the National Park Service replied to the request as of publication time.

Without evidence, Trump put the blame for the Reflecting Pool’s paint problems on knife-wielding vandals — with police even arresting one bystander who says he simply touched a piece of peeling paint — while the administration insists they’re cleaning out the dead algae.

But as the pool continues to glow green, it offers homeowners an opportunity to reflect on the cost of house renovations and ongoing maintenance — and how much it can balloon when things go wrong.

Renovation and maintenance risks can blow up your budget

Consumer financial services company Synchrony released a sobering report about home maintenance in March. They found that, while U.S. homeowners peg lifetime maintenance costs for their homes at around $70,000, the actual average number is closer to $339,000.

It’s a miscalculation that could cost you big time — especially when you take renovations into consideration. As with the Reflecting Pool situation, it’s not a good idea to assume a renovation has solved a problem — or won’t lead to new ones, and their associated costs.

Take, for example, installing a new marble countertop. They look luxurious and can even increase the value of your home. However, they’re expensive, and they stain and scratch easily, potentially leading to a need to replace them.

Other experts point to home renos such as doorless showers, which offer a sleek, modern feel but can lead to long-term moisture damage.

Inground pools, meanwhile, can cost up to $12,000 a year, depending on your location, in water and electricity bills, maintenance and possible repair costs.

And even fixes as simple as adding a fresh coat of paint, or installing new floors, can lead to chipping and peeling, sunken floors, and mold and mildew growth if not done right.

Then, of course, there’s the regular costs of upkeep. Real estate agent Ryann Brier, in an interview with Realtor.com, explained that owners of a $300,000 home should budget $500 monthly for maintenance costs. Even if they don’t need the money at the moment, she added, necessary repairs like a new roof eventually pop up, requiring tens of thousands of dollars to be paid out at once.

And a June survey by Talker Research found that, while about 50% of homeowners plan to stay 12 years longer in their home than expected based on the economy, the majority haven’t looked in on the state of their plumbing, electrical or HVACs in the past year. This demonstrates that budgeting accordingly for what could go wrong — either via a renovation mishap, or simple wear and tear — is all the more important.

How to budget for repairs and renos

Real estate agent Tom Markiewicz is among the experts who agree with the idea of saving 1% to 4% of your home’s value annually for maintenance and repairs, while noting that various factors can cause that number to fluctuate.

That includes the age and quality build of a home, the type of climate it’s built to endure and how well you managed the upkeep. After all, as one expert told Better Home and Gardens, “A $300 gutter repair ignored for a couple of seasons can easily turn into a $5,000 water damage job.”

To get a better idea of how much you need to save annually, real estate platform Honest Casa suggests making a checklist of exterior and interior components — everything from your roof to HVAC system to your furnace, windows, gutters, flooring and appliances — and noting their expected lifespans and costs to repair to give you a timeline of when different expenses could pop up.

For example, they showed that if a water heater costs $1,500 to replace, and you’re seven years into its expected 12-year lifespan, budgeting to save $300 a year for the remainder of that lifespan gets you roughly where you need to be when the time comes to replace the heater.

That said, they also suggest saving between $500 and $3,000 annually for emergency repairs.

If you’re renovating on top of that, proper budgeting is key, with Fidelity suggesting spending “no more than 30% of your home’s value.”

The most important point to know is that, while renovations are largely optional, home repair costs will arise — and they can balloon if you aren’t prepared.

“The mistake most people make is treating repairs as emergencies rather than anticipated costs,” Michael Gifford, founder and CEO of home equity investment company Splitero, told Better Homes and Gardens. “By the time something breaks, you’re already behind.”

An ill-fated and unignorable series of trends has emerged across indexes that have experts fearing a dot-com-style or worse crash: a record chasm between AI frontrunners and other segments, the relentless punishment of historically stable stocks, market concentration that is increasingly financed by debt, overvaluation and overinvestment with unproven returns, and more.

With only a handful of stocks propping up record market highs, pundits like Michael Burry are warning that the end of this hollow bull run is near, while the Bank of America has even provided a roadmap for how to survive a post-bubble environment.

To protect yourself before that point, diversification is prudent across sectors, indexes and even borders.

Europe equity markets: a safer bet?

To avoid the fallout from a potential bubble burst, those with low risk tolerance have likely already pulled out of any ETFs or mutual funds with AI exposure.

Opting for equal-weight ETFs instead of a market-cap-weighted index fund can help lessen risk, as can investing in non-tech sectors like healthcare, utilities, materials or industrials. While diversifying across asset classes, investors may want to lean more heavily into REITs, particularly non-office REITs, bonds, especially government bonds, precious metals or physical real estate if they’re trying to shield from AI risk.

Moving away from tech-focused indexes such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq could also help investors feel more at ease in the face of AI speculation. For some, that may mean looking to the NYSE. For others, it could mean considering “old world” international markets, such as Europe.

As Raphael Thuin, France’s Tikehau Capital head, told Bloomberg,

“When you invest in Europe, you are diversifying away from the risk in tech,” As Raphael Thuin, France’s Tikehau Capital head, told Bloomberg. “The investment case for the ‘buy Europe’ trade is back.” He added that Tikehau has recently doubled down on its European exposure.

Earlier this month, strategists at Goldman Sachs, Barclays, HSBC Holdings and others also issued improved forecasts for the Stoxx Europe 600 Index, boosted by factors such as the US-Iran peace talks and high earnings expectations. Goldman Sachs has emphasized the European market’s comparatively low valuations, decent returns and broader base.

“Not only is the US market concentrated in terms of size of companies and market cap, but it’s also concentrated in terms of returns. Very few companies have driven the returns in the US.” Goldman Sachs Senior European Portfolio Strategist Sharon Bel said in a June 5 episode of the firm’s The Markets podcast. “In Europe, it’s been a bit broader.”

Though some are wary of Europe’s vulnerability to energy prices, surveys show fund managers are more hopeful about the index’s performance in the coming year versus the coming months, with banks, defense and cyclical sectors looking the safest.

Things to keep in mind

Overdiversifying is its own concern, as is overstrategizing or overtrading. Just because The Big Short’s Michael Burry shorted the AI rally for $1 billion doesn’t mean you should do the same.

But rebalancing when appropriate and reasonably reallocating or hedging to shift away from risk could help protect against AI-related losses, if investors are worried about them. That could include talking to a financial advisor about European markets.

Among all the artists Davis discovered and developed, however, no one was more commercially successful than Whitney Houston.

The singer, who went on to sell more than 220 million records worldwide, became one of the best-selling music artists of all time. Her success transformed not only her own career but also helped cement Davis’ reputation as one of the greatest talent scouts in entertainment history.

Davis’ willingness to take chances on unproven artists helped generate billions of dollars in album sales, touring revenue, publishing income, radio play, streaming and licensing deals — establishing a legacy that extended far beyond the recording studio.

Davis’ discovery that changed music history forever

Davis kicked off his legendary career as President of Columbia Records, where, between 1967 and 1973, he signed rock icons like Janis Joplin, Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel. From there, he founded Arista Records in 1974, leading the label for nearly three decades while launching imprint joint ventures, including LaFace Records with L.A. Reid and Babyface (featuring TLC and Usher) and Bad Boy Records with Sean Combs in 1994 (with the Notorious B.I.G.).

It was during that time that Davis encountered Houston. It was 1983, and she was only a teenager performing in a New York nightclub. Davis was immediately convinced that she’d possessed a rare combination of vocal strength, charisma and commercial appeal. At the time, however, Houston was virtually unknown — Davis saw something others didn’t yet.

After signing her on the spot to Arista Records, he carefully cultivated her career, ultimately curating a debut that would go on to become one of the most successful launches in music history.

Houston’s self-titled debut album, released two years later in February 1985, sold more than 25 million copies worldwide. It produced copious chart-topping hits including “You Give Good Love” and three consecutive top singles: the Grammy award-winning “Saving All My Love for You,” “How Will I Know” and “Greatest Love of All.” The album also became the biggest selling debut album by a solo artist to date.

And the momentum only grew from there.

Houston’s following albums continued to champion charts around the world, while her starring role in the 1992 film, The Bodyguard, introduced her to an even larger audience. The film’s 13-song soundtrack continues to hold the record for best-selling music from a film, having sold more than 45 million copies worldwide. Its success was largely propelled by Houston’s iconic rendition of Dolly Parton’s 1973 “I Will Always Love You.”

Throughout the course of her career, Houston raked in millions of the billions that Davis had generated over the course of his. At the height of it all, she had an estimated net worth of $250 million, making her one of the industry’s highest-earning artists.

The enduring legacy Davis leaves behind

Davis’ success with Houston illustrates a lesson that extends well beyond the music business: identifying talent early can create extraordinary value. Davis trusted his instinct, experience and understanding of what audiences wanted and, time and time again, it paid off. Houston became the clearest example of that — but she was far from the only or last example of it.

Davis was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2000 — the same year that he moved on from Arista to establish J Records, introducing Alicia Keys and signing Luther Vandross, before merging J into RCA Records in 2011 under Sony Music Entertainment. There he served as Chief Creative Officer, mentoring stars like Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood while overseeing a catalog of thousands of artists.

“To the world, our father was the iconic music legend whose vision, instincts and relentless pursuit of excellence shaped the soundtrack of countless lives,” the Davis family wrote in a Facebook post following his death. “He discovered, mentored and championed the greatest artists in modern music history, leaving an indelible mark on culture that will endure for generations.”

As tributes pour in following Davis’ death, his legacy is likely to be remembered not only for the million-dollar stars he brought to stages and sound systems worldwide, but also for the immense impact those artists had on shaping the industry at large.

As Marketwatch reports, the stock market’s reaction to World Cup results has been well documented over the years. Take the 2022 tournament, for example. During the elimination round, the global stock market fell by 4.6% while the S&P 500 dropped by 5.4%.

Historically, stock markets tend to perform poorly during the World Cup, particularly during the “knockout” round of the tournament. But there’s a reason why investors in particular may want to support their home countries this time around, even if they aren’t avid soccer fans.

When a World Cup country loses, its stock exchange goes down

According to a 2006 study published by SSRN — which focused on World Cup tournaments from 1973 to 2004 — a participating country’s stock market tends to produce a significant below-average return one day after its respective team loses in the tournament’s elimination stage.

Now, by that logic, this may lead you to believe that a country’s stock market would see gains after its team wins a World Cup elimination game.

“If that were the case there would be no net effect on the global stock market from this World Cup effect, since by definition there always is the same number of winning and losing teams,” Mark Hulbert reports for MarketWatch.

“But the researchers found no evidence of this second, positive effect. The implication is that, since there will always be a country whose team has lost, the global stock market should be a below-average performer throughout the World Cup.”

That result is reflected in another study, which discovered that during World Cup tournaments between 1950 and 2007, the U.S. stock market suffered an average loss of 2.6%.

The emotional affect

It may be hard to understand why a country’s stock market performance can be so heavily impacted by something as unrelated as the World Cup, but the explanation is quite simple.

As many studies have discovered, a person’s mood can have a big effect on how they process information and make decisions. People are more likely to take risks and explore various solutions when they’re in a positive mood, as a good mood tends to encourage creativity.

“When we feel good, we’re more likely to take risks, embrace new ideas and engage in creative problem-solving,” according to an article from the Mindspa Mental Health Centre. “On the other hand, negative moods tend to focus our attention, making us more analytical and detail-oriented. While this can be beneficial for thorough analysis, it may also limit creative thinking and lead to more cautious, risk-averse decisions.”

With that in mind, it’s highly possible for fans of a losing team to suddenly become more risk-averse, panic sell certain assets or even pull back on buying shares of stocks entirely. When this behavior is collective, it can have a massive impact on the domestic market as a whole.

While this isn’t necessarily the way experts tell you to handle your portfolio if you want to build lasting wealth, it’s a real phenomena. So, before you go and base your trading off a loss, it’s a good idea to remember your personal investing goals and retirement timeline before making any rash decisions.

But not every fan that purchased tickets to a World Cup match has been able to attend. Social media and a growing number of news reports are littered with complaints from fans who bought tickets only for their purchase to be cancelled at the last minute.

Many complaints are directed at StubHub, but other resale ticketing sites like VividSeats and SeatGeek have also felt the brunt of fan anger.

Bina Ramroop told the Associated Press she broke down in tears when she realized she and her grandson weren’t going to make it inside of Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta to watch Spain and Cape Verde’s opening group match. She purchased two tickets for $485 apiece, but the tickets were never transferred to her FIFA ticketing app by the seller.

Ramroop went back and forth for hours between StubHub customer service and FIFA representatives at the stadium and no one could figure out the root of the problem. Ultimately, she took a refund from StubHub and took her ball and went home, so to speak.

“I didn’t want a refund, I didn’t want my money back,” Ramroop told AP. “I wanted to go to the game.”

Unfortunately, Ramroop isn’t alone.

Rozina Taguchi told Business Insider she’s still haggling with StubHub over tickets the platform failed to deliver. Her TikTok about the incident drew plenty of attention online.

StubHub has offered Taguchi a 20% voucher on top of a full refund, and even asked whether there are other matches or events she’d be interested in attending. However, she’s holding out for financial compensation for lost work hours, travel time and emotional distress. Though, top-tier Japan tickets in the knockout stages would suffice.

Still, she and her family “don’t really trust StubHub to give us new tickets at this point,” she says.

Why tickets aren’t being transferred successfully

Incidents like these leave customers understandably frustrated. Some fans purchased tickets months in advance, so questions arise whether sellers ever had the tickets in the first place, or if they found more lucrative buyers with tickets skyrocketing as the tournament neared.

FIFA has urged fans to buy resale tickets through its own marketplace. Sellers there are guaranteed to already have the tickets in their possession, but the organization charges both the buyer and seller a 15% fee on every resold ticket. This means tickets could potentially be less expensive on third-party sites.

Buying on third-party marketplaces is also second nature to many. If you cannot get tickets on the official ticket marketplace, in this case FIFA, the first thing fans do is check third-party resale sites. In fact, if you Google “buy FIFA tickets” you’ll see sponsored results from third-party sites like StubHub above FIFA’s website in the search results.

Keep in mind that tickets at face value were especially hard to come by for this World Cup, as FIFA released tickets in stages and was even accused of trying to artificially inflate demand.

If you bought on resale marketplaces like StubHub, you relied on the honor system — that the seller will transfer your tickets ahead of the event. That’s because third-party platforms like StubHub, TickPick and VividSeats don’t actually have tickets. They simply connect buyers with sellers.

‘Ghost’ ticketing ran rampant

Sellers often list tickets on third-party sites before they actually have them. Scott Friedman, co-founder of Ticket Talk Network, told the AP this is done based on the hope that prices will fall closer to the event and sellers can buy tickets cheaper than what they sold for.

This didn’t happen for the World Cup, as the event has expectedly drawn significant attention from across the globe.

“This is not new at all,” said Friedman. “But it’s making global news because it’s the World Cup.”

Sellers then are forced to either honor their sales by buying expensive tickets or accept penalties from resale platforms after cancelling. For example, StubHub’s penalties are typically 200% of the ticket price.

StubHub told the AP that speculative or “ghost” ticket sales never happen, and that it requires sellers to prove that they have tickets before they list them on the marketplace — though reporting by The Athletic says otherwise. It’s also common for third-party sites to give sellers up to the day of the event to transfer the tickets over.

For its part, StubHub has blamed FIFA for the fans’ ticket problems. It points to the fact FIFA’s new ticketing app was launched weeks before the tournament began, which has in turn suffered from bugs that prevent the smooth transfer of tickets.

FIFA’s strict last-minute rules have also made it difficult for StubHub to process and fulfill orders. Furthermore, FIFA terms mandate that tickets have to be transferred through the FIFA app and cannot live on other platforms.

"The transfer issues fans have experienced at this World Cup stem from performance problems with the event organizer's own ticketing infrastructure and new app, which has created challenges across all resale platforms,” StubHub told Moneywise.

“StubHub prohibits speculative listing and requires sellers to only list tickets they own. When sellers fail to deliver, our FanProtect Guarantee ensures buyers receive a comparable replacement ticket or a full refund. Getting fans to their matches remains our top priority. We now have a dedicated World Cup Customer Care team ready to troubleshoot with any affected fans."

Perhaps a sign of both the popularity of the World Cup and the hardships fans have faced: if you call StubHub’s customer service number, as this writer did, and say you’re a purchaser, it immediately prompts you to press one if you’re reaching out about World Cup tickets. You then have to press one again if you are calling about a match happening on the day of your call.

The two goals came against Austria in Argentina’s second Group J group match held in Dallas-Fortworth, Texas.

Messi now has five goals in this year’s World Cup. He scored a hat-trick against Algeria on June 16 to tie former German international and fellow World Cup winner Miroslav Klose.

Messi and Argentina are one of the hottest attractions at this year’s tournament — alongside Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo and France’s Kylian Mbappe — with fans traveling far and wide and paying top dollar to watch them.

Fans have no problem paying to see Messi

The World Cup has drawn significant criticism from fans, public officials, and journalists for the cost of attending a match. However, people have shown they’re willing to pay. Fans are often asked outside of stadiums on social media how much they’ve paid for tickets. It’s common to pay more than $1,000 to watch Argentina. One fan paid $10,000.

Specifically for Argentina’s match against Austria on Monday, ticket prices on the secondary market went from high to another level altogether.

The morning of the game, StubHub said it cost more than $2,000 for a seat in the last rows of the upper deck of Dallas Stadium, according to Dallas Morning News. Data from TicketData.com showed that Argentina vs. Austria prices were up 27% over last week and 88% since the start of the tournament.

Seeing Messi play for Argentina is one thing. But fans had an even larger appetite to watch him play when he was one goal away from setting the record. Safe to say ticket prices will only go up as Argentina progresses in the tournament and attempts to become the first team since Brazil in 1962 to repeat as champions.

Messi plays for Inter Miami at the club level, where it’s also common during the MLS season for his visit to U.S. and Canadian cities to drive up ticket prices for locals compared to other regular season matches.

Messi’s career earnings

Messi has estimated career earnings of $1.8 billion from a combination of soccer contracts, memorabilia, and brand partnerships, such as those with Adidas and Pepsi. His career haul is only behind Cristinao Ronaldo and Tiger Woods.

According to Forbes, his net worth is estimated at $1.1 billion. The outlet accounted for cash accumulation and appreciation throughout his career, in addition to an opportunity to acquire a stake in Inter Miami after he retires, in its valuation.

Messi is one of four athletes to ever join the billionaire’s club while still active, alongside Woods, Ronaldo, and LeBron James.

Argentina’s next game in the World Cup is this Saturday against Jordan. The game will start at 10 p.m. ET.

The twist, as I teased in the headline, is that Evans leaving his signature black-curtain studio for bigger venues, which will also come with bigger budgets and more spectacle. The pilot episode takes place at a college baseball stadium, with Will Ferrell, Fortune Feimster and Jimmy Tatro chewing through the wings to promote their Netflix golf comedy "The Hawk." Evans and the team at First We Feast will keep releasing weekly episodes of the flagship series on YouTube, and the original Hot Ones format — which BuzzFeed sold for $82.5 million in late 2024 to a group including Evans and Soros Fund Management — stays put.

The deal is the latest skirmish in Netflix's escalating fight with YouTube, which has been the most-watched distributor on U.S. television screens for nearly a year running, per Nielsen, with Netflix the largest subscription streamer behind it. To close the gap, Netflix has been raiding YouTube's talent pool — signing creators like Miss Rachel and Mark Rober and licensing more than 30 video podcasts, including "The Bill Simmons Podcast" and "The Breakfast Club."

With "Extra Heat," Netflix gets one of the biggest names in digital interviews without pulling him off the platform that made him — and that’s the appeal to Evans. "They're the two biggest streamers by far," he told The New York Times, regarding Netflix and YouTube. "It's an amazing thing to be in both lanes."

According to documents obtained by the New York Times, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is now planning on offloading at least seven of the 11 warehouses it purchased nationwide for conversion into immigration detention centers. The facilities, which cost more than $700 million, will either be given to other federal agencies or will be sold off.

The warehouses were purchased during former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s time in office. The new secretary, Markwayne Mullin, has said he wants the agency to be more private about its enforcement and wants deportations to happen more quickly.

“[They] should be removed at lightning speed, not housed on American soil at the taxpayer’s expense,” the Homeland Security Department said in a statement to the New York Times. “D.H.S. is moving swiftly to utilize EXISTING detention space with our state and county partners.”

The move represents a significant shift from the agency’s $38.3 billion ICE Detention Reengineering Initiative, which was designed to create a nationwide network of government-owned detention facilities capable of holding nearly 100,000 immigrants awaiting deportation. The project was meant to not only increase capacity, but reduce the government’s reliance on jails and private contractors.

The expansion effort comes amid years of scrutiny over conditions inside immigration detention facilities. Investigations, lawsuits and detainee accounts have alleged problems ranging from overcrowding and poor sanitation to inadequate medical care and unsafe living conditions.

Now, with the decision to sell the warehouses, the future of the initiative and its massive budget is unclear.

At this stage, it appears the agency will be moving forward with warehouses purchased in San Antonio and Socorro, Texas; Surprise, Ariz.; and Hagerstown, Md.

The Maryland project is already facing legal hurdles. A judge recently barred ICE from moving forward with plans for the roughly $100 million facility until environmental testing is completed. Similar rulings were issued for warehouse projects in New Jersey and Michigan, both of which ICE now reportedly plans to offload.

ICE’s spending spree

The 11 facilities were purchased following a massive funding increase for immigration enforcement included in President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill. The legislation included $170 billion in additional funding for immigration and border related activities, including $30 billion to ICE for detainment and $45 billion to build new detention facilities.

The injection of taxpayer money made ICE one of most expensive police forces in the world and the highest-funded U.S. law enforcement agency.

During Noem’s tenure, the DHS launched an aggressive spending campaign that included a $220 million ad and recruitment plan. She also faced criticism over allegations the department spent $172 million in taxpayer funds on the use of two luxury jets.

Trump fired Noem in March amid growing scrutiny of her spending and management practices. The DHS has reportedly launched a sprawling investigation into how contracts were handled during her time in office.

The future of the facilities

What will happen with the four remaining warehouse projects remains unclear.

The move to sell seven locations comes after months of fierce debate over the warehouse strategy. Supporters argued the facilities would help accelerate Trump’s mass deportation agenda by dramatically increasing the number of immigrants ICE could detain while awaiting removal proceedings.

Critics, including local residents and elected officials in communities where the warehouses were purchased, have voiced concern over the toll facilities will have on local economies and resources. Environmental and safety concerns also fueled legal challenges, with opponents questioning whether industrial warehouse buildings could be safely converted into large-scale detention centers.

DHS has argued that utilizing existing detention space through partnerships with state and local governments will be more cost-effective than building an entirely new network of federally owned facilities.

The agency, however, has not disclosed how much taxpayer money it expects to recover through the sale or transfer of the properties, or what the retreat from the warehouse strategy means for the long-term future of its $38.3 billion detention reengineering plan.

Retirement is also a major milestone. Even people who have planned carefully, prepared diligently and appear ready on paper can feel nervous about taking the leap.

Take Angela and Matt, for example. The couple set a goal of retiring early and even created countdown timers on their phones to track the days and hours until retirement. Angela plans to retire at 59 and Matt at 60.

They maintain a spreadsheet tracking their investments, and by every measure, it shows they’ll definitely be ready when they reach those milestone ages. That day is about a year away. Still, they’re nervous about whether they’ll really be prepared when the big moment comes.

So, how can Angela and Matt determine whether they’re ready to hand in their notice when the countdown reaches zero?

Set a clear goal early and keep tabs on it

If early retirement is on your radar, it’s not something you can start planning for just a year or two before your target date.

“You should start looking at your plan at least five to 10 years prior to your expected retirement age,” Domenick D’Andrea, founder of DanDarah Wealth Management, told Moneywise.

D’Andrea recommended reviewing your proposed retirement budget, debt obligations, any major expenses you expect during retirement and investment strategies that align with your risk tolerance.

Based on your expected spending and anticipated investment returns, you can determine how large your nest egg needs to be. You’ll also need to factor in expenses such as health insurance premiums, since you won’t qualify for Medicare until age 65, as well as the possibility that you may not claim Social Security right away and may have to live on savings alone.

Angela and Matt’s countdown timers are a good approach because they help keep the couple on track. They know exactly how much time they have left to hit their savings goal, which helps keep them motivated.

Make sure your portfolio will last

One reason Angela and Matt are hesitant to pull the trigger is that they’re worried that what works on paper may not work in real life. Sequence of returns risk is a big reason why.

Sequence of returns risk refers to the danger that poor investment performance early in retirement can have an outsized impact when you’re drawing income from your portfolio.

For example, if stock prices are down, you’ll need to sell more shares to generate the same amount of income. That reduces your holdings more quickly and makes it harder to benefit from future market gains. Over time, this can significantly increase the risk of running out of money.

There are approaches to limit this risk. D’Andrea recommends the bucket strategy.

“I would build a bucket strategy with three goals in mind – guaranteed income, capital preservation, and growth,” he said. “There’s peace of mind knowing that you have enough income to cover your day-to-day expenses with guaranteed sources, a bucket to comfortably grow assets, and a long-term growth bucket to continue to build.”

Consider getting professional help

You may also feel more confident about retiring if a professional confirms you’re ready.

“Retirement is not only a financial decision, but also an emotional one,” D’Andrea said. “I would suggest that you speak with a financial professional with a proper planning process who will assess your overall situation.”

If a spreadsheet showing you have enough money isn’t enough to give you confidence, an advisor who can evaluate the bigger picture may provide the reassurance you need.

If your advisor helps you create a clear plan to generate income, preserve your wealth and stay within your budget, you can retire with confidence. If not, you’ll know where you stand and can adjust accordingly.

“If the numbers don’t work, it may be time to review all options and see if saving more and working a few more years might be a better choice,” D’Andrea said.

Since Angela and Matt are ready to go, taking these steps should enable them to retire on their own schedule and keep those countdown timers running.

With the company’s purchase of The Container Store earlier this year, Bed Bath & Beyond is returning to the physical world, with 22 locations opening — and more planned beyond that.

And if you’ve held onto those oversized coupons for all of these years, the company says it will be happy to honor the discount.

In fact, it’s encouraging people to bring them in, having launched a contest to find the oldest remaining coupon. Whoever brings that into their nearest store by July 13 could win the grand prize: A $100,000 home renovation. Other prizes include $500 and $100 gift cards. There may, however, be limitations for coupon dates once the sweepstakes are over. (The company’s website says stores will only accept expired coupons that were sent on or after August 1, 2023. Moneywise has reached out to Bed Bath & Beyond for comment to confirm.)

“For decades, our customers treated these coupons like treasure,” said Amy Sullivan, president of Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. in a statement. “They tucked them into purses, filing cabinets, cookbooks and memory boxes because they believed they would be valuable someday. We think they were right.”

Continuing the legacy

If you haven’t been hoarding the long-expired coupons, you’re not out of luck. At the opening of the Nashville location, employees handed out the iconic blue and white coupons to shoppers, some of whom got so excited, they took pictures with them.

And if you prefer online shopping, the company’s website has long offered a digital coupon which cuts the price of many single items by 20%. While the online-only version of the store didn’t accept paper coupons, Moneywise has reached out to clarify whether that will remain the same going forward.

The first wave of new co-branded Bed Bath & Beyond and The Container Store locations are now open. They’re located in:

• Charlotte, NC
• Nashville, TN
• Austin, TX
• Westbury, NY
• Chestnut Hill, MA
• Columbus, OH
• Bellevue, WA
• Minneapolis, MN
• Park Meadows (Lone Tree), CO
• Salt Lake City, UT
• Miami, FL
• 6th Avenue (New York), NY
• Northbrook, IL
• Buckhead (Atlanta), GA
• South Coast (Costa Mesa), CA
• Houston, TX
• Oak Brook, IL
• Century City (Los Angeles), CA
• Natick, MA
• Portland (Tigard), OR
• Paramus, NJ
• Chicago, IL

A hectic history

When Bed Bath & Beyond announced it was filing for bankruptcy in 2023, it caught shoppers and some investors off guard. It came, however, after leadership shakeups, store closures and the shocking death of a top executive.

The core problems, though, were tied to the company missing out on the wave of shoppers its competitors saw during the pandemic. That came as it was in the midst of a failed overhaul, where it was planning to rely more on private brands to build customer loyalty. Its website was also not as robust or user-friendly as others. Consumers bypassed its offerings, opting for convenience and familiar names.

Shares had soared in July of 2022 when a filing revealed activist investor Ryan Cohen’s RC Ventures fund was maintaining its holding in the company. Cohen suddenly reversed course the following month, though, dumping his more than 9.4 million shares. That caused the stock to plunge — and led to calls for a SEC investigation into Cohen, though no public action was taken.

Furniture and home furnishings store, Overstock.com ultimately won an auction to buy the struggling retailer’s intellectual property and digital assets and later changed its name to Bed Bath & Beyond.

The “largest yet” record is especially fitting, since Spain recently celebrated the long-awaited completion of the Tower of Jesus, bringing the basilica up to 565 feet tall. The tower has officially made renowned Catalan architect Antoni Gaudí’s 1882 masterpiece the tallest church in the world — 100 years after his passing in 1926.

For more than 140 years, Barcelona’s basilica has been under construction. But funding challenges and political turmoil — including the Spanish Civil War which wrecked many of the models — have slowed progress. While the remainder of the church is still under construction — including decorative elements and a stairwell that would lead to the Glory facade, serving as the principal entrance — the Tower of Jesus marked a major milestone.

Pope Leo XIV recently visited Barcelona to bless the basilica after the tower was erected and commemorate the progress in the century since Gaudí’s death. And now, Lego’s miniature model aims to capture the intricate details and soaring design that have made the church famous in both Barcelona and around the world.

“Designed to reflect both the scale and spirit of Gaudí’s vision, the set offers builders an immersive way to explore the architecture of one of the most complex and celebrated buildings ever conceived,” Lego wrote in a press release.

A record–breaking build

For years, Lego fans have debated which mega-set reigns supreme. The new Sagrada Família officially claims the title by surpassing previous record holders, including the Lego Art 31203 World Map set, which contained 11,695 pieces, followed by the Lego Icons Eiffel tower (10,001 pieces), Lego Icons Titanic (9,090 pieces) and Lego Colosseum (9,036 pieces).

At 12,060 elements, the basilica replica now sits at the top of the company’s all-time rankings.

The finished model measures more than 24 inches tall, 18.5 inches wide and 15 inches deep, making it a centerpiece display item rather than a casual weekend project. Lego recommends that set for builders ages 18 and older, reflecting both its complexity and collector-focused design.

While many Lego Architecture sets focus primarily on exterior details, the Sagrada Família model also creates one of the church’s most celebrated features: its colorful stained-glass windows. Lego designers incorporated translucent elements throughout the interior to mimic the vibrant light effects that flood the real basilica when sunlight shines through its windows.

“We felt an immense responsibility to do justice to the Sagrada Família through this design,” Rok Žgalin Kobe, a Lego Architecture designer, said in the press release. “Our goal was to honor Gaudí’s vision with the utmost respect, capturing the rhythm of the basilica’s construction, its extraordinary complexity and ambition, and translating that into an immersive building experience.”

One of the most impressive aspects of the set is the construction sequence itself. Builders assemble the model in a way that mirrors the actual development of the basilica, beginning with the foundational Apse and Crypt before progressing through the Nativity and Passion facades. The build concludes with the towering spires, the Eastern Sacristy and the Glory facade, echoing the evolution of the real-world landmark.

Bringing Gaudí’s vision to life

The release celebrates the legacy of Gaudí during the centennial year of his death. Lego says the set was designed as a tribute to the architect’s enduring influence and to honor the continuing story of a building that has become synonymous with the city of Barcelona itself.

“This is not only the largest Lego set ever, but a model of one of the most ambitious architectural works in the world,” Kobe stated. “Balancing scale and precision, while remaining faithful to a living monument that has been evolving for more than a century, was a unique design challenge — and one we’re incredibly proud of.”

Collectors eager to take on the challenge of now putting the 12,060 pieces altogether can already place pre-orders, with the set scheduled for global release on November 1. At $799.99, it’s far from an impulsive purchase, but for architecture aficionados, the chance to own a brick-built model of one of the world’s most famous places may prove irresistible.

After all, the real Sagrada Família has taken more than a century to build — and likely won’t be completed until the early 2030s — but collectors can now finish their own in much faster time.

That sticker tells its own story when you line it up against the competition. A Nintendo Switch 2 runs about $450. A standard PlayStation 5 and an Xbox Series X each sit around $650 after recent increases. Even Sony's flagship PS5 Pro, at roughly $900, comes in under Valve's entry model. The Steam Machine isn't merely expensive for a console. It's the priciest mainstream living-room box on the market, and Valve waited seven months from its November 2025 reveal to say so.

A memory shortage is quietly repricing your electronics

When Valve unveiled the Steam Machine last November, it expected to share pricing within weeks. Then one critical component went vertical.

"Our original goal for the price of Steam Machine is no longer viable," the company wrote, pointing to a global shortage of memory and storage chips that it said is affecting "hardware products everywhere."

So, here’s what’s going on, assuming you’re not well immersed in the world of consumer electronics. There’s this thing called DRAM, which is basically the working memory inside nearly every phone, laptop, and console. DRAM has become scarce and expensive because all the big companies working on AI are buying it in ridiculous volumes. Chipmakers like Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron have redirected production toward high-bandwidth memory, the premium stuff that feeds AI data centers, and away from the commodity chips that go into consumer electronics like your laptop and gaming console. AI alone is on track to consume roughly a fifth of global DRAM output this year, according to industry researcher TrendForce. Contract prices jumped about 90% in the first quarter of 2026 and are forecast to climb another 60% in the second.

Gaming hardware is taking the hit across the board this year. Sony has raised PS5 prices twice in under a year, explicitly citing memory costs. Microsoft pushed the Xbox Series X to $650. Valve itself bumped the Steam Deck by nearly half. To be clear, this goes against a long-standing pattern where console prices have traditionally fallen as a generation matures, not gone up.

Why the warning extends beyond gaming

Experts expect the RAM shortage to keep pressing on phones, PCs, and storage drives well into next year, with meaningful new factory capacity unlikely before late 2027. Smartphone makers have already nudged flagship prices up, and PC manufacturers have watched memory and storage swell into a far larger share of what it costs to build a machine. The chips that train chatbots and the chips that run your console come off the same production lines, and right now the data centers are winning the bidding war. Even Apple isn’t immune; outgoing CEO Tim Cook said the company has to raise prices on its products as a response to the unfortunate trend.

For the Steam Machine, Valve said some parts it wanted were "altogether unavailable to purchase at any price," capping how many machines it can build at launch. To keep bots out, it's using a one-time randomized reservation system rather than first-come, first-served. Most buyers who sign up now likely won't see a unit until 2027.

"The prices we're sharing today reflect the state of the world for manufacturing," the company said.

Reservations open immediately and close June 25. The first units are set to ship June 30.

The listing bars Chinese exporters from shipping "dual-use" goods — products with both civilian and military applications — to the named firms, and prohibits anyone in any country from passing Chinese-origin dual-use items along to them. That's a real threat in a market China owns: it processes roughly 90% of the world's rare earths and makes about 93% of the magnets built from them — the small but powerful components inside everything from EV motors to F-35 fighter jets.

Here's the twist: the blow may land softer than it looks. MP Materials, which got a $500 million commitment from Apple last year and $400 million in backing from the Pentagon to become its largest shareholder, stopped shipping concentrate to China back in April 2025. Bloomberg described Monday's curbs as largely symbolic, and shares of both companies barely budged. Still, China is preparing even tighter global export rules for November, a reminder that the leverage runs deep. For investors weighing the sector, our guide to rare earth stocks breaks down the major players.

MP, for its part, has long said it saw this coming. "We have been preparing for this moment since day one," the company wrote when it cut off China last spring.

And he’s got a plan to do it.

On June 18, Sanders introduced his American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act — a law that the Vermont senator’s office says would “give the public a direct ownership stake in the largest AI companies in America” via a one-time 50% tax on AI company stock. They estimate that the tax would raise about $7 trillion, a portion of which could be used for the $1,000 payments.

“We’ve got to make sure that AI works for everybody and the common good, not just to make the richest people in the world even richer and more powerful,” Sanders told NPR, adding his concerns about AI’s impact on everything from widespread job losses to decimated privacy rights and the negative impact on the mental health of children.

Moneywise reached out to several AI companies including OpenAI, Google and Meta for comment but didn’t hear back by press time.

Adding even more intrigue to the legislation, however, is the fact that recent comments from President Trump suggest that, while he and Sanders stand miles apart on political ideology, the White House could perhaps get on board with this plan.

How Sanders’ plan works, and why Trump could go for it

Sanders’ plan would levy the 50% tax on the stock of AI companies whose profits exceed $200 million in a year, depositing it into a sovereign fund managed by an Independent Commission for Democratic AI.

Seven Senate-approved and POTUS-appointed commissioners, each with an assigned area of expertise — from labor interests to national security and privacy, AI systems and management of wealth funds — would oversee the commission.

Sanders’ legislation would also require applicable companies to split their AI business from their non-AI businesses, so that the public can take part ownership of the AI side.

The Associated Press reported that Sanders said that taxpayers are “not going to lose any money,” under this deal, “even if there is a bust in the bubble.”

Meanwhile, some believe that this legislation is something that President Trump could get on board with.

In fact, at the beginning of June Trump told reporters that “there’s something very interesting” about the idea of giving taxpayers a stake in AI companies, “where it almost becomes a partnership with the American public. We’ll look into that.”

Trump also said he would meet with “the top 12 or 15 executives very ​shortly” to discuss “giving back” to the public, adding “if we do that, the public will become very rich, the people in our country, because that’s the kind of money we’re talking about.”

It’s unclear, however, what “giving back” would entail and if, or when, that meeting will take place.

Moneywise reached out to both Sen. Sanders and the White House for a comment on a potential partnership, but didn’t hear back by deadline.

The AP notes, however, that one of the nation’s leading AI companies, OpenAI, also suggested creating a “public wealth fund that provides every citizen — including those not invested in financial markets — with a stake in AI-driven economic growth,” while the CEO of Anthropic suggested a “universal basic income could be financed through taxes on relevant companies.”

And last year, the Trump administration bought a 10% stake in Intel, which Bernie Sanders supported.

“If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government,” Sanders said at the time, “the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment.”

What could get in the way of a deal

Sen. Sanders himself seems to have poured cold water on the idea of a partnership with Trump on the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act.

He told NPR that he hasn’t spoken to Trump about it and, when asked if the president could be a potential ally on the deal, responded, “I doubt it very much.”

In an interview with the AP he said that “I think people like (OpenAI CEO) Sam Altman and Trump (who) may be sympathetic to this are saying: ‘Okay, look, we’re making zillions of dollars so we’re going to be nice guys and maybe we’ll buy off the public. We will give 5% of our profits back into the government.’”

He added: “That’s not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about are two very different things.”

Without Trump’s support, Sanders’ proposed bill is unlikely to gain traction in a Republican Congress.

And even if it did pass, $1,000 a year, while significant, may not provide Americans much buffer against the rising costs associated with AI.

With AI-spiked inflation, predictions of energy rates rising anywhere from 29-57% by 2030 as a result of data center usage and surveillance pricing potentially driving up the cost of anything from groceries to flights, $1,000 may barely cover the added costs AI could create.

Greenspan, who died Monday at his Washington home at age 100, moved fast after the stocks crashed. Before markets opened the next morning, the Fed issued a single sentence pledging to keep the financial system liquid, then flooded it with cash and pushed its benchmark interest rate down from about 7.3% to 6.5% over the following months. The spiral stopped. Within a couple of years, the crash looked on a long-term chart like little more than a blip.

The “Greenspan put”

Greenspan’s swift rescue of the markets earned him early credibility and set the standard for how he handled turmoil for the rest of his tenure. When Wall Street wobbled in 1998, and again after the dot-com bubble burst, investors came to expect the same move: the Fed riding in to cushion the fall.

Traders gave the pattern a name, the "Greenspan put," borrowing from the options contract that limits an investor's losses. The assumption that the central bank will backstop markets in a crisis still shapes how Wall Street takes risks today.

Critics would later argue that the very same instinct, rushing to soften every downturn with cheap money, encouraged the reckless betting that helped inflate the 2008 housing bubble. But in October 1987, praise for the rookie chairman was nearly unanimous.

Greenspan’s legacy

Across five terms under four presidents, the second-longest tenure in Fed history, Greenspan presided over the longest economic expansion the country had ever seen, from 1991 to 2001, and earned the nickname "the Maestro." President George W. Bush awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2005, and Queen Elizabeth II granted him an honorary knighthood in 2002 for his contribution to global economic stability.

After stepping down in 2006, Greenspan kept writing and consulting, publishing the best-selling memoir The Age of Turbulence.

Greenspan is survived by his wife of 29 years, his only immediate family.

The company recently unveiled Midjourney Medical — a new division centered on a full-body scanner that uses a shallow pool of water and sonic-wave technology to map the human body in about a minute.

Patients are lowered into the pool and a ring of microscopic squares generates and records ultrasonic waves. That data is then sent to supercomputer clusters and processed into body images, MarketWatch reports.

Founder David Holz’s ambitions are enormous: a fleet of 50,000 scanners running one billion scans per month by 2031, beginning with a spa location in San Francisco by the end of 2027.

Why MRI access is a real problem

The pitch lands against a backdrop of ongoing frustration. MRIs are among the most diagnostically useful tools in medicine, but they are expensive, slow and in short supply.

Without insurance, an MRI can cost anywhere from $400 to $12,000 depending on things like the body part, scan type and location, with hospital-based scans averaging $2,250 compared to roughly $650 at outpatient centers, according to New Choice Health. Even insured patients routinely face hundreds of dollars in out-of-pocket costs after deductibles and coinsurance.

Access is the other half of the problem. According to Tesla MR Institute analysis, approximately 17.4% of MRI technologist positions across the U.S. are currently unfilled — roughly 7,200 open positions — with vacancy rates at or near all-time highs.

Studies in the Journal of the American College of Radiology project the radiologist shortage will persist through 2055 without intervention.

And rural communities are especially exposed. According to the American Hospital Association (AHA), a large portion of patients served by rural critical access hospitals experience significant transportation barriers when traveling for medical imaging — a challenge it noted at a 25-bed rural Idaho hospital that had been relying on a mobile rented MRI trailer precisely because patients couldn’t easily reach imaging facilities elsewhere.

What the technology actually does

The underlying hardware is supplied by medical-device company Butterfly Network, which confirmed that each Midjourney scanner prototype embeds 40 of its proprietary Ultrasound-on-Chip imaging modules, MarketWatch notes.

The software layer relies on full-waveform inversion — a technique widely developed by the petroleum industry to locate underground gas and oil reserves — which converts raw acoustic wave data into three-dimensional images.

A 2020 peer-reviewed study demonstrated that full-waveform inversion can produce detailed brain images from ultrasound data, validating the core scientific premise. Until recently, the technique was considered commercially impractical because of the enormous computing power it required — a barrier now falling rapidly as AI supercomputer infrastructure expands.

What experts are saying and why the caveats matter

The response from medical professionals has been measured.

Eric Topol, a cardiologist and director with Scripps Research Translational Institute, told MarketWatch that extending ultrasound technology in this direction is “a good idea” — but said he remains “somewhat skeptical.”

His key reservation: ultrasound cannot penetrate dense bone structures to image brain tissue the way an MRI can, which means describing Midjourney’s scanner as a “full-body” alternative to MRI is misleading. Topol believes Midjourney’s scanner is more accurately compared to a DEXA scan — a tool used to assess body composition, bone density and muscle mass.

Nisha Mehta, a radiologist and founder of the Physician Side Gigs community, was cautiously optimistic in a LinkedIn post, but drew a clear line: “I’m not an advocate for deploying party tricks at a spa and using it to guide medical advice or care.”

She added that if the technology can eventually address MRI’s well-documented barriers — cost, claustrophobia, long appointment times and access gaps — “the potential for impact is not insignificant when in the hands of people who understand the science and are trained to interpret images.”

That qualifier is significant. The Midjourney scanner is currently not FDA-approved for medical diagnoses. The company intends to launch it initially for body-composition mapping — closer to the direct-to-consumer wellness market than clinical medicine — while it pursues ongoing FDA discussions.

The financial picture for consumers

For the average American, the key question here is whether any of this eventually translates into cheaper, faster imaging outside a hospital setting.

The direct-to-consumer wellness scanning market has already demonstrated demand. DEXA scans, which Topol sees as the Midjourney device’s closest competitor, are a fraction of traditional MRI pricing, at around $75 to $200 per session in the U.S.

If Midjourney’s body-composition scans arrive at competitive price points and prove accessible outside major cities, they could meaningfully expand who gets regular imaging, even if they never become the MRI replacement Holz envisions.

Whether the science gets there is a question the FDA and the peer-review process will ultimately answer.

As it turns out, this isn’t a rare issue. Nearly one-third of middle-aged Americans have a hard time with everyday health tasks, including figuring out medical instructions and taking medications the right way.

Even a fairly minor medication error can add up financially. A follow-up appointment, a new prescription to correct side effects or an avoidable trip to urgent care can easily turn into hundreds of dollars in unexpected healthcare costs, especially without full coverage.

A recent study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine looked at how well patients actually understand and use the health information they’re given. Researchers found that even basic instructions can be harder to follow than expected, especially when people are under pressure, distracted or trying to remember too much at once.

When a prescription label doesn’t tell the whole story

The study took a closer look at something that sounds simple on paper — whether people can actually understand and use medical instructions once they leave the doctor’s office.

Researchers followed 942 primary care patients, with an average age of 52, and put them through a series of real-world tasks. Instead of just asking questions, they were asked to work through scenarios that felt a lot like an actual doctor’s appointment: a new diagnosis, a short recall test and a mock prescription bottle exercise to see how well they could interpret dosing instructions and labels.

What stood out wasn’t just that people got things wrong — it was how quickly the details slipped from their minds. Within about 10 minutes, many participants were already struggling to accurately remember or apply what they had just been told. And that gap, between hearing instructions in a clinic and actually carrying them out correctly at home, is where a lot of problems tend to start.

As Abigail Vogeley, a research fellow and doctoral student at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and coauthor of the study, told CNN: “They’re not alone in being confused by the healthcare system and by medications. It’s something that us, as the healthcare system, need to improve and help people with rather than just saying, ‘OK, good luck.’”

The broader takeaway fits with what a lot of research in health literacy has been pointing to for years — that being able to understand medical information isn’t a “nice-to-have,” it directly affects outcomes. People with lower health literacy are more likely to end up back in hospital, visit the emergency room or run into higher overall healthcare costs.

There’s also a quieter financial side to all of this. When instructions aren’t clear, the costs don’t always show up right away — but they tend to surface later through wasted prescriptions, repeat treatments or complications that need extra care. And even in fairly routine situations, those add-ons can get expensive fast.

The ripple effects can also be surprisingly practical. A small misunderstanding — taking something at the wrong time, doubling up on a dose by accident or confusing two similar prescriptions — can lead to side effects or make the medication less effective. Sometimes it even throws off a whole daily routine, with people unintentionally spreading doses through the night or overcomplicating what should have been a simple schedule.

What you can do when medication instructions feel overwhelming

When medication instructions start to feel like a lot, it usually helps to try and get clarity right then and there.

A lot of people don’t ask the obvious questions in the moment, but that’s often what can clear things up. Something as simple as, “So how do I actually take this on a normal day?” or “What do people usually get wrong about this one?” can get you more useful info than what’s printed on the label.

And pharmacists are worth leaning on. They see the same prescriptions come through over and over, and they’re usually quick to flag anything that might be confusing or easy to misread once you’re on your own.

Outside of appointments, keeping a running list of everything you’re taking — like prescriptions, vitamins or the occasional over-the-counter stuff — saves you from relying on memory when things are rushed or scattered.

If you’re at the pharmacy picking up something new, it can also help to take a quick photo of the label and instructions before you leave, just so you have something to refer back to later if it doesn’t quite stick.

If you’ve got more than one medication, simple tools help more than you’d think — like pill organizers and pharmacy blister packs, for example. It’s less about being “organized” and more about not having to re-check everything 10 times a day.

If the dosing schedule feels even slightly complicated, asking the pharmacist for a plain-language version of the instructions (separate from the standard label) can make it much easier to follow day-to-day.

Research published in the National Library of Medicine has also pointed to the “teach-back” method — basically just repeating the instructions in your own words before you leave the appointment. It sounds almost too simple, but it catches misunderstandings pretty quickly.

It also helps to anchor medication times to things you already do every day — like breakfast, dinner or brushing your teeth — instead of trying to remember exact clock times.

And then there are the smaller fixes people end up relying on. Think: phone reminders, asking for larger-print labels if things are hard to read or just going back to the pharmacy for a quick check if something doesn’t sit right. The goal isn’t to remember every detail perfectly — it’s to make sure nothing important gets lost between the doctor’s office and your kitchen counter.

Reddit user ericwuxp stated in a June 19 post that in November 2022, he flew to Qatar for the World Cup and accidentally left his Sony WH-1000XM4 headphones on the plane. “I filed a lost and found report with Qatar Air, but communication completely dropped off by January 2023,” he said. “I gave up, bought a replacement pair, and moved on with my life.”

​Fast forward nearly four years, and with flights grounded due to the U.S.-Iran war, airline staff finally found the time to tackle the years-old lost-and-found backlog. ​“Out of nowhere, I got an email saying they still had them in a Doha storage facility!” ericwuxp noted in the Reddit post. “Because of the airspace lockdown, they couldn’t fly them out immediately, but promised to put them on the earliest flight possible to LAX once things reopened.”

​Last week, right in the middle of the 2026 World Cup, he got a call from the Qatar Airways team at LAX.

“My headphones had landed. I went to the Tom Bradley International Terminal check-in counter, and they handed them right over,” he said, offering an email from Qatar Air to support the story. “The battery was completely dead, but after a quick charge, they powered up and worked flawlessly. Apparently, if you lose something on a flight, you just have to wait exactly one full World Cup cycle to get it back!”

Moneywise has reached out to Qatar Airways to confirm the story.

According to air travel industry tech consortium SITA, about six of every 1,000 pieces of luggage are mishandled by airlines, and 36.5 million bags were lost in 2024. Although the proportion of mishandled items is fairly steady, the number of bags lost increases by millions each year as air travel grows.

Airlines spend approximately $2 billion annually managing delayed or lost items, SendMyBag.com estimates. “For passengers, the costs are personal and often unrecoverable,” the company noted in a statement.

Those numbers are likely incomplete, as SendMyBag noted that 34% of airports don’t share luggage-delivery data with airlines, and 42% of airlines don’t share luggage data with airports.

Tracking the journey of lost luggage is up to the airline

Often it’s not the airport to blame when luggage and valuables are misplaced.

While American Airlines and United Airlines have higher luggage mishandling rates, according to SendMyBag, some of those numbers result from “operational challenges at their hub airports, where congestion and quick connections can lead to mishaps.”

“More bags are getting delayed, misplaced, misdirected, or stolen as a result of the high volumes of air travel,” the company noted.

For a variety of reasons, including staffing, logistics, and in the case of Qatar Airways, being in a war zone, airlines may take a while to get back to you on a lost luggage issue.

“They found it in December 2022,” the user noted. “I provided my seat and flight number so that wasn’t so hard. However, they stopped responding to my email afterward until this March (2026). I guess the bag [the airline kept it in] was clearly labeled with my information after all these years.”

Typically, airlines track bags using barcodes or RFID tags, and if a bag is missing, it is sent to a central processing area where handlers try to locate its owner, according to SendMyBag.

Occasionally, the bag may also wind up at a regional or national lost luggage center, where unclaimed bags are listed for further investigation. That tracking issue alone can take weeks to resolve, so travelers should be persistent and, if needed, provide a more detailed review of lost items, which can help reduce wait times.

Valuable items, such as electronics, may be treated differently from non-valuable items.

“Whether your lost item is returned to you ultimately depends upon how accurate your initial report was and whether there is a match for your lost item using identifying information and the recovered item,” Robert Sekscinski, co-founder at Rosotravel, a consumer travel services company, told Moneywise.

Additionally, many travelers don’t provide sufficient detail about the lost item, which makes it difficult for airline personnel to determine who it belongs to. In cases where there is no response, Sekscinski recommends being organized and persistent.

“Save all claim numbers and documents related to airline interactions and follow up accordingly through multiple channels — most likely baggage services, customer relations, and airport lost and found,” he advised.

Take action right away in a lost luggage situation

If your luggage is officially declared lost, you may be eligible for compensation from the airline. The process typically begins by filing a claim directly with the airline, providing detailed information about your bag and its contents.

“Reach out to airport staff immediately,” Michelle L. Jensen, founder of Travel HerStory, an excursion blogging platform, told Moneywise. “There’ll be a desk you can go to specifically for luggage issues and file a complaint ASAP. Any delay will only make the whole process take longer.”

It’s also critical to let the airline know what the bag looks like and any location data you may have from a tracker such as an AirTag.

“If you’re away from home, you’ll also need to tell them where you’re staying,’ Jensen said.

Additionally, ask whether there’s any compensation, such as a stipend, for clothing you may need to purchase. “This will vary by location and airline typically, so research what you’re entitled to, as they may not be super keen to cough up what you’re legally entitled to,” Jensen added. According to U.S. and Montreal Convention air passenger rights laws, the average compensation from an airline for checked luggage that is lost or damaged is between $1,525 and $3,500.

Help prevent lost luggage with tags and digital trackers

While it’s helpful to call and report lost baggage and include an airline seat number, flight number, and photos or receipts, a baggage tag issued by the airline — half of which you keep, and the other half of which is attached to the bag — can really help unstick lost luggage situations.

“Baggage tags have been essential for me when I had lost luggage,” Jensen said. “It proves there was luggage in the first place, and that you have a receipt to show for it.”

If you’re concerned about losing a baggage tag, Jensen recommends taking a photo of it as soon as you get it at the airport. “That way, if the baggage tag number does go missing in your purse, or elsewhere, you have some proof of a checked-in bag,” Jensen noted.

With technologies such as Apple’s AirTag, Bluetooth trackers, RFID baggage systems, and airline mobile apps becoming more common, the process of locating lost luggage has improved in recent years.

Trackers are great for peace of mind, Jensen said.

“When I was returning from Mexico City, they place some of the bags on a separate carousel and I was able to figure that out without standing around waiting for airport staff because of the AirTag.”

If you lose your luggage or a valuable item and aren’t proactive in pursuing it, you could soon be out of luck.

“Typically, airlines note lost items within their lost and found and store the property for a period before it’s either auctioned, donated, or thrown out,” Dinesh Kumar, one of the founders of Ferry Host, a platform that tracks U.S. ferry schedules and prices, told Moneywise. “That will likely depend on airline procedures and local laws.”