The U.S. stock market is steadying following its worst day since October, though some signs of fear remain on Wall Street Wednesday about President Donald Trumps desire to take Greenland.
The S&P 500 rose 0.6% after Trump said in a speech before business and government leaders in Europe that he would not use force to take the piece of ice. The potential de-escalation in rhetoric, which had ramped up earlier with talk of tariffs crossing the Atlantic, helped the index recover some of its 2.1% drop from the day before and pull closer to its all-time high set earlier this month.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 336 points, or 0.7%, as of 11:45 a.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was 0.5% higher.
Treasury yields also eased in the bond market, a day after jumping in a potential signal of worries about higher inflation in the long term. They got help from a calming of bond yields in Japan, which surged earlier on concerns about the size of its government’s debt. The value of the U.S. dollar also held steadier against the euro, Swiss franc and other currencies after sliding the day before.
But some nerves seemed to remain in the market, and the price of gold rose another 1.7% and topped $4,800 per ounce for the first time.
Trump himself acknowledged how his desire for Greenland led to Tuesdays drop in the U.S. stock market, but he called it peanuts compared to what its gone up in the first year of his second term and said it would go up further in the future. While saying he would not use force to take Greenland, he called for immediate negotiations for the United States to acquire it from Denmark.
Trump has a history of making big threats that send financial markets sliding, only to pull back later and reach deals that are seen as less bad for the economy or for inflation than his initial suggestion.
On one hand, the pattern has given rise to the TACO acronym suggesting Trump Always Chickens Out if financial markets react strongly enough. On the other, has ultimately struck deals that outsiders may have earlier considered unlikely, ones that he’s crowed about later. The most obvious example is Trump’s announcement of high tariffs on Liberation Day, which eventually led to trade deals with many of the world’s major economies.
Helping to lead the U.S. stock market Wednesday was Halliburton, which rose 4.9% after the oilfield services company reported a stronger profit for the latest quarter than analysts expected.
United Airlines climbed 2.9% after likewise reporting a better profit for the end of 2025 than expected. CEO Scott Kirby said that the airlines strong momentum in revenue is continuing into 2026.
They helped offset a 4.8% drop for Netflix. The streamer sank even though it reported a stronger profit than expected as investors focused instead on its slowing subscriber growth and its lower-than-expected forecast for profit in the current quarter.
Kraft Heinz sank 5.4% after Berkshire Hathaway warned investors Tuesday that it may be interested in selling its 325 million shares in the food giant that former CEO Warren Buffett helped create in 2015.
Berkshire took a $3.76 billion write-down on its Kraft-Heinz stake last summer. Buffett said last fall that he was disappointed in Kraft Heinz plan to split the company in two, and Berkshires two representatives resigned from the Kraft board last spring.
In the bond market, the yield on the 10-year Treasury eased to 4.27% from 4.30% late Tuesday. But it’s still above the 4.24% level where it was at on Friday.
That’s before Trump threatened to impose 10% tariffs on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland beginning in February for opposing U.S. control of Greenland. That would be on top of a 15% tariff specified by a trade agreement with the European Union that has yet to be ratified.
In stock markets abroad, indexes were mixed in mostly modest movements across Europe and Asia.
Japan’s Nikkei 225 slipped 0.4%.
The country’s prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, has called a snap election for Feb. 8, which had sent yields of long-term government bonds to record levels. The expectation is that Takaichi, who is capitalizing on strong public support ratings, will cut taxes and boost spending and increase the government’s already heavy load of debt.
The yield on the 40-year Japanese government bond pulled back to 4.05% Wednesday, down from the 4.22% level that it had surged to on Tuesday.
Stan Choe, AP business writer
AP Business Writers Chan Ho-him and Matt Ott contributed.
Labor unions, faith organizations, and local businesses in Minnesota are calling for a statewide collective pause this Fridayin which they urge residents not to go to work, school, or do any shoppingin protest of the Trump administrations aggressive deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in the Twin Cities and beyond.
The action, called the Day of Truth and Freedom, is planned for January 23, and includes plans for a march in downtown Minneapolis at 2 p.m.
Here’s what to know.
What’s the situation with ICE in Minnesota?
On January 6, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was deploying 2,000 officers to the Minneapolis area to conduct what it called the largest immigration operation ever.
The next day, an ICE agent shot and killed Minneapolis resident Renee Nicole Good. Residents and officials, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, called for ICE to leave the state immediately.
Since then, the crackdown has only continued. ICE agents are reportedly conducting door-to-door raids. They have shown up at local schools, prompting districts to switch to remote learning, and have dragged workers out of a Target store and broke into a home to force a man who was wearing just shorts and Crocs outside into the freezing temperatures.
How have Minnesota residents responded?
Minnesotans have been protesting this aggressive presence of ICE. Now, a collection of unions, faith groups, community organizations, and local businesses are calling on them to take collective action on Friday, January 23.
Working people, our schools and our communities are under attack, Chelsie Glaubitz Gabiou, president of the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, said in a statement about her groups support of the Day of Truth and Freedom.
Union members are being detained commuting to and from work, tearing apart families. Parents are being forced to stay home, students held out of school, fearing for their lives, all while the employer class remains silent, she continued.
Our labor federations are encouraging everyone to participate on January 23rd. Its time for every single Minnesotan who loves this state and the notion of truth and freedom to raise their voices and deepen their solidarity for our neighbors and coworkers living under this federal occupation.
Along with the Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation, AFL-CIO and a slew of local businesses, labor groups including the Saint Paul Regional Labor
Federation, the West Area Labor Council, the North East Area Labor Council and the East Central Labor Council are in support of the statewide action.
A group of faith leaders and clergy members have also come out in support of the action, announcing that places of worship across the state will participate and demanding ICE leave Minnesota.
Silence in the face of oppression is not neutrality. It is permission, one faith leader with the nonprofit Isaiah said in a recent press conference. That is why on January 23 we are standing with more than 100 organizations across Minnesota.
What are the demands of the Minnesota anti-ICE economic blackout?
Organizers of the economic blackout have created a list of demands from their action.
They are calling for ICE to leave Minnesota; for the officer who killed Renee Good to be held legally accountable; for the upcoming Congressional budget to give no additional federal funding to ICE and for ICE to be investigated for human and Constitutional violations; and for Minnesota and national companies to cease their economic relations with ICE and refuse entry to ICE agents.
A group of Minnesota businesses have announced that they will be closed January 23 for that anti-ICE action. That list includes local restaurants, bars, book stores, and more.
Minneapolis is also home to a number of Fortune 500 companies who have been silent about the ICE raids in the state. When Fast Company reached out multiple times in the wake of Goods killing to General Mills, Target, Best Buy, Cargill, UnitedHealth Group, 3M, and Land OLakes for comment, none of them responded.
Those companies that have Minnesota retail locations do not appear on lists of businesses that plan to close for the one-day strike.
The Trump administration has not indicated so far that it will stop its immigration raids in Minnesota. After Minnesota leaders filed a lawsuit saying the crackdown was unconstitutional in an attempt to end it, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has asked a federal judge to reject that bid.
The DOJ is also investigating a protest at a St. Paul church in which residents confronted a pastor who they say is the acting field director of the St. Paul ICE field office. And it has subpoenaed at least five Minnesota officials, including Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Frey, as part of an investigation into whether they have obstructed ICE efforts.
Headlines have been challenging in 2025. Companies are under attack publicly and privately for policies viewed as too progressive or woke. The reality, however, is that most companies have strongly reaffirmed their sustainability commitments but less so their DEI commitments.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) works in the grey area between the two.
Many affirming companies have opted for greenhushing, staying quiet about their strategies and leadership. There are pros and cons to that, but why are companies staying true to their goals and strategies? A simple but powerful answer: long-term value creation. Those staying the course have built strategies that incorporate and harvest business value from their commitments.
Innovation in integrating CSR and sustainability has not been strong over the last 10 years. That is a missed value creation opportunity. Sustainability and CSR trends have not gone away for the long haul; they have just gone quiet. Competition across companies and sectors will continue to seek support from customers, shareholders, and stakeholders whether companies are communicating it or not.
TRADITIONAL CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY
There are two primary models today: traditional corporate philanthropy and strategic corporate social responsibility. Both are important to maintain, but given the climate companies are working in todaywith both shareholder pressure and government discontinuity in the policy environmenta value-creation model built on innovative win-win solutions could accelerate social progress aligned with business success.
A great example of traditional corporate philanthropy is ExxonMobil. In public health, ExxonMobil made a long-term commitment to help eradicate malaria, making an impact through their collaborations and large philanthropic investments (exceeding $170 million over 25 years).
This philanthropic, public health focus has largely been outward in its emphasis. While there are mentions of it starting from a concern that its African workforce had significant absences due to malaria, the efforts are not central to the oil and gas products companys overall business strategy. We applaud their long-term commitment and hope it continues for the benefit of millions of people.
STRATEGIC CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
A timely example of strategic corporate social responsibility is Takeda Pharmaceuticals, a global R&D-driven biopharmaceutical company, headquartered in Japan. It has taken a different approach, innovating its commitments and implementation to drive company business success. Takeda has not approached CSR and sustainability as a program, but rather as a core strategy integrated strongly into all parts of the company: businesses, functions, and geographies.
Takeda has a 240+-year company history, which is remarkable. Deeply embedded values at the heart of their longevity is PTRB,” which stands for patient, trust, reputation, and business. In that order, if they meet patients needs, they gain trust and reputation. Then the business will follow. This principled, values-based approach goes back to Takedas founder and is kept alive today, integrated in ongoing corporate and business strategy, including CSR.
The key difference between a philanthropic contribution and the strategic CSR approach is how Takeda brought PTRB to life in its CSR and sustainability strategy: innovating the intersection between climate and health. For example, Takeda developed vaccines to prevent Dengue fever, a mosquito-borne health risk and unmet medical need that is becoming more challenging with climate change. They focus on public health challenges stemming from climate change as a core part of their CSR strategy.
Takeda innovated the how of its CSR implementation through a unique grant-making program. The public RFP is developed annually to create win-win opportunities that align with Takedas corporate purpose, focusing on transforming health outcomes by investing in climateresilient health systems worldwide. Potential grantees make applications, which are first reviewed internally by Takeda employees.
They look for proposals that are innovative, sustainable, and impactful for the grantee, the identified public health population, and Takeda. This is collaboration, not just check-writing. Then ALL Takeda employees can vote on which proposals to fund, typically for multiyear grants which extend the grantees impact across four to 10 years. This voting step has been critical in creating strong awareness within the company about Takedas sustainability and CSR focus, driving alignment and creating opportunities for each employee to align their personal purpose with where they want to make an impact. That is very rare.
Awareness and employee alignment are critical to long-term company success. This is one area where Takeda has demonstrated innovation to drive results for the company and society. Takeda is not apologetic that their programs will create long-term business value. In fact, its leadership, from the board and executive team down to individual employees, makes this highly integrated approach work.
This strategic CSR model is drawing attention. Side events at the 2025 United Nations General Assembly have been oversubscribed, garnering event replays and the attention of millions on social media. And recently Takeda received a distinguished award from the United Nations Association of Greater Boston (UNAGB). Takedas commitment to global health, advocacy for inclusive and sustainable innovation, and leadership in shaping the future of biopharmaceuticals make the organization a deeply deserving recipient of our Global Citizenship Award, wrote Caitlin Moore, UNAGBs executive director.
VALUE CREATION IN A CSR STRATEGY
It is truly amazing what can be achieved when the focus is large scale and long term (ExxonMobil), but also when it is innovative with full strategic integration into business and corporate value creation strategies (Takeda). In these times, we believe that the strategic approach should be replicated and practiced to benefit companies, society, and the planet. A companys value-creating CSR strategy will likely have the best chance to last and deliver value to shareholders and stakeholders.
Barie Carmichael is senior counselor, Member International Advisory Council, at APCO Worldwide. Neil Hawkins is research advisor/graduate faculty at Harvard University Sustainability Masters Program.
For as much as we heard about AI in the past year, the top two best places to work in the U.S. are decidedly AI-free.
Crew Carwash, an Indianapolis-based chain of car washes with 55 locations in the Midwest, claimed the top spot on Glassdoors list of the best places to work in 2026. In-N-Out Burger, the beloved chain with 400-plus locations, also moved up one spot this year to rank as the second-best place to work in the U.S.
From there, however, tech and AI companies dominated nearly one-quarter of Glassdoors ranking of the top 100 companies with Nvidia claiming the third spot. But this industrys representation on the list has actually come down somewhat in recent years, a reflection of shifting dynamics at some of these companies.
“This is part of an ongoing trend where many tech employers are trimming some of the things that made the job so appealing over the last year,” Glassdoor chief economist Daniel Zhao told CBS News. “They are pushing harder and harder on efficiency and productivity.”
In addition to Nvidia, ServiceNow and EPAM Systems rounded out the top three companies on an inaugural list of the best tech and AI companies. These companies are redefining what tech-first means and theyve scaled rapidly without losing a human element to the workplace, according to a blog post.
UNCERTAINTY IN THE JOB MARKET
The past year has seen some new career trends emerge that reflect the uncertainty many workers are feeling latelyincluding so-called job hugging, or employees who sit tight in their roles, and Shrekking, when some workers opt to take jobs that are beneath their qualifications. In 2025, U.S. employers added only 584,000 new jobs, down from two million in 2024, making it the worst year for job growth since 2020 when the COVID pandemic rocked the economy.
Glassdoors annual ranking, now in its 18th year, honors those companies that its employees love working for based on feedback provided on the platform. It comes at a time when many employees are fed up with work, and overall U.S. employee engagement is at a decade low.
“Even amid the uncertainty of 2025, these standout employers have shown resilience, sustaining high levels of employee satisfaction and trust as they navigate change,” Owen Humphries, president at Glassdoor, said in a statement.
Bragging rights for those companies with 1,000 employees or more is based entirely on the anonymous reviews that employees posted on the site between October 2024 and October 2025, as theres no nomination process nor survey of employees.
FOCUS ON WORKPLACE CULTURE
While identifying those employers that are getting workplace culture right is inherent to the ranking, this years winners are maintaining high levels of trust and satisfaction among employees, even amid a shifting economic landscape, according to a blog post.
Even though they span vastly different industries, the top three employersCrew, In-N-Out, and Nvidiashare a common theme: Theyve operationalized cultural values, according to Glassdoor. The best workplaces in 2026 aren’t doing anything revolutionary. They’re doing the fundamentals exceptionally welland doing them consistently, even when it’s hard.
SHAKEUPS ON LIST
Each year, some employers fall off the list to make room for new companies to make their debuta cohort that included Alaska Airlines and Dutch Bros. this year. There were some other notable shakeups in this years ranking.
Bain, the top-ranked employer in 2025, fell to the No. 8 spot this year, marking the lowest-ever ranking for the perennial top-5-rated company. Other shakeups saw representation decline among San Francisco-area companies, with only 13 companies making this years list, down from 23 in 2025. Meanwhile, New York-area employers have been rising in employee satisfaction, gaining ground with 10 companies represented on the list, up from six last year.
HIRING ACTIVITY
In addition to charting such shifts in the industries and locations of the best employers, the annual list is intended to help job seekers navigate a competitive job market, according to Humphries. The number of weeks someone is unemployed has been creeping higher to more than 24 weeks, on average, as of December.
Combined, this years top 10 employersCrew Carwash, In-N-Out, Nvidia, Ryan, Keller Williams, Mars, ServiceNow, Bain, Houston Methodist, and EPAM Systemscurrently have more than 11,000 job postings active on Glassdoor.
These awards are intended to be a trusted guide for job seekers, Humphries said, by helping candidates connect with workplaces that reflect their values and career ambitions.
Below, Charles Knowles shares five key insights from his new book, Why We Drink Too Much: The Impact of Alcohol on Our Bodies and Culture.
Charles is a Professor of Surgery at Queen Mary University of London and Chief Academic Officer at the Cleveland Clinic London. Qualifying as a doctor from the University of Cambridge, he continues to practice as a consultant colorectal surgeon. He has authored more than 300 peer-reviewed publications and contributed to several major international surgical textbooks.
Whats the big idea?
Problematic drinking is not a problem of weak will or low moral integrity. Why drinking shifts from choice to compulsion for some and not others depends on many complex factors.
Listen to the audio version of this Book Biteread by Charles himselfbelow, or in the Next Big Idea App.
1. Why do humans consume alcohol?
A necessary starting point to understanding why some humans drink too much is understanding why humans consume alcohol at all. Our hominid ancestors evolved to metabolize alcohol over 10 million years ago, pushed by the need to safely consume rotting fruit from the forest floor. We have been deliberately manufacturing alcohol for over 15,000 years, and today it remains our most popular drug, despite many well-acknowledged downsides. Why do we continue to drink it? We cant still claim this as a nutritional necessity.
The vervet monkey on the island of Saint Kitts in the Caribbean is one example of many animal species that consume alcohol, with individuals showing variable enthusiasm for doing so. This attests to a fundamental biological driver. It cannot simply come down to clever advertising, peer pressure, or the price being right at the liquor store.
The brain lies at the heart of this. If we ask most people, they will tell us that drinking alcohol makes them feel good and that they have fun drinking it. This is because alcohol is a primary reward; it can chemically alter the levels of certain neurotransmitters in our brains. The combined effects of alcohol on dopamine, but also on endorphins and GABA, lead to psychostimulatory and relaxant effects, in fact, mimicking the effects chemically of cocaine, opioids, and Valium. It is these positive effects of alcohol on the brain that are the fundamental basis of why we and other animals consume alcohol.
2. The drinking scales.
Although some people may find it hard to resist, ultimately, we consciously choose to drink. This is a cognitive process that takes information from our sensesthe time of day, where we are, who we are withand processes this information against what we know, using our ability to think intelligently before acting. The positive effects we get from drinking are based on alcohols psychostimulatory and relaxant effects. We then come to balance these pros against the common negative effects (hangover, cost, embarrassment, etc.). This balance of the pros and cons is what I call the drinking scales. Everyone has a slightly different balance depending on their positive and negative experiences of alcohol. And this balance changes throughout life with societal norms and values.
Everyone has a slightly different balance depending on their positive and negative experiences of alcohol.
If the drinking scales worked perfectly to provide a logic-based decision all the time, I wouldnt be writing this book. The problem is that all around us are people for whom the evident harm of drinking should have been sufficient years ago to outweigh any positives, but still they drink. In such people, we can think of the scales as being broken or bypassed. This happens because the brain is wired to allow it to happen. Survival programs deep in the old parts of our brain, based around the reward pathway and memory, promote behavior that once aided our survival in the jungle but which now leads to serious consequences rather than any useful purpose. This is the basis of addiction. The question then becomes: why does this happen to some people and not to others?
3. Problematic drinking is not defined by how much we consume.
Why cant he drink like a normal person? We hear this said. Many people see problematic drinking as a black-and-white issue. There are normal drinkers, and then those who have a problem. But there is quite a lot of gray. The term gray area drinking has now become popular in community groups. But what do we mean by this compared to medical terms like alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorder?
I would recommend that anyone reviewing their relationship with alcohol should look at what I call the three Cs: consumption, consequences, and control.
While long-term consumption level may have some important ramifications for health or finances, consequences and control are much more important angles for looking at the problem.
Consequences from alcohol range from common downsides (like a hangover) through to serious harms (car accidents, criminality) and chronic health problems affecting the body and brain.
Control, however, is perhaps the most important. After all, if we could control our consumption, we could just stop when consequences started occurring. And this brings us back to considering a spectrum where white might be neutrality, a take it or leave it approach to drinking, and black is dependence. But what then is gray?
I define gray area drinking as someone who relies on alcohol in a way that is making them concerned about the amount they consume and their ability to control it. And it brings in a new concept called alcohol reliance, a state of mind where consumption of alcohol has become a regular habit that is hard to give up, but has not yet led to the behaviors that define alcohol dependence.
4. Bad genes.
It seems unfair. Why was I, of all my hard-drinking college buddies, singled out to develop alcohol dependence? This is what I call the why me question. Loss of control has very little to do with consumption. Although alcohol is clearly required, we dont actually drink our way to having a problem. It therefore poses the question of whether there is something biologically different between individuals, and this has been debated since alcoholism became studied as a disease in the 1930s.
Twin and adoption studies show that alcoholism has a heritability of about 50 percent, meaning that about half of the risk of developing dependence falls at the door of genetics. Studies of mice breeds show that tolerance to, stimulatory response from, and therefore preference for alcohol can be genetically conferred. In fact, you can genetically engineer mice that mimic several behaviors of dependence. We also know that people with intolerance for alcohol (such as Asian flushing, caused by specific gene variants in liver enzymes) very rarely develop alcohol problems because the experience of drinking is deeply unpleasant.
Twin and adoption studies show that alcoholism has a heritability of about 50 percent.
The sort of experiments performed in mice based on stimulation from alcohol can also be performed in humans. An example is the San Diego cohort study. Measured doses of alcohol were given to young adults who were alcohol nave, and the amount of stimulation they got from it was measured. Those who were more stimulated went on to have a higher risk of problems later in life. We can define humans who biologically find it fun to drink versus those that rapidly slump in the corner. The latter are relatively protected while the former are at greater risk of alcohol dependence.
But this doesnt mean there is a single bad gene variant. Alcohol related disorders are what we call complex diseases or traits. Theyre a mixture of nature and nurture, and the nature is a consequence of hundreds or thousands of subtle variations in our DNA spread across the two billion base pairs of our genome, and not just in the genes themselves. This means were looking for a needle in a haystack. In fact, one could say were looking for thousands of needles in a haystack, some of which look very much like hay.
The results of this exercise are disappointing at the current time. Most genes found overlap with major mental health disorders and ADHD. Some newer discoveries are in taste and in the way our brains rewire throughout life. We do find some genes associated in mice with increased stimulation related to GABA. However, overall, we are a long way off having predictive genetic testing.
5. Bad luck.
Despite the scientific fashion for all things genomic, how we turn out in lifeour success, happiness, hopes, and dreamsgenerally has very much to do with the environment we grow up in and the effects of human interactions on our psyche. What we are exposed to during childhood, especially during the critical period of attachment, plays into the sort of later diagnoses that come from a psychiatrist, such as anxiety and depression, but also important personality traits like self-esteem and our social fitness.
Many psychological traits create a double weighting on the pros side of the drinking scales. Alcohol doesnt just seem fun, it also provides relief by its relaxant and, if we drink enough, sedative effects. These dissociative properties can suppress negative feelings, thoughts, and memories; this is particularly true when suppressing the barrage of thoughts that comes with problems like ADHD and neurotic personality.
We may come to falsely associate these rewards with a survival advantage.
But there is another twist here which returns us to thinking about how the drinking scales can be bypassed or broken by the fundamental survival-biased wiring led from our reward pathway. Survival for our ancestors had a great deal to do with social fitness: how we relate to other humans for protection, reciprocal behavior such as hunting, and romantic desirability. If, when we are young, we find a profound solution to fear and social difficulties by using alcohol, we may come to falsely associate these rewards with a survival advantage.
Despite the illusion, our brain is still working from the ancestral jungle script. This is perhaps why disorders characterized by problems both of social interaction as well as negative thoughts are so strongly associated with alcohol dependence. Also, it may be no coincidence that the 15,000 years of deliberate alcohol manufacture quickly followed when humans started to live and cooperate in groups.
Enjoy our full library of Book Bitesread by the authors!in the Next Big Idea App.
This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
The Federal Trade Commission said Tuesday it will appeal the November ruling in favor of Meta in its antitrust case against the social media giant.The FTC said it continues to allege that, for more than a decade, Meta Platforms Inc. has “illegally maintained a monopoly” in social networking through anticompetitive conduct “by buying the significant competitive threats it identified in Instagram and WhatsApp.”Meta had prevailed over the existential challenge to its business that could have forced the tech giant to spin off Instagram and WhatsApp after a judge ruled that the company does not hold a monopoly in social networking.U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued his ruling on Nov. 18 after the historic antitrust trial wrapped up in late May. His decision runs in sharp contrast to two separate rulings that branded Google an illegal monopoly in both search and online advertising, dealing regulatory blows to the tech industry that for years enjoyed nearly unbridled growth.In a statement, Meta said the court’s decision “to reject the FTC’s arguments is correct, and recognizes the fierce competition we face. We will remain focused on innovating and investing in America.”
Associated Press
After a brief sell-off in the run-up to Donald Trump’s speech to global leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, markets are up, after the president backed off earlier claims and ruled out using force to acquire Greenland.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 451 points, or about 1%, and the S&P 500 was up 67 points, also about 1%, in midday trading at the time of this writing. The Nasdaq was up about 0.7%.
On the issue of acquiring Greenland, Trump said the following: We never asked for anything, and we never got anything . . . We probably wont get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable.”
“But I wont do that. Okay?” Trump continued. “Now everyones saying, Oh, good. Thats probably the biggest statement I made, because people thought I would use force. I dont have to use force. I dont want to use force. I wont use force.
Trump has threatened to impose anywhere from 10% to 25% tariffs on our longtime European allies (the U.K., Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland) over their opposition to his push for Greenland, which had previously triggered a sell-off of U.S. assets, Axios reported.
European nations own an estimated $8 trillion of U.S. bonds and equities.
The 10-year Treasury price turned higher and its yield turned lower following Trumps comments. The U.S. dollar index pared its decline with other currencies.
Although Trump backed off claims of U.S. military action in Greenland, he did double down on his plans to acquire Greenland, saying he was seeking immediate negotiations” to discuss the matter.
How can you win love and loyalty from your customers, your employees, your fansand even the people in your life? Taylor Swift answered this question perfectly with just one word: Overdeliver. Overdelivering will impress your customers, create loyal employees and fans, and make all your relationships stronger.
I wanted to overserve the fans in terms of the amount of songs that they were going to hear and how far I was going to push myself, she says in her new docuseries, The End of an Era. As you likely know, she made good on that plan. The Eras Tour show ran three-and-a-half hours, divided into 10 distinct eras covering different albums. Then she added another era partway through when she released The Tortured Poets Department. There were a few songs that changed every night, and guest appearances by other performers, such as Ed Sheeran. Oh, and an elaborate illusion where she dove into the stage.
After the tour, in an appearance on The Graham Norton Show, she explained her reasoning. I wanted to overdeliver. I really wanted to give people more than they expected, she said. It just really felt like something that I had to do. Because Im like, I know these tickets are going to be hard to get. I didnt know how hard they would be to get. (The show sold out everywhere, and many fans actually flew to different locations just so they could attend.)
Swift continued, People have lives and priorities. And if theyre going to dedicate any part of those lives to coming to this big show, to packing stadiums like this, I want to overdeliver on production, overdeliver on the length of it, the exertion, the kind of surprises theyre seeing. And really, Im endlessly proud of feeling like we achieved that.
Swift shows empathy for her fans
Swift was expressing a key element of emotional intelligence: empathy. She was looking at the situation from her fans point of view. Its rare to hear any big star say that their fans have priorities other than their next show or album. For Swift to acknowledge that Swifties have their own lives is highly refreshing. So is her awareness that its hard to get tickets to her shows, and her belief that she owes her audiences more because of it.
Even if you dont have millions of raving fans spending hundreds of dollars to come listen to you, overdelivering is a good practice and a good mindset. When you surprise people by giving them more than they expected, more than they asked for, or even more than they paid for, they will remember you. And they likely will come back.
Theres a growing community of Inc. readers who get a daily text from me with a micro-challenge, suggestion, or question. (Want to learn more? Heres some information about the texts and a special invitation to a two-month free trial.) Many are entrepreneurs or business leaders who know how important it is to have repeat customers, loyal fans, and people who are steadfastly in their corner. Consistently overdelivering is a very effective way to make that happen.
Inc.
I’m a classic satisficer: I’m usually quick about making decisions and often fall back on the tried-and-true. Some people are optimizers, carefully analyzing almost every choice, whether it’s a new sofa or a cup of coffee.If you want to make decent, “good enough” choices about your financial plan and portfolio and get onto other things, what strategies should you employ? And what should you stop doing? Here are some strategies to embrace.
Eliminate ‘onesies’ and embrace simple building blocks
Step away from those individual stocks. Forget I bonds and laddered portfolios of individual Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities. If you’re a satisficer, they’re not for you. Reduce your number of accounts and the holdings within them.A portfolio with fewer moving parts is easier to oversee and simpler to document in case your loved ones or a financial advisor needs to take the wheel. Moreover, Morningstar research indicates that investors tend to do a better job buying and holding broadly diversified investments than they do ones that are more focused.While they might not compel over some shorter time horizons, total-market index funds have been highly competitive with actively managed funds on a long-term basis, and they require little to no oversight. That means that satisficer portfolios should be heavy on total market index funds and even all-in-one investments like target-date funds. Satisficers should have as few accounts as possible, too.
Minimize other financial relationships
I’m part of a group chat with some delightful people who are keen to maximize their gains from credit cards and hotel loyalty programs. They’re always sharing tips on new card offers and swapping in and out of cards to score free travel.These people have traveled all over the world, and there’s something to be said for beating the banks at their own game. They’re also eager to take advantage of free financing programs when buying cars, furniture, and electronics. Why not let the bank float you a loan and invest the funds in the interim, particularly now that you can earn a decent return on your safe money?Yet as much as the math might argue for such strategies, managing multiple credit relationships requires time, energy, and discipline that most people don’t have to spare. For that reason, taking a minimalist approach to credit cards and other financial relationships is a good policy for most households, especially satisficing ones. My credit-card-optimizer friends might disagree, but I tend to think that a single, well-chosen credit card or two is plenty.
Automate everything you can
The data suggest that dollar-cost averaging is inferior to lump-sum investing. To which I say, “So what?” The fact is, most of us don’t have big lump sums lying around; we’re able to invest only as we earn money and save it.Making automatic investments addresses a number of financial pain points in a single shot. It eliminates any question marks about whether and when to invest. And if the target investment amounts are high enough and you increase them as you receive pay increases and bonuses, it also obviates the need to track expenses or budget in the traditional sense.
Pay for help if you need it
Here’s another way in which the satisficers may be willing to depart from the optimizers. Yes, paying for financial planning guidance costs money, maybe more than you think it should. (It’s not unusual for good-quality planners to charge $350-$500 an hour or more.)But if paying for professional financial help frees you up to do other things you enjoy more and it provides peace of mind with your decision-making, it can be money well spent. Moreover, a planner can help point out blind spots that even the most competent DIYers may have missed, while also serving as a valuable receptacle of financial information in case you’re unable to manage your own finances at some point. Finally, planners can leverage high-powered software that puts more precision behind decisions like whether to convert traditional IRAs to Roth.
This article was provided to The Associated Press by Morningstar. For more personal finance content, go to https://www.morningstar.com/personal-finance.ChristineBenz is director of personal finance and retirement planning for Morningstar.Related Links
Worried About Inflation? What to Know Before Buying TIPS ETFshttps://www.morningstar.com/funds/worried-about-inflation-what-know-before-buying-tips-etfs-2
3 Big Changes for Retirement Planninghttps://www.morningstar.com/retirement/3-big-changes-retirement-planning-2026
Ask Your Advisor These Questions About How They Get Paidhttps://www.morningstar.com/personal-finance/ask-your-advisor-these-questions-about-how-they-get-paid-2
Christine Benz of Morningstar
Warren Buffett’s successor appears to be considering his first significant move after taking over as CEO this month.Kraft Heinz warned investors Tuesday that Berkshire Hathaway may be interested in selling its 325 million shares in the name brand food giant that Buffett helped create back in 2015. The news came in a filing with stock market regulators.Buffett and the Brazilian investment firm 3G Capital orchestrated the merger of Kraft and Heinz back then because they already owned Heinz and believed in the power of their brands. Now Greg Abel may be plotting a different course.Over the years since Buffett had come to realize that the company’s competitive moat around its brands wasn’t as strong as he thought as consumers have increasingly been willing to switch to store brands and move away from processed foods. Berkshire took a $3.76 billion writedown on its Kraft-Heinz stake last summer. Buffett said last fall that he was disappointed in Kraft Heinz’ plan to split the company in two, and Berkshire’s two representatives resigned from the Kraft board last spring.But still it was rare for Buffett to unload an acquisition during his six decades leading Berkshire even when he soured on a business’ prospects. Berkshire didn’t respond to questions Tuesday about the filing where Kraft Heinz disclosed that its largest shareholder “may offer to sell, from time to time, 325,442,152 shares.” Kraft Heinz shares fell nearly 4% to $22.85 after the announcement.There’s no sign Berkshire has started selling yet, but CFRA Research analyst Cathy Seifert wonders if this could be just the beginning of a comprehensive review of Berkshire’s varied holdings. In addition to its massive stock portfolio worth over $300 billion, Berkshire owns an assortment of insurers including Geico, several utilities, BNSF railroad and an eclectic mix of manufacturing and retail companies.“My sense is that Greg Abel’s leadership style may be a departure from Buffett’s, and this sale, if completed, would represent a shift in corporate mindset,” Seifert said. “Berkshire under Buffett typically only made acquisitions- not divestitures. It’s not inconceivable, in our view, that Abel may likely assess every Berkshire subsidiary and decide to jettison those that do not meet his internal hurdles.”Of course Abel already knows many of Berkshire’s companies well because he has been managing all of the non-insurance companies since 2018. But he only became CEO on Jan. 1. Buffett remains chairman, but investors are watching closely for any changes Abel might make at the venerable conglomerate.Investor Chris Ballard, who is managing director at Check Capital, said “selling Kraft is probably the most low-hanging fruit for Greg. We personally wouldn’t be sad to see the holding go.”But of course it would be bard for Berkshire to unload all of its shares on the public market because it is such a large stake, so Ballard said he wonders if there could be a large prospective buyer in the wings.But Buffett said last fall that Berkshire wouldn’t accept a block bid for its shares unless the same offer was made to all Kraft Heinz shareholders.
Josh Funk, AP Business Writer
