Daily Commentary

MarketMinder’s View: This in-depth dive starts with an inspiring DIY radio station—by and for boomers—as an entry into the evolving nature of retirements as lifespans lengthen. “The idea of putting workers out to pasture at age 65 has been the norm for more than a century. It’s also profoundly outdated, says Haleh Nazeri, head of the Longevity Economy Initiative at the World Economic Forum. In the late 1800s, when Germany was developing one of the world’s first social security plans, it set the retirement age at 70, later lowering it to 65. At the time, life expectancy in Germany was around 43 years; very few people needed to use the funds. Today, life expectancy in the UK is around 80 years old. The same is true in the US, where about 90% of workers will collect Social Security.” With longer lives comes longevity risk (outliving your savings), and as this article shows, many folks have decided to continue to work to support themselves. Now, we understand “working more” may not be everyone’s desired retirement outcome, but the anecdotes and data here highlight another important point: Income isn’t necessarily the top reason most seniors want to work—purpose is, which allows them to stay active and connected. Many employers, meanwhile, are accommodating (please note MarketMinder doesn’t make individual security recommendations; specific firms mentioned are incidental to the broader point). “Companies are starting to rethink how to handle older workers, many out of necessity. CVS Health developed a program that recruits people over 50 for pharmacy positions, which have been difficult to fill in the US, and Amazon.com and Goldman Sachs both have ‘returnships’, which recruit and train those who’ve been out of the workforce for a significant stretch. (Many return to senior roles.)” Increasingly, work—and life—no longer end at 65. For those in or near retirement, we think it is worth exploring all your options to find which one suits you best.

MarketMinder’s View: Please note that MarketMinder is nonpartisan, favoring no party nor any politician, as political bias blinds and can lead to investing mistakes. ­As this article sensibly points out, it is the same economy under any president because the commander in chief’s power over economic matters is vastly overrated. Looking over a range of indicators, the article observes: “The economy over the last year has looked a lot like it did in 2024. I don’t expect it to change because of the latest disappointing numbers on jobs, fluctuations in the gross domestic product or the start of the Iran war, either. ... Perhaps the most common mistake is to overrate the importance of the president. Sometimes presidents can make a big difference, but usually the aggregate economic effects of their policies are smaller—for good or ill—than their supporters or detractors would have you believe.” The article then explores the current trio of top fears (tariffs, AI and Iran) and shows why their economic effects are too small to “significantly alter the economy’s direction.” Namely, tariffs are negative but not huge, especially in America’s services-dominant economy; AI may be displacing some jobs, but again, the overall effect isn’t big and it is hard to detect any noticeable shift in pre-AI productivity trends; and regarding Iran: “The U.S. economy is much less oil intensive than it used to be, and consumers spent only 2 percent of their budgets on gasoline in 2025, less than half as much as they did 50 years ago. Moreover, as the world’s most dominant oil producer, the United States is mostly hedged, with higher prices hurting consumers but helping producers.” So rather than have the executive branch color your view on the economy, as the chart herein clearly shows many fall prey to, we suggest paying attention to policies, not personalities, and their probable economic implications. Separating reality from popular beliefs is a constant struggle, but for investors, we think it is essential for success.

MarketMinder’s View: As noted here: “Thirty-nine states now require a personal-finance course to graduate high school, with four adding the mandate since 2024. ... In a world of limited resources, state education departments are giving priority to the practical over the conceptual.” State mandates aside, in our experience, there is nothing like practical necessity to motivate minds (of any age). People of all backgrounds face innumerable financial decisions throughout their lives, so the earlier you learn how to navigate them, the better off you will likely be in the long run. For example, “People who had received mandatory financial education in high school were significantly more likely to make advantageous financial decisions during the pandemic compared to those who hadn’t, according to research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. That included paying down high-cost credit-card debt or refinancing mortgages to lower rates.” So we welcome increased interest (no pun intended!) in personal finance matters. Of course, more attendance doesn’t ensure financial success. Curriculum quality—and its real-world application—matter, too. Which brings us to one topic we saw conspicuously missing from the article’s discussion: investing. While college planning and expenses, loan affordability, credit scores and budgeting all received some attention—and are important to consider—we saw investing mentioned only twice in passing (one in a caption) on potential topics covered by personal finance classes. Speaking as a wealth manager, we may be biased, but if you want to learn the most reliable route to riches, we think focusing on investment principles is the way to go! For more, please see Ken Liu’s column, “Personal Finance: It Isn’t an Elective Anymore.”