MMN Editor

Iran’s parliamentary speaker blamed the U.S. for “secretly planning” a ground invasion while openly talking about peace negotiations.

National Mom and Pop Business Owners Day is a reminder that many great businesses start small, often within families. Here are six practical ideas to consider.

The Jessie Buckley and Christian Bale monster movie “The Bride!,” directed by Maggie Gyllenhaal, is reportedly coming soon to digital streaming. Find out when and where you can watch the movie at home.

A Southwest seating policy has ignited a heated fat-shaming debate on TikTok and Instagram, with passengers strongly divided over whether the rule is just “common sense” — or “anxiety-inducing.”Several passengers have gone viral in recent weeks for saying the airline’s new “customer of size” policy has been humiliating. But many travelers praise the airline, noting that it’s unfair of others to “spill over” into the next seat. The policy asks passengers who need extra space to purchase a second seat in advance. It also allows the airline to make the determination on a case-by-case basis — citing safety reasons and overall passenger comfort.PASSENGERS RIP AIRLINE FOR NEW SEATING POLICY: ‘IT IS AS BAD AS EVERYONE IS SAYING’But as some people see it, the policy doesn’t clearly define the criteria that’s used — making the rules feel arbitrary, critics say.”We began communicating changes to our policy — which is in line with industry standards — almost a year ago and continued reiterating those changes directly to customers throughout the summer,” Southwest Airlines told Fox News Digital in response to a request for comment. The extra seat rule, as well as other policies, went into effect Jan. 27, the company said.If a second seat is purchased at the airport, travelers must pay the current same-day fare, which may be higher than their original ticket price.BAGGAGE HANDLER SLAMMED AFTER VIRAL VIDEO SHOWS GUITARS VIOLENTLY TOSSED ON TARMACThe airline says the armrest serves as a boundary between seats. It also notes it may require a passenger to obtain an extra seat at its own discretion for safety reasons.Meg Elison, an author in the San Francisco Bay Area known for discussing body positivity issues, related on social media that she recently took a trip in which she had to fly six times in five days. On her first flight, the gate agents didn’t ask her to buy a second seat, she said.On her second leg between St. Louis, Missouri and Little Rock, Arkansas, she was stopped by an agent, she recounted.OUT-OF-CONTROL AIRLINE PASSENGER CAUGHT ON VIDEO RIPPING INTO FLIGHT CREW IN ‘SAD’ MELTDOWN”My gate agent immediately walked away from me without saying anything to my face,” she said in a TikTok video.”The supervisor came back and said, ‘You’re going to have to buy a second seat.'”Elison said she believes the policy is inconsistent. She told followers she’d bought a second seat in the past to have extra space — so she doesn’t understand why the airline didn’t notify her in advance this time around.CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTEROne of her followers responded with her own experience. “I had to fly Southwest for a work trip last month, and it was the most anxiety-inducing experience I have had in years.”The thought of having to purchase a second seat and explain that on my petty cash reconciliation notes to my employer nearly sent me into cardiac arrest!” the follower added.Another frequent Southwest traveler said she had a similar experience.”It ruined our trip,” the woman said in a TikTok video. “If I had gotten in the seat and someone had complained, and I’m encroaching in the space, I get that. The problem is, what is your process, Southwest?”CLICK HERE FOR MORE LIFESTYLE STORIESHer followers were divided about that experience.One said, “I’m sorry, dear. … Having to share my seat with someone who was much larger than their seats was incredibly stressful. I had a full panic attack because that person was literally on me.”Another commenter had more sympathy. “The policy seems arbitrary and capricious on top of being somewhat discriminatory,” the person wrote.Southwest Airlines maintains a clear point of view. “Our policy is well-defined on our website and has instructions on how to book a second seat at booking,” the airline said.TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ”We ask customers who may need an extra seat to let us know in advance of their day of travel so we can do our best to accommodate their needs,” the airline continued.”Our goal is always to provide a comfortable experience for everyone on board. However, with assigned seating, adjacent seats may sometimes already be occupied.”Many Southwest passengers have been applauding the change.One Instagram user wrote, “Good! Nothing should be free. If you need two seats, you buy them.”Another simply said, “Seems like common sense to me.”Southwest’s customer support online help center lays out its position on the seating policy, including this note: “If you require more than one seat, we strongly recommend that you book both seats when making your reservation to ensure availability.”

Woke Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) has called for “some form of reparation” for illegal aliens she says were “traumatized” by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during President Donald Trump’s deportation crackdown.
Speaking at a shadow hearing she hosted titled “Kidnapped and Disappeared: Trump’s Attack on Children,” Jayapal argued that federal reparations should be considered for illegal aliens targeted nationwide by ICE operations.
Jayapal also demanded “offensive actions around prosecutions,” saying that “the people that have been inflicting this harm need to be prosecuted” and “brought before us” so they can be held accountable for the trauma caused by deportations and raids.
Conservative and right-leaning voices seized on her remarks, calling them out as a push for taxpayer-funded reparations for “illegal immigrants” who violated U.S. immigration law.
Republican leaders have signaled firm opposition, with House Speaker Mike Johnson declaring that Republicans “are not going to be any part of any effort to reopen our borders or to stop immigration enforcement” as he blasted Democrats’ immigration stance as a “radical, crazy agenda.”
On Fox News, contributor Sara Carter argued that any reparations should be limited to legal U.S. citizens and suggested Democrats, not taxpayers, should bear the costs for what she described as the consequences of their immigration policies.
The comments drew mass criticism from conservative commentators who accused her of rewarding people who entered the country illegally and demonizing immigration enforcement agencies.
A viral post on X by the New York Post summarizing Jayapal’s call for reparations attracted more replies than likes, underscoring the controversy as many users echoed conservative media arguments that such payments would be unfair to U.S. taxpayers.
Sponsor | https://www.purgestore.com | Use promo code DREW for 20% off and support The Gateway Pundit today!
Follow Drew on X: https://x.com/DrewHLive
Follow Drew on Rumble: https://rumble.com/DrewHernandez
The post Democrats Want YOU To Pay Reparations To Illegal Aliens | Drew Hernandez appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Most financial advisors will tell you that you need well over a million dollars to retire comfortably in today’s economy. In fact, the average American believes they need roughly $1.26 million to enjoy their golden years without financial stress, according to Northwestern Mutual’s 2025 Planning and Progress Study. That number alone is enough to make most working adults break into a cold sweat. But what if one of television’s most recognizable investors told you that conventional wisdom is dramatically overblown and possibly even counterproductive? What if the real number you need is less than half of what the so-called experts recommend, and you’ve been stressing yourself into poor decisions? Kevin O’Leary, the investor from ABC’s “Shark Tank,” has a number that goes against everything you’ve probably heard from your financial advisor. His argument isn’t based on wishful thinking or reckless optimism but on a specific investment strategy that he believes most Americans overlook entirely.The question isn’t whether O’Leary’s advice is controversial. It clearly is, and he’s well aware of that. The real question is whether his numbers hold up for people dealing with real-world expenses every month.O’Leary’s $500,000 retirement thesis explainedIn an interview clip posted to his official YouTube channel, O’Leary made a claim that would make most certified financial planners cringe or reach for aspirin. He argued that a person could survive “relatively comfortably” with just $500,000 in the bank and “do nothing else to make money” in retirement.The catch, according to O’Leary, lies entirely in how that $500,000 is invested and what you must avoid doing with that capital. His first warning was blunt and memorable: “Do not invest in your brother’s restaurant, or a bowling alley, or a bar, or all that crap.”Related: Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary raises red flag on 401(k) troubleInstead, O’Leary believes a typical saver can generate roughly 5% returns on fixed-income securities with very little risk attached to their investment. For those willing to accept more volatility by adding equities to their portfolios, returns of 8.5% to 9% become realistic.What the numbers reveal about O’Leary’s mathO’Leary’s projected returns aren’t pulled out of thin air or the result of wishful thinking when you consider the current market landscape and historical context. The current yield on a 10-year U.S. Treasury bond hovers around 4.2%, according to CNBC market data. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 has delivered an average annual return of approximately 10.56% since 1957, according to Investopedia.Living off a 4.2% yield on $500,000 translates to approximately $21,000 in annual income before taxes or other deductions are applied. That figure alone doesn’t come close to covering what most American households spend each year on basic living expenses and necessities.The average American household spends roughly $77,280 each year, according to data from Empower. Even at the upper end of O’Leary’s projections with a 9% return, that $500,000 portfolio would generate less than $50,000 annually.The Social Security factor O’Leary’s thesis depends onThe gap between portfolio income and actual living expenses is where Social Security becomes critical to O’Leary’s argument. The average Social Security retirement benefit reached approximately $2,071 per month starting in January 2026, the Social Security Administration announced. That translates to roughly $24,852 in guaranteed annual income for the typical retired worker. Combined with investment income from a properly allocated $500,000 portfolio, total retirement income could realistically range from $46,000 to $75,000 annually, depending on asset allocation. More Personal Finance:Retirees following 4% rule are leaving thousands on the tableFidelity says a $500 policy could protect your entire net worthFidelity’s 4 Roth strategies could save your family a fortune in taxesThat range starts to look more viable for retirees who have paid off their mortgages and eliminated most of their consumer debt. You should recognize, however, that this income level still falls short of median household spending, meaning some lifestyle adjustments would be necessary for most people. The math works better for single individuals than for married couples, and location matters enormously for the overall cost of living.How most Americans stack up against O’Leary’s targetHere’s the uncomfortable truth that makes O’Leary’s $500,000 figure simultaneously ambitious and modest, depending entirely on your current financial situation. Current American retirees have an average of just $288,700 saved for retirement, according to a 2026 study by Clever Real Estate. Nearly 29% of retirees report having no retirement savings at all.Over half of American households, roughly 54%, report having no dedicated retirement savings whatsoever, the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances reveals. For these individuals, O’Leary’s $500,000 target represents a significant achievement rather than a compromise or fallback position.The median retirement savings for Americans aged 55 to 64, those approaching traditional retirement age, total just $185,000, Federal Reserve data show. That figure falls dramatically short of both O’Leary’s recommendation and the much higher conventional targets.How the 4% rule compares to O’Leary’s investment approachTraditional retirement planning relies heavily on the 4% withdrawal rule, a guideline created by financial advisor Bill Bengen in 1994 based on historical data. The rule suggests retirees can safely withdraw 4% of their portfolio in year one, then adjust annually for inflation.Applied to O’Leary’s $500,000 figure, the 4% rule would permit first-year withdrawals of just $20,000, well below what most people would consider a comfortable income. Recent research from Morningstar suggests the safest starting withdrawal rate for new retirees in 2026 is actually 3.9%, making the picture slightly worse.“My research shows that if you endure a substantial bear market early in retirement, it drives down your withdrawal rates, because it sucks a lot out of the portfolio at the same time that you’re drawing from it,” said William Bengen, author of “A Richer Retirement.”O’Leary’s approach differs fundamentally because he advocates living primarily off investment income rather than drawing down the principal balance over time. His strategy requires discipline and specific asset allocation choices, but it theoretically preserves the nest egg indefinitely if executed correctly with patience.Bengen himself recently updated his research and now suggests retirees can safely withdraw up to 4.7% in most scenarios without running out of money. Retirees who stick with the original 4% are “cheating themselves a little bit,” Bengen told CNBC in December 2025.

The 4% rule offers steady withdrawals, but O’Leary’s income-focused strategy aims to preserve capital while generating sustainable long-term cash flow.JLco Julia Amaral/Shutterstock

The risks you need to understand before following this adviceO’Leary’s $500,000 thesis carries significant risks that any prospective retiree should carefully consider before building their entire retirement plan around this number. Health care costs alone can devastate even well-constructed retirement budgets, particularly for those retiring before age 65, when Medicare eligibility begins.The sequence of returns risk presents another major concern that O’Leary’s simplified formula doesn’t adequately address in his public comments. If markets decline significantly in your first few years of retirement, your portfolio may never fully recover, even if long-term averages eventually materialize.Related: How Inflation Adjustments Are Changing Seniors’ Tax Bills This YearInflation poses perhaps the most insidious threat to any fixed-income retirement strategy because purchasing power erodes gradually over decades. A retirement that begins comfortably can become increasingly tight as prices rise faster than portfolio income does, especially for retirees living for 25 or 30 years.Key factors to evaluate before committing to this strategyYour current health status and family medical history: Poor health or genetic predisposition to expensive conditions means you should budget more for health care.Housing costs and mortgage status: This strategy works far better if your home is paid off and property taxes are reasonable.Geographic location and cost of living: Retiring in San Francisco requires vastly more savings than retiring in rural Tennessee or Oklahoma.Expected Social Security benefits: Your actual benefit may differ significantly from the average, affecting total retirement income projections.Risk tolerance and investment knowledge: Achieving 8% to 9% returns requires equity exposure that not everyone can stomach during market downturns.Spousal income and benefits: Couples may receive two Social Security checks, substantially changing the math in their favor.Emergency fund status: You should maintain separate emergency savings beyond your retirement portfolio to avoid forced selling during downturns.Practical steps for building toward O’Leary’s retirement targetIf O’Leary’s $500,000 target resonates with your situation, the path forward requires consistent action and strategic decision-making over many years. The 2026 contribution limit for 401(k) plans is $24,500 for employees under 50, with an additional $8,000 catch-up contribution available for older workers.Workers aged 60 to 63 now qualify for an enhanced catch-up contribution of $11,250 annually under SECURE 2.0 provisions that took effect recently. This allows aggressive savers approaching retirement to supercharge their final years of contributions and potentially reach O’Leary’s target faster.You should maximize employer matching contributions before pursuing any other investment strategy, as this represents guaranteed returns that no market investment can match. Missing out on employer matches is essentially leaving free money on the table every single pay period.Diversification across asset classes remains essential, even when pursuing higher-yield investments, because concentration risk can destroy decades of careful savings in relatively short periods. O’Leary himself emphasizes avoiding speculative investments that promise outsized returns but carry corresponding risks.The bottom line on O’Leary’s unconventional retirement adviceKevin O’Leary’s $500,000 retirement target isn’t wrong, but it isn’t universally right, either, and context matters enormously for your individual situation. His math can work for disciplined investors who have eliminated debt, live in affordable areas, and qualify for meaningful Social Security benefits.The real value in O’Leary’s advice may be psychological rather than purely mathematical when you think about it differently. Too many Americans feel paralyzed by astronomical retirement targets and end up saving nothing because the goal seems utterly unattainable.A more achievable target can motivate action, and any savings are better than no savings when it comes to retirement preparation and building long-term security. Whether your personal number is $500,000 or $1.5 million, the most important step is starting today rather than waiting for perfect conditions.You should consult a qualified financial advisor who can analyze your specific circumstances before making major retirement-planning decisions. What works for a wealthy television personality may not translate directly to your kitchen table, and personalized advice remains invaluable.Related: Cash Balance Retirement Plans: A Powerful Retirement Savings Strategy

Subprime Crisis 2.0: Will Private Credit Be The Trigger?

Via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

We have recently tackled the rising stress in the Private Credit markets. Here are a few of our previous warnings:

Fitzpatrick: Soros CEO & CIO Warns of a Reckoning

Private Credit Stress: Will The Fed Backstop Exuberance Again? – RIA

Is Private Equity A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing?

After 30 years of watching credit cycles expand, distort, and collapse, I’ve learned one reliable rule:

“When enough people start drawing comparisons to 2008, it’s worth stopping to check whether the analogy holds up — or whether fear is doing the analytical work for them.”

Right now, judging by the amount of commentary on social media, the stress in the private credit market has everyone’s attention. Most of the commentary being generated makes the immediate jump from private credit firms “gating” exits to the onset of the next subprime crisis in the financial system. Those claims are certainly alarming and generate many clicks and views, but the question is whether those claims are based on facts rather than opinions.

Just recently, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon flagged the risk of private credit in his annual shareholder letter. Lloyd Blankfein, who piloted Goldman through the Global Financial Crisis, warned publicly that the financial system appears to be “inching toward another potential catastrophe.” Meanwhile, Goldman’s own research arm published a note concluding that private credit stress is “unlikely to generate large macroeconomic spillovers on its own.”

So which is it? A repeat of the subprime crisis of 2008, or a painful but contained credit cycle? The honest answer most likely sits somewhere in between, and understanding exactly where private credit differs from subprime tells you a great deal about how worried you should actually be.

Let’s revisit 2008.

What Made The Subprime Crisis So Catastrophic

It is hard to believe that we are rapidly approaching the 20-year anniversary of the “Great Financial Crisis” that nearly destroyed the financial system as we knew it. There are many investors and commentators in the markets today who only know about the event from reading history books. Having lived through it, it is a different reality.

Crucially, the 2008 subprime crisis wasn’t simply a mortgage problem. It was a leverage-and-derivatives problem that started in mortgages. That distinction matters enormously when you’re sizing up today’s private credit stress.

At the heart of the crisis was a product called the collateralized debt obligation, or CDO. Banks packaged pools of subprime mortgages into tranches, which were rated by agencies using flawed models. Those CDOs were then re-sliced into “CDO squared” structures, layering additional complexity and opacity on top of already opaque assets. The real acceleration came when synthetic CDOs entered the picture. Unlike cash CDOs, which required actual mortgages, synthetic CDOs referenced mortgages through credit default swaps. Journalist Gregory Zuckerman found that while roughly $1.2 trillion in subprime loans existed in 2006, synthetic structures created more than $5 trillion in exposure referencing those same loans. The CDS market alone reached a peak notional value of $62.2 trillion by year-end 2007. That is not a typo.

But the derivatives machine required raw material to function, and Wall Street’s insatiable hunger for collateral triggered what historians of the crisis now call the “race to the bottom” in mortgage underwriting. To keep the CDO assembly line running, originators needed volume. That demand for volume led to a collapse in underwriting standards. By 2006, no-money-down mortgages were commonplace.

NINJA loans, “No Income, No Job, No Assets,” were extended to borrowers who could not remotely service the debt once introductory teaser rates reset.

Stated-income loans, in which borrowers self-reported earnings with no verification, became the industry norm rather than the exception.

Adjustable-rate mortgages were sold to buyers who qualified only at the teaser rate and had no capacity to absorb resets of 3 to 4 percentage points two years later.

The Mortgage Bankers Association later estimated that subprime originations reached $600 billion in 2006 alone, up from roughly $160 billion in 2001. Most importantly, the loans were designed to be sold, not held. In other words, the originator of the loan bore no long-term risk and had every incentive to close as many transactions as possible, regardless of quality.

That single misalignment of incentives was the original sin of the entire subprime crisis.

What compounded the damage beyond even that was systematic, institutionalized fraud at the origination and securitization level. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission documented widespread “robo-signing,” where bank employees executed thousands of mortgage documents per day without reviewing them. They affixed signatures and notarizations to paperwork they had never read. Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, and others were found to have misrepresented loan quality in the representations and warranties they made to investors purchasing MBS tranches, fraudulently inflating the apparent collateral quality of the pools they sold.

Appraisers faced pressure, and in many cases direct financial incentive, to hit predetermined valuations that supported loan amounts the underlying properties could never justify. The FBI reported that mortgage fraud suspicious activity reports increased by more than 1,400% between 2000 and 2007. When losses eventually surfaced, investors discovered they had purchased securities backed not just by bad loans, but by fraudulently documented ones. That distinction made recovery values nearly impossible to model and turned settlement litigation into an industry unto itself for a decade afterward. JPMorgan alone paid $13 billion in 2013 to resolve government claims over mortgage securities, and that figure represented only a fraction of industry-wide settlements.

When housing prices began falling, that entire structure detonated in both directions simultaneously. Banks that held CDO tranches faced mark-to-market losses. Banks that sold CDS protection, AIG being the most famous, faced collateral calls they couldn’t meet. Here is the most crucial point. These instruments traded freely in liquid markets, so price discovery occurred in real time, compressing the panic into a matter of weeks. The interconnection was total. Twelve of the thirteen largest U.S. financial institutions were at risk of failure, according to then-Fed Chair Ben Bernanke.

That’s what systemic risk actually looks like.

Private Credit Stress Is A Different Animal

The private credit market now stands at roughly $1.7 to $2 trillion in deployed capital, a figure that has grown rapidly since banks retreated from middle-market lending after the Global Financial Crisis. That growth is precisely what generated the current stress. Redemption requests have surged across major platforms. Blackstone’s BCRED fund saw record redemptions of $3.8 billion in Q1 2026, exceeding its 5% quarterly buyback limit. Apollo, Blue Owl, and Morgan Stanley’s North Haven fund have all imposed withdrawal restrictions. That gating of withdrawals led to an obvious decline in inflows across retail private credit funds. Those inflows fell to roughly half their 2025 pace, according to Goldman Sachs estimates.

So far, the catalyst is concentrated in software companies, which represent an estimated 15% to 25% of many private credit portfolios. They are under pressure as AI disruption fears potentially erode their earnings power and their ability to service debt. The headline default rate sits around 2% as of 2025, but Goldman Sachs Asset Management’s own research acknowledges that figure understates the true level of stress. When you include liability management exercises and distressed exchanges, the real rate approaches 4% to 5%. That’s meaningful deterioration. It’s not catastrophic, but it’s real.

J.P. Morgan’s analysis showed that for senior direct lending to produce negative total returns, default rates would need to exceed 6% while recovery rates would collapse below 40% simultaneously. Those numbers have historically appeared only during COVID and the Global Financial Crisis itself. That’s a high bar — but it’s not an impossible one. However, that would require a deterioration in macroeconomic conditions, a continuation of the Iran conflict oil shocks, and a contraction of consumer spending, which could certainly amplify risks. As shown below, the current structural comparison between the subprime crisis and the private credit sector today is markedly different.

The Importance of the Gating System

The most structurally significant difference between 2008 and today is also the one that generates the most debate. Unlike the subprime crisis, private credit funds can gate their exits. When Blackstone caps BCRED redemptions at 5% per quarter, it’s not a failure of the fund; it’s the mechanism working as designed. In 2008, there was no such circuit breaker. MBS and CDOs traded continuously in secondary markets, meaning every forced seller found a bid at a lower price, triggering more mark-to-market losses, which in turn triggered more forced selling. The feedback loop was instantaneous and brutal.

Gating slows that process considerably. LPL Research noted that while gating makes for terrible headlines, it prevents the forced liquidation that accelerated subprime losses. Goldman Sachs estimates that retail private credit inflows will remain in net outflow throughout 2026 and likely into 2027, a slow bleed, not a cliff. That’s a very different contagion profile.

That said, gating is not a cure. It transfers the problem in time, not away from investors. Those sitting in redemption queues face a multi-year wait to exit positions that may continue to deteriorate. The opacity of private credit portfolios and manager-reported valuations means stress can accumulate invisibly until it can’t.

“The key risk in private credit is not what is visible, but what remains hidden.” – The Daily Economy

Goldman Sachs economist Manuel Abecasis concluded that, even in an adverse scenario, private credit stress would only drag on GDP by 0.2% to 0.5%. His reasoning is straightforward: the private credit sector holds about $1.7 trillion in levered loans, or roughly 4% of all credit to the private non-financial sector. That’s is not nothing, but it’s not the $62 trillion CDS market either. Goldman also notes that bank lending to businesses has actually accelerated recently, providing a partial offset if private credit tightens.

Blankfein’s view carries different weight precisely because he’s been through the real thing. He warned that private credit assets “can be hard to analyze, may feature hidden leverage, and can become tough to sell.” He’s right that opacity and illiquidity create conditions where problems compound before they surface. The question is whether those conditions, combined with a still-manageable scale, produce systemic contagion or simply painful losses for a subset of investors.

“Private credit stress is unlikely to generate large macroeconomic spillovers on its own.” — Goldman Sachs Economist Manuel Abecasis, March 2026

I’m inclined to side with Goldman’s macro conclusion. However, with a caveat that matters. The base case holds only so long as private credit problems don’t compound with a broader recession, a sustained oil shock from the Iran conflict, and a sharper-than-expected deterioration in software company cash flows. Any two of those three conditions occurring simultaneously change the calculus. Goldman’s own research acknowledges this. The bigger risk isn’t private credit alone. It’s private credit stress coinciding with the wider tightening of financial conditions.

What Investors Should Pay Attention To

The structural differences between today and the subprime crisis are real and important. There’s no synthetic subprime CDO chain multiplying private credit losses to a $5 trillion notional exposure. Most critically, the investor base is primarily institutional, not retail money market funds holding fraudulently rated paper. Fund-level leverage is modest, and the gating mechanism, whatever its imperfections, prevents the instantaneous price cascade that made the subprime crisis so destructive.

What this most closely resembles is a normal credit cycle playing out in an untested asset class. Not a systemic collapse, but not a benign correction either. Goldman Sachs Asset Management’s own European research found that “stress events are likely to remain elevated relative to the last decade,” concentrated in smaller companies and cyclical sectors. That pattern will probably hold in the U.S. as well.

Three things would change my view and warrant genuine alarm.

First, if default rates push past 8% in tech-heavy private credit portfolios as AI disruption accelerates.

Second, if bank credit facilities to private credit managers get pulled at scale, triggering forced asset sales.

Third, retail penetration of private credit grows, as institutional investors sell, leaving less-sophisticated money to hold the bag.

None of those conditions is inevitable. All of them are possible.

The subprime crisis analogy fails on the specifics. But the lesson from the subprime crisis isn’t about CDOs. It’s about what happens when credit markets expand rapidly, underwriting discipline erodes under competitive pressure, and opacity masks deteriorating loan quality. On those broader conditions, the warning is more relevant than the Goldman bulls would like to admit.

That is why we continue to underweight risk for now until we have better clarity about the future.

Key Catalysts Next Week

This is the most structurally loaded week of the quarter. The calendar stacks a Q1 close, a Q2 open, and a full employment gauntlet into five sessions, with markets still metabolizing whatever the Fed just delivered..

Tuesday is the pivot. Consumer Confidence is the marquee release, and it’s the first full-month reading that captures the Iran conflict, the tariff widening, and February’s payroll shock in a single survey. The prior print of 91.2 was already soft. The Expectations component, which the Conference Board flags as a recession signal below 80, is the number to watch. A sharp drop would validate the stagflation fears the Fed just tried to navigate around. Chicago PMI and Case-Shiller Home Prices round out the morning, and then Q1 closes at the bell. Expect elevated volume as pension funds and mutual funds finalize window dressing and mark final positions, totaling roughly $62 billion on the buy side.

Wednesday flips the calendar to Q2 and immediately delivers a triple shot: ADP private payrolls, ISM Manufacturing, and JOLTS. After February’s -92,000 NFP shock, the ADP print will either stabilize the labor narrative or accelerate the deterioration thesis. ISM Manufacturing is the tariff passthrough read, the Prices Paid subindex will tell us whether producers are eating costs or passing them through, while New Orders reveal whether demand is contracting under policy uncertainty. JOLTS completes the picture with the openings-to-unemployed ratio that the Fed uses to assess labor market slack.

Friday is the week’s anchor: March Nonfarm Payrolls. February was distorted by a Kaiser Permanente strike and severe weather, giving bulls a one-month excuse. If March payrolls bounce back above 100,000, the “transitory weakness” camp wins. If they print flat or negative again, the labor market deterioration becomes undeniable, and the pressure on the Fed to act, despite sticky inflation, becomes immense. ISM Services PMI that morning adds the services-sector inflation read alongside Wednesday’s manufacturing data.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/29/2026 – 10:30

The Arizona Wildcats snapped their Final Four drought on Saturday night with an Elite Eight victory over Purdue in the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament.The Wildcats had gone 25 years without being in the Final Four. The last time the Wildcats got this far was in 2001 when they lost to the Duke Blue Devils in the national championship. They are now one win away from getting back there.Arizona freshman Koa Peat scored 20 points as they defeated Purdue, 79-64. He was named the Most Outstanding Player of the West Region.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM”Just being a kid from Arizona, to take this team to a Final Four, man, it’s a blessing,” Peat said. “I’m proud of these guys. We worked for this. We’re not done yet.”The Wildcats’ defense was able to do enough to frustrate Purdue star Braden Smith, who is the NCAA record-holder in assists. Smith had 13 points, seven assists, five rebounds and turned the ball over three times.Oscar Cluff added 14 points and Trey Kaufman-Renn was held to 10 points.Peat became the sixth freshman to score at least 20 points to help his team win the Sweet 16 and Elite Eight matchups.TEXAS COACH GIVES FIERY, EXPLETIVE-LADEN HALFTIME SPEECH BEFORE LONGHORNS’ UPSET OVER GONZAGA”They call him Mr. Arizona,” Arizona head coach Tommy Lloyd said. “Koa is special, and I know you guys hear it, but you got to hear it again. Four state championships at the same high school. Didn’t go to a prep school. Four gold medals with USA Basketball. No one in FIBA history has ever done that. And helped lead Arizona to a Final Four.”Arizona moved to 36-2 with the win. The Wildcats’ 36 wins are a single-season record for wins in program history.Lloyd is in his fifth season as head coach. He took over for Sean Miller before the 2021-22 season. Miller was the third coach that took over after legendary coach Lute Olson stepped down.”Without Lute — without Sean doing what he did for those 12 years he was here, I wouldn’t be able to do what we did today. I fully understand that,” Lloyd said. “Those guys, this is for them too. You know, I have no problem sharing the success of this team with the coaches that came before me.”Arizona will play the winner between Michigan and Tennessee.The Associated Press contributed to this report.Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Magisterial District Judge Hanif Johnson, who became Pennsylvania’s youngest-ever judge when he was elected in 2019 at 26, is now the subject of an active investigation by the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office after he shot a 10-month-old puppy on March 10.
Johnson, now 35, was walking his dog in Harrisburg when he encountered the loose puppy, named Lux.
According to authorities, he fired a single shot, striking the animal through the shoulder blade and out the back, shattering the bone.
The injury was so severe that Lux required emergency surgery and amputation of her front leg to survive.
The puppy’s family had been searching for her after she escaped.
The family could not afford the veterinary bill for emergency surgery, so they surrendered her to Pitties Love Peace, a local pit bull rescue.
The president of Pitties Love Peace, Mika Steifel, told CBS 21 that Lux would have needed to be euthanized without the surgery.
“She was shot through her shoulder blade and then out through her back, and it just really destroyed the bone, so she needed to have her front leg amputated,” Steifel said.
Lux is now recovering and in a foster home.
Johnson called the Harrisburg Bureau of Police himself shortly after the incident and reported the shooting, telling officers it was out of “necessity.”
Harrisburg police collected evidence at the scene and immediately turned the case over to the Attorney General’s Office to avoid any conflict of interest, as both city police and the Dauphin County District Attorney’s Office regularly appear before Johnson in court.
Dauphin County District Attorney Fran Chardo confirmed that he recused his office the same day.
“My attorneys appear before this magisterial district judge for preliminary hearings all the time,” Chardo said. “I invoked a conflict and immediately referred the investigation to the Office of the Attorney General.”
The AG’s office has confirmed it is investigating but has released no further details.
No charges have been filed against Johnson as of early Sunday morning. His judicial office declined to comment on the investigation but confirmed he remains on the bench and is actively hearing cases, according to a report from PennLive.
WATCH:

Johnson first gained attention in 2019 when he became Pennsylvania’s youngest magistrate judge.
In interviews at the time, Johnson spoke about overcoming skepticism due to his age and race while growing up in challenging circumstances.
He had faced prior arrests, once for an alleged robbery and once involving a fraternity hazing incident at college, but was exonerated in both cases, including after passing a polygraph in the robbery matter.
CBS 21 News reports:
Johnson said his ties to the community were the only thing that saved him after being jailed three times in the past.
He was previously arrested for an alleged role in a reported robbery, but after a polygraph test, the police were able to determine they had the wrong man, Johnson told CBS 21.
Johnson was also reportedly arrested for his role in a reported hazing incident at his college fraternity but was later exonerated.
He told CBS 21 he hoped his election showed that you can be young, black, face adversity, and still soar to greater heights.
“I want that little boy that grew up in the projects or grew up in a not-so-ideal situation, when they look at me, I want them to know there is hope because that is exactly what it is,” Johnson had said.
The post Youngest Judge in Pennsylvania History Under Investigation After Shooting 10-Month-Old Puppy That Got Loose While Family Was Searching for Her appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

It becomes a challenge for a retailer to remain viable when the product its sells no longer requires customers to leave their home to buy it.That’s a phenomenon that has hurt countless industries. Bookstores, for example, struggled when digital books became an option for readers.Music stores essentially disappearing, becoming more about novelty than selling products once streaming music made the concept of owning records more or less obsolete.Now, the video game space has undergone a similar transformation. You can now download most games straight to your console, which makes gaming stores an unnecessary relic.”The Entertainment Retailers Association (ERA) reports that a staggering 89.5% of video game purchases were digital downloads in a recent period, leaving a mere 10.5% as physical sales. While 90% sounds like a dominant figure, it’s crucial to contextualize this data. The seemingly high percentage is significantly influenced by the mobile gaming market,” according to Achivx. That makes GameStop a failing proposition unless it finds a product to sell other than video games, a category which has historically been its major sales driver.GameStop lays out its core problemGamestop itself laid out the problem in its 2024 10-K filed with the SEC.”The current consoles from Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have facilitated download technology. Downloading of video game content to the current generation video game systems continues to grow and take an increasing percentage of new video game sales. If consumers’ preference for downloading video game content in lieu of physical software continues to increase, our business and financial performance may be adversely impacted,” the company shared.To make matters worse, some hardware does not even owners to use physical games.”In addition, both Sony and Microsoft currently offer consoles that only allow for the purchase of digital games and content and do not work with physical software. Sales of those types of consoles eliminate the ability of customers to purchase physical software, which may also adversely affect our sales of both new and pre-owned physical software,” GameStop added.GameStop has been shrinkingGameStop founder Gary Kusin called for the chain to get smaller back in a 2024 interview with Fox Business. “CEO Ryan Cohen has “got to reduce the footprint of stores,” he shared. The founder made it clear that efforts to pivot to other businesses have failed.They “tried a bunch of things and none of them have worked,” he said. “Nothing works in a 10,000-store footprint, unless it’s a historically enormous sector.”GameStop actually has 1,598 stores now, down from 2.915 in February 2024, according to SEC Filings. That’s about 700 locations closed in each of the past two years, but GameStop did say in the filings that the company doesn’t expect to close a significant number of locations in 2026.

GameStop has been shrinking its store portfolio.Shutterstock

GameStop’s sales have droppedGameStop has been in a managed decline for the past few years, but not all results were negative.Net sales were $3.630 billion for fiscal year 2025, compared to $3.823 billion in fiscal year 2024.SG&A expenses were $910.2 million for fiscal year 2025, compared to $1.130 billion in fiscal year 2024.Operating income was $232.1 million for fiscal year 2025, compared to an operating loss of $26.2 million in fiscal year 2024.Excluding impairment and other items, adjusted operating income was $289.5 million for fiscal year 2025, compared to an adjusted operating loss of $26.8 million in fiscal year 2024.xNet income was $418.4 million for fiscal year 2025, compared to $131.3 million in fiscal year 2024.
Source: GameStop Q4 earnings release
Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter thinks the path forward for the chain is clear.”There is not an intelligent investor alive who owns GameStop,” Pachter told Fox Business.He does not see the company as being able to salvage its business model.”Physical sales aren’t going to ever get better,” Pachter said. “It’s not going to ever stabilize. It will continue to decline. And the reason it will continue to decline is we have a whole generation of kids growing up who have never seen a physical copy of the game.”Related: 48-year-old nostalgic mall retailer will close 25 stores in 2026