BUSINESS

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.

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

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

Nvidia (NVDA) stock’s latest selloff just sent an unusual signal, and one which investors haven’t seen in years. After the stark AI-driven selloff in tech stocks, Nvidia effectively broke a 13-year pattern of trading at premium valuations, ahead of the S&P 500.After its recent slide, as per reporting from Barrons’, it’s now trading at nearly 19.7 times forward earnings, just under the S&P 500’s roughly 20.3 times, a steep reversal after years of premium pricing. That shift comes at a time when Nvidia’s fundamentals continue to impress, delivering explosive results across key top- and bottom-line metrics. Clearly, given the recent developments, investors are questioning what comes next, particularly whether its massive AI spending will translate into sustained returns. On top of that, growing competition, heavy reinvestment, and troubling customer concentration are adding to the tremendous uncertainty.That said, I recently covered Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s blunt take on the company’s future, where he said a $10 trillion valuation is not far-fetched.He framed Nvidia’s growth as “inevitable,” underscoring the tremendous increase in AI-driven demand and expanding compute economics. In that context, Nvidia’s valuation reset might be less about weakness and perhaps more about the market recalibrating expectations following a tremendous run.

Nvidia stock loses premium valuation edge as AI giant trades closer to broader market multiplesPhoto by Benjamin Fanjoy on Getty Images

Wall Street price targets for Nvidia stockBank of America: $300 (+79.1% vs. current price).Barclays: $275 (+64.2% vs. current price).Goldman Sachs: $250 (+49.2% vs. current price).JPMorgan: $265 (+58.2% vs. current price).Morgan Stanley: $260 (+55.2% vs. current price).UBS: $245 (+46.3% vs. current price).Why Nvidia’s rerating mattersWhat’s happening with Nvidia stock isn’t happening in isolation.More Nvidia:Goldman Sachs sends blunt message on Nvidia stock after GTCNvidia CEO makes bombshell call on AI’s next big thingBank of America resets Nvidia stock forecast after meeting with CFOInvestors aren’t willing to pay for peak multiples for AI stocks, even for those businesses that deliver stand-out growth. We’re seeing that change show up across tech. The sector’s forward P/E has dropped to around 21, the lowest in three years, mirroring the broader market. However, earnings expectations haven’t weakened with the consensus still pointing to nearly 42.5% growth in 2026. That disconnect between falling valuations and relatively strong fundamentals is what makes thing stand-out. Nvidia sits at the heart of that tension.It’s still delivering solid numbers, including a smashing Q4 revenue of $68.1 billion, up 73% from the prior-year period, along with data-center sales of $62.3 billion, up 75%, and full-year revenue of $215.9 billion, up 65%.Additionally, at the GTC event, it announced that its AI chip revenue could reach as much as $1 trillion through 2027.Nevertheless, investors are focused on what comes next. When expectations are sky-high, even strong results aren’t enough to move the stock higher.Related: Morgan Stanley sends clear message on semiconductor stocks after selloffNvidia stock returns vs. the S&P 500 vs. the Magnificent 7Over the last 1 month, Nvidia returned -5.46%, compared with the S&P 500’s -7.41% and the Magnificent 7’s (represented by Roundhill Magnificent Seven ETF) -9.62%.Over the last 6 months, Nvidia returned -5.99%, compared with the S&P 500’s -4.14% and the Magnificent 7’s -12.70%.On a year-to-date basis, Nvidia returned -10.18%, compared with the S&P 500’s -6.96%; Magnificent 7 YTD data was not shown in the image.Over the last 1 year, Nvidia returned 50.34%, compared with the S&P 500’s 11.87% and the Magnificent 7’s 17.86%.Over the last 3 years, Nvidia returned 531.41%, compared with the S&P 500’s 60.12%. Magnificent 7 data was not shown in the image.Over the last 5 years, Nvidia returned 1,204.75%, compared with the S&P 500’s 60.24%; Magnificent 7 data was not shown in the image.Over the last 10 years, Nvidia returned 19,333.87%, compared with the S&P 500’s 212.82%; the Magnificent 7 data was not shown in the image.
Source: Seeking Alpha.
Nvidia valuation milestonesNvidia’s tremendous valuation run really starts off in mid-2023. It briefly cracked the $1 trillion markon May 30 and then cemented its place in history as the first player to close out a trading day above that mark on June 13.By Feb. 23, 2024, the stock doubled that feat, briefly touching$2 trillion as Wall Street treated Nvidia as the clear bellwether of the generative-AI era.The next leap came quickly when Nvidia surged to a $3 trillion valuation on June 5, 2024, and in less than two weeks, it surged to $3.35 trillion, knocking off Microsoft from its perch as the world’s most valuable public company.In July 2025, Nvidia rewrote the history books again, becoming the first company to ever close above $4 trillionas AI spending kept lifting top-line expectations along with investor appetite.Its high-water mark so far came on Oct. 29, 2025, when Nvidia became the first company to reach $5 trillion, ending the session around $5.03 trillion. What Nvidia’s chart is sayingNvidia’s stock chart still looks mostly bruised.Related: JPMorgan delivers blunt message on interest rate cutsThe stock closed out at $167.52 on March 27, as per Seeking Alpha, rounding off another forgettable week.Looking at the stock chart on Yahoo Finance, we see it comfortably below its  20-day simple moving average (SMA) of $173.31, 50-day SMA of $175.15, 100-day SMA of $179.33, and 200-day SMA of $182.43, a simple yet clear sign that the trend is still pointed lower.Moreover, let’s look at the relative strength index (RSI), a momentum gauge in assessing Nvidia stock’s positioning.Currently, the 14-day RSI is 28.35, which is remarkably weak and points to the stock getting close to oversold territory. On top of that, the MACD, which compares short- and long-term momentum, is -2.34 (flashing a sell signal). As per Barchart, the key levels look mostly clear.Near-term support sits around the mid-$160s, with additional downside levels in the low-$160s if we see selling pressure pick up.On the upside, though, resistance starts off in the high-$160s, effectively building through the low-$170s, along with a more meaningful ceiling around the mid-$170s. After that, the next big test comes in the $180 range, where several critical moving averages are clustered.Related: Cathie Wood sells $2.1 million of megacap tech stock

Credit isn’t expanded or contracted by central banks, it’s an effect of productivity surges or a lack of same.

The sportswear giant has been trying to focus more on the needs of athletes, but analysts say new products aren’t catching on.

“We’re both concerned about the accuracy of our returns.”

Funding spikes and liquidations point to positioning build-up, with direction hinging on whether buyers can defend support.

Jordan Love is the ranked as the best draft pick in Brian Gutekunst’s eight seasons as the Green Bay Packers’ general manager.