SUCCESS

Gold investors were bracing for a familiar problem.Higher real rates, a stronger dollar, and a Federal Reserve that could continue to hammer one of the year’s hottest trades.For context, according to GoldPrice.org, gold is trading in the early $4,100s per ounce, still up an impressive 23% over the past year, while its 30-day performance is down roughly 1%. Bernstein analysts aren’t dismissing that risk, but the firm’s latest call on the shiny yellow metal might be changing in a way investors cannot ignore. Bernstein reset its gold price target following a steep pullback, pointing to a Fed-rate backdrop that might not be as damaging for the bullion as the market feared. The safe-haven metal has been punished by rising real yields, yet Bernstein still sees ample room for prices to recover, as central-bank demand remains robust and the Fed’s next move looks a lot less threatening than expected.The question is whether gold’s sell-off was a warning or the revamp before another move higher.

Bernstein updated its gold target as Fed-rate expectations reshape bullion’s outlook.adventtr

What Bernstein now sees for gold Bernstein’s new gold price target is a lot more interesting because it effectively carries a Fed-rate twist.More Fed:Supreme Court hands Fed independence a major victoryTop economist delivers blunt Fed rate warning for 2026Inflation flips Wall Street’s Fed interest-rate betsAccording to Investing.com’s reporting, Bernstein adjusted its 2026 gold price target to $4,533 an ounce and set a second-half 2026 target of $4,375 an ounce. For context, earlier public reports put Bernstein’s 2026 view at $4,180 in January and $4,800 in February. The firm’s reasoning is that it is based on central-bank demand and a Fed that Bernstein surprisingly doesn’t expect to launch an aggressive rate-hike cycle.Gold has had a rough Q2 as the old market rule returned. When real rates rise, gold tends to struggle, as it pays no interest, and that relationship was on display during the quarter, with real rates moving from 2% in early April to 2.28% in late June, while gold fell from $4,650 an ounce to around $4,000.Though that backdrop calls for a little caution. Instead, Bernstein is still looking for gold to move higher in the second half.The firm’s economists do not expect a higher Fed funds rate over the next 12 months, with the central bank potentially limited to no hikes or to only one or two.That puts Bernstein at odds with a more cautious Wall Street read. For instance, Reuters reported that HSBC cut its 2026 and 2027 gold forecasts because of a more hawkish US monetary policy outlook and a stronger dollar.Central banks give gold a floor, but inflation can still crack it Bernstein’s gold case rests on central bank support.The firm pointed to the World Gold Council’s 2026 Central Bank Gold Reserves survey, showing that 89% of central banks expect global gold reserves to rise over the next 12 months, while a record 45% expect to increase their own holdings.Related: JPMorgan sees the writing on the wall for silver stock investorsCentral-bank demand tends to be stickier than retail demand. ETF investors can sell when yields rise. Momentum traders often leave the trade when gold breaks technical levels, but reserve managers have other considerations, including dollar exposure, geopolitical risk, currency diversification, and long-term balance-sheet protection.Nevertheless, the inflation risk remains. If inflation remains hot, the Fed will lean hawkish, raising rates and lifting real yields in the process, strengthening the dollar and making gold less appealing.Latest Wall Street gold price targetsMorgan Stanley: $5,200/oz in H2 2026. Morgan Stanley argues that the shiny yellow metal needs stronger ETF inflows to make that target much more realistic.Deutsche Bank: $4,800/oz by Q4 2026. Deutsche Bank slashed its second-half gold view, seeing $4,300/oz in Q3 before a snapback to $4,800/oz in Q4 as the Fed reprices and ongoing U.S. macro data pressures demand.Goldman Sachs: $4,900/oz by end-2026. Goldman’s team pointed to sovereign demand and emerging-market central bank diversification in narrowing their price target.Bank of America: $4,800/oz by Q4 2026. BofA slashed its near-term target as investor demand slowed down and Fed-related headwinds intensified.UBS: $5,200/oz over the next 12 months.UBS feels gold could rebound as markets price in the effects of the Fed policy, dollar pressure, and central bank buying.
Sources: Reuters, Business Insider, Investing.com, JPMorgan Global Research, and Kitco, cited notes from Morgan Stanley and Bank of America.
The Fed risk is getting harder for gold bulls to ignoreIt’s safe to say that over the past few weeks, Fed signaling has turned a lot more hostile.For instance, the newly released June Fed minutes, the first under Chair Kevin Warsh, showed a central bank split but clearly worried about inflation. According to AP, half of the 18 policymakers who submitted projections supported raising rates by year-end, while the other half favored holding steady or cutting. A few officials even saw a case for hiking at the June meeting before the Fed ultimately held rates at 3.6%.On the flip side, Warsh hasn’t sounded eager to validate hopes of a rate cut. Reuters reported that he would stick firmly to the Fed’s 2% inflation target and “disappoint” anyone expecting loose monetary policy, while also avoiding forward guidance. Moreover, it seems Wall Street has also moved that way, too. I covered recently that BofA now expects three 25-basis-point hikes in September, October, and December, while Deutsche Bank also expects two hikes this year. On top of that, Reuters said markets lifted the implied probability of a 2026 hike to nearly 87%, as oil shocks and inflation risks continue pushing yields higher.Related: Tesla stock gets a surprising SpaceX reset

Bad Bunny’s Debí Tirar Más Fotos returns to multiple charts in the U.K. after the Latin superstar played multiple shows in London.

The traditional inheritance model is simple: You save your whole life, you die, and your kids get whatever is left. More and more retirees are questioning that sequence. If the money is going to your children anyway, why not give some of it while you’re around to see what it does for them?

It’s a fair question, and for a growing number of families, the answer is yes. But the order of operations matters enormously, and getting it wrong can damage both your retirement and your kids.

The Case for Giving While Living

Wes Moss, host of the Ask an Advisor segments on the Clark Howard Podcast, has watched plenty of families work through this decision.

“I’m very much in favor of sharing some of your inheritance while you’re here to watch your kids and grandkids enjoy it,” Moss says. “But only if your own retirement math truly works first.”

The appeal is obvious. A $50,000 gift toward a first home when your daughter is 32 changes her life in a way that the same $50,000 won’t if she inherits it at 60, likely after her own kids are grown, and her mortgage is paid off. Money delivered at the right moment does more work.

“For affluent families, helping with things like a first home, education, or big life goals can be incredibly rewarding,” Moss says, “and many boomers are already doing this through regular, thoughtful gifts rather than one giant transfer at the end.”

That last part is worth noting. The families doing this well aren’t writing one dramatic check. They’re making steady, planned gifts year after year, which happens to line up neatly with how the tax rules work.

The Tax Rules Are More Generous Than You Think

Many people assume large gifts trigger a tax bill. For nearly everyone, they don’t.

In 2026, you can give up to $19,000 per person to as many people as you want with no tax consequences and no paperwork. A married couple can combine their exclusions and give $38,000 per recipient. Two parents with three married kids could move $228,000 a year to their children and their spouses without filing a single form.

Go over that amount, and you file a gift tax return (Form 709), but that’s a reporting event, not a tax event. Amounts above the annual exclusion simply count against your lifetime gift and estate tax exemption, which is now $15 million per person ($30 million per couple) and permanent under current law. Unless you’re moving eight figures, federal gift tax is not your problem.

Two more exclusions make targeted help even easier. Tuition paid directly to a school and medical bills paid directly to a provider don’t count against the annual exclusion or the lifetime exemption at all. You could pay a grandchild’s entire college tuition and still give that grandchild $19,000 the same year.

Which Account the Money Comes From Matters

The gift tax rules are the easy part. The income tax consequences of raising the cash are where retirees get surprised.

If your wealth is mostly in traditional IRAs and 401(k)s, every dollar you withdraw to give away is taxed as ordinary income first. A $100,000 gift from a traditional IRA could cost you $125,000 or more after federal taxes. A withdrawal that size can also push you into a higher bracket, raise your Medicare premiums through IRMAA and increase how much of your Social Security gets taxed. Retirees in this position are usually better off spreading withdrawals over several years to stay within their current bracket rather than taking one big hit.

Roth IRA withdrawals and cash savings avoid this problem entirely, which is one more reason account diversification pays off in retirement.

One caution on gifting investments instead of cash: Appreciated stock you give away during your lifetime carries your original cost basis to the recipient. The same stock left in your estate gets a step-up in basis at death, wiping out the capital gains tax entirely. For highly appreciated holdings, dying with them is often the better tax move.

Where Early Giving Goes Wrong

Moss has seen the failure modes up close, and they come in two varieties.

“Where I’ve seen it go wrong is with parents whose own plan is tight,” he says, “or who accidentally keep their adult kids on the payroll and dependent on their money instead of helping them stand on their own two feet.”

The first mistake is a math problem. You can borrow to buy a house or to pay for a college education. Nobody will lend you money to fund your retirement. If a long retirement, a market downturn or a late-life health event could strain your plan, the money you gave away at 65 is money you may badly need at 85. Run your plan against conservative assumptions before you give anything, and if you’re not certain, a fee-only fiduciary advisor can stress test it for you.

The second mistake is a parenting problem. There’s a real difference between a gift that launches a child and a subsidy that becomes part of their monthly budget. A down payment helps your son buy a home he can afford on his own income. Covering his car payment and cell phone bill in his 30s teaches him that his lifestyle doesn’t have to match his paycheck. One builds independence. The other erodes it.

A Simple Rule of Thumb

Moss boils the whole decision down to one sentence:

“Don’t give so much, so early, that you jeopardize your own retirement or your children’s independence.”

Both conditions have to hold. Your plan has to be solidly funded under pessimistic assumptions, not just average ones. And your kids have to be the kind of people a gift will help rather than soften. If either test fails, wait.

But if both pass, the payoff goes well beyond the money.

Final Thoughts

“If you’re solidly funded and they’re responsible,” Moss says, “sharing part of the inheritance early can be one of the most joyful uses of wealth you’ll ever experience.”

You spent decades building the nest egg. Watching it matter, while you’re still here to see it, might be the best return it ever produces.
The post Should You Give Your Kids Their Inheritance While You’re Still Alive? appeared first on Clark Howard.

Losing a spouse changes almost every part of life, including your finances. While most people expect changes to Social Security or pension income, many don’t realize the tax bill can increase just as household income is shrinking.

That’s what’s commonly called the widow’s penalty. It’s not an actual tax. It’s the result of moving from the favorable tax rules for married couples to the much tighter rules for single filers, even though many living expenses — and often most retirement income — stay about the same.

The good news is that this is one retirement tax challenge you can often plan for. The most effective strategies happen while both spouses are still alive, making advance planning especially valuable. But there is still an opportunity to make strategic changes after a loss.

What is the Widow’s Penalty?

The widow’s penalty refers to what can happen when a surviving spouse loses the tax advantages of filing jointly while keeping much of the couple’s retirement income and living expenses. As a result, taxes can rise even as household income falls.

In the year a spouse dies, the survivor can still file a joint tax return. Starting the following year, however, most surviving spouses must file as single. (A qualifying surviving spouse status preserves the joint tax brackets for up to two additional years, but it requires a dependent child, so it rarely applies to retirees.)

That change affects two key parts of the tax code at once:

The standard deduction gets cut in half. In 2026, a married couple where both spouses are 65 or older gets a standard deduction of $35,500. A single filer over 65 gets $18,150. That means roughly $17,000 of income that was tax-free on the joint return is now taxable, even though nothing about the survivor’s spending or lifestyle changed.

The tax brackets shrink. For 2026, the 12% federal tax bracket extends to $100,800 of taxable income for joint filers. For a single filer, it ends at $50,400. A surviving spouse whose income fit comfortably in the 12% bracket while married can see a large slice of that same income taxed at 22% the very next year.

The reason this happens is that a surviving spouse’s income often holds up much better than the tax code assumes. Social Security pays the survivor only the larger of the two benefits, so the smaller check disappears. But that’s often the only income that goes away. Required minimum distributions from the couple’s retirement accounts continue at nearly the same level because the survivor typically inherits the deceased spouse’s IRA or 401(k). Interest, dividends and rental income aren’t affected by filing status at all.

As a result, a couple with $120,000 of annual income might leave a surviving spouse with $95,000, still enough to cover many of the same household expenses, but now taxed under rules designed for someone earning far less.

How the Widow’s Penalty Can Increase Medicare Premiums

The widow’s penalty doesn’t just affect income taxes. It can also increase what you pay for Medicare.

Medicare Part B and Part D premiums carry an income-based surcharge called IRMAA (the income-related monthly adjustment amount). The thresholds for single filers are exactly half those for married couples. In 2026, a couple filing jointly can have modified adjusted gross income up to $218,000 before the first surcharge applies. A single filer crosses the line at $109,000.

Consider a couple with $135,000 in retirement income: two Social Security checks and RMDs from their IRAs. Filing jointly, they’re nowhere near the IRMAA threshold. When one spouse dies, the survivor’s income might drop to $110,000. Lower income, but now over the single-filer line. Crossing just the first IRMAA tier adds roughly $1,150 a year to Medicare premiums.

IRMAA also works on a two-year lookback. Your 2026 premiums are based on your 2024 tax return. A new surviving spouse can end up paying higher premiums based on the couple’s old joint income, even though household income has already fallen

There’s a fix for that last part, and it’s frequently missed. The death of a spouse counts as a life-changing event under Social Security’s rules. The survivor can file Form SSA-44 and ask Social Security to recalculate IRMAA using current-year income instead of the old joint return. If you know a recent widow or widower paying elevated Medicare premiums, this one form can save them real money.

How to Reduce the Widow’s Penalty

Almost every tool for reducing the widow’s penalty depends on the wider joint brackets, and those disappear when the first spouse dies. The planning window is the years when both spouses are alive and, ideally, in a lower bracket than the survivor will face alone.

Consider annual Roth conversions during the joint years. This is the single biggest lever. Converting traditional IRA money to a Roth while married lets you pay the tax at joint rates, often 12% or 22%, instead of leaving it to be taxed at the survivor’s compressed single rates. Every dollar converted also shrinks future RMDs, which lowers the survivor’s taxable income for the rest of their life. The standard approach is to convert just enough each year to fill your current bracket without spilling into the next one, while keeping an eye on the IRMAA thresholds.

Use the final joint-filing year. In the year a spouse dies, the survivor can still file jointly. That’s one last shot at the wide brackets and the full standard deduction. A larger Roth conversion or a planned capital gain in that year is taxed far more gently than it will be in any year afterward.

Get the pension election right. If either spouse has a pension, the survivor benefit election is usually irrevocable at retirement. A single-life payout is bigger each month, but it dies with the pensioner. A joint-and-survivor option pays less now and protects the surviving spouse for life. Couples should make this decision with the survivor’s full tax picture in mind, not just the monthly difference.

Coordinate the Social Security claiming decision. The survivor keeps the larger of the two benefits. That means the higher earner delaying to age 70 isn’t just maximizing their own check. It’s setting the income floor the surviving spouse will live on, possibly for decades.

Use qualified charitable distributions after 70½. If you’re charitably inclined, giving directly from an IRA satisfies your RMD without the money ever touching your adjusted gross income. For a survivor sitting near an IRMAA threshold or a bracket line, a QCD can be the difference between staying under and going over.

Don’t sit on the house too long. Married couples can exclude up to $500,000 of gain on the sale of a primary home. A surviving spouse keeps the full $500,000 exclusion only if the home sells within two years of the spouse’s death. After that, the exclusion drops to $250,000. For long-held homes in appreciated markets, waiting can turn a tax-free sale into a taxable one.

Model the survivor scenario. Ask your advisor, or run the numbers yourself, on a simple question. If one of us died this year, what would the survivor’s tax return look like in two years? What bracket? What IRMAA tier? What RMDs? Most couples have never seen those numbers. Seeing them is what turns all of the moves above from abstract advice into a concrete plan.

After a Loss, There’s Still Time To Act

If you’ve already lost a spouse, don’t assume you’ve missed every planning opportunity. While some strategies are only available before a spouse dies, others remain available in the months and years that follow.

The final joint tax return can still be filed for the year of death.

Form SSA-44 may reduce Medicare premiums by updating your income after a life-changing event.

The two-year window for the full home sale exclusion may still be available if you’re considering selling your home.

The widow’s penalty often affects couples who saved consistently for retirement and built substantial traditional retirement accounts. Large traditional retirement accounts can create larger required minimum distributions, which are then taxed under a single filer’s tighter tax rules.

Whether you’re planning as a couple or navigating life after the loss of a spouse, understanding how the rules work can help you make informed decisions, avoid unnecessary taxes and keep more of the retirement income you’ve worked so hard to build.

Final Thoughts

No amount of tax planning can make losing a spouse easier. But understanding the widow’s penalty can help prevent an unexpected tax bill from adding to an already difficult time.

The most effective strategies often happen years before they’re needed, while both spouses are still alive and have the flexibility to make decisions together. Even after a loss, however, knowing the rules can uncover opportunities to reduce taxes and Medicare costs.

The widow’s penalty is one of the few retirement tax challenges that’s both predictable and manageable. Planning ahead won’t change what happens — but it can help the surviving spouse keep more of the retirement income you’ve spent a lifetime building.
The post How the Widow’s Penalty Works and How To Plan Around It appeared first on Clark Howard.

A single weak jobs report moved more money on Wall Street on Monday than any independent company’s earnings ever could.That is what played out on Monday, July 6, 2026, and Jim Cramer thinks it handed patient investors a rare opening.The CNBC host argues that big investment funds sold off shares in several strong companies. Nothing was wrong with these companies. The funds were simply moving their money into other investments.Cramer’s message to viewers was simple: When you can spot a rotation and name what’s driving it, you can also spot the bargains it leaves behind.Five names topped his list, and each one is worth a closer look.Why Cramer calls these 5 stocks collateral damageOn the July 6 broadcast of CNBC’s Mad Money, Cramer named Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), PepsiCo (PEP), Starbucks (SBUX), Constellation Brands (STZ) and TJX Companies (TJX) as his five stocks to buy during the downturn, CNBC reported.The market conditions trace back to last week’s June jobs report, which pointed to slower hiring than the month before. Related: Jim Cramer surprises investors with his favorite stock pickCramer said that data pushed large money managers to pull cash out of steady names and back into red-hot AI winners.When big investment funds sell a whole sector at once, strong companies get swept out with the weak ones, even if nothing is wrong with their business.Cramer’s word for that was blunt. All five, he said, received collateral damage from indiscriminate rotation selling.Cramer told viewers a hiring slowdown, not weak fundamentals, pushed these five stocks lower.

Cramer told viewers a hiring slowdown, not weak fundamentals, pushed these five stocks lower.Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images

Johnson & Johnson and PepsiCo head into earnings on the dipThe clearest near-term test comes from the two names announcing results first.Cramer called Johnson & Johnson a pure-play pharma company now. He pointed to its separation from consumer-health arm Kenvue and its pullback from orthopedics as the reasons why. He said that cleaner focus makes it more attractive heading into its July 15 earnings report.More Jim Cramer Stock Calls:Jim Cramer sends a strong signal to Nvidia stock investors amid rumorsJim Cramer says it’s time to buy another aerospace stock before it takes offJim Cramer turns bullish on health care stock after years of doubtPepsiCo is the other one on the clock. Cramer said the recent pullback erased much of the stock’s rally that followed a strong prior quarter. This opens a better entry point before the company’s second-quarter results land on July 9. Wall Street expects PepsiCo earnings of about $2.21 a share on roughly $23.96 billion in revenue, AlphaStreet reported.Earnings can cut both ways. A buy-the-dip approach works best when the quarter confirms the business is steady, so these two reports are the first real checkpoints.Starbucks, Constellation Brands, and TJX round out the listThe last three names lean on longer stories rather than a single print. Here’s what Cramer likes about each:Starbucks(SBUX): Cramer called it an accumulation play, with the decline finally giving investors a chance to buy as CEO Brian Niccol works through the turnaround.Constellation Brands(STZ): The higher-risk pick. Cramer said its recent earnings suggested the core beer business is stabilizing even as concerns hang over alcohol.TJX Companies (TJX): His favorite defensive retailer. A weaker consumer tends to help off-price stores as shoppers trade down, while bloated inventory elsewhere lets TJX buy quality goods cheaply.Constellation’s own numbers back the beer point. In its most recent quarter, the company said its beer division kept gaining dollar and volume share across U.S. tracked channels, according to its SEC filing.What has to go right before these dips pay offA discount only matters if the business holds up, so a few things still need to happen.PepsiCo and Johnson & Johnson deliver earnings that steady the story rather than shake it.Constellation’s beer momentum keeps offsetting the soft spirits market.The consumer stays weak enough to send shoppers toward TJX, but not so weak it drags down staples spending.The rotation into AI hardware cools before it pulls even more cash out of these sectors.There is a real risk worth naming. Cramer makes buy calls almost every night, and his record is debated enough that Quiver built inverse-Cramer strategies to bet against his most-recommended names.None of this is a promise of a rise. It is a framework for deciding whether a name got cheap for a good reason or a bad one.The bottom line for investors watching the rotationCramer’s core idea holds up even if you never buy a single one of these stocks. Rotations sell sectors, not businesses, so quality names sometimes drop for reasons that have nothing to do with how they operate.For readers, the useful move is to separate the two before acting. If a stock fell only because its neighbors did, the earnings reports and share trends will show it fast.Johnson & Johnson and PepsiCo report earnings within days, so investors will not have to wait long for the first real answers.Related: Jim Cramer makes bold buy call on one booming energy stock

TheStreet aims to feature only the best products and services. If you buy something via one of our links, we may earn a commission.Why we love this dealBone conduction earbuds have become more popular over the years thanks to the comfortable fit that prevents moisture buildup during long sessions, better comfort, and higher overall safety. They offer better situational awareness thanks to the out-of-the-ear design that utilizes vibrations on your ear instead of directly plugging your ears, allowing you to hear the world around you. The Boytond Ultra-Open Earbuds offer bone-conduction technology that is useful for running, driving, and other activities that need you to still be aware of what’s going on around you. The clip-on design offers comfortable wear for long periods and offers easy use for any size ear. These earbuds are just $20, originally selling for $149. Shoppers can save 87% at Amazon. Boytond Ultra-Open Earbuds, $20 (was $149) at Amazon

Courtesy of Amazon

Shop at AmazonWhy do shoppers love it?These earbuds are designed for people who want to enjoy music, podcasts, and phone calls without feeling completely disconnected from what’s happening around them. Instead of sitting inside the ear canal, the earbuds rest over the ear with a lightweight clip-on design that promotes natural airflow, reducing pressure and fatigue that some people experience with normal in-ear earbuds. This makes them suitable for long workdays, commuting, walking the dog, traveling, and more. They keep you safer with the ability to hear people walking behind you, and don’t make you miss your stop while jamming out on the train. Related: Amazon has active noise-canceling Bluetooth earbuds for just $28 that have over 26,000 5-star ratingsThey feature 16.3 millimeter dynamic drivers that offer clear bass, treble, and detailed sound for all kinds of listening. They work for video calls, following GPS, or catching up over the phone, prioritizing natural-sounding audio that keeps conversations easy to understand while still hearing the world around you. They also provide up to 10 hours of continuous playback on a single charge, while the charging case extends the listening time to as much as 40 hours. A waterproof design helps protect them from sweat, making them suitable for workouts, runs, and hot days. They also feature quick-pairing and stable wireless connectivity thanks to the Bluetooth 5.3 technology. Details to knowComfort for any ear: Because these headphones loosely clip onto your ear, they work well with different ear anatomy while still remaining comfortable. Colors: Choose from black or white.Long playback times: Without the charging case, these earbuds last up to 10 hours, and can last up to 40 hours including the case. One reviewer said, “These earbuds are comfortable, clear, and perfect for everyday use. From the moment I put them on, I could tell they were different from traditional in‑ear buds. I love being able to hear my music and podcasts clearly without blocking out the world around me. Whether I’m walking, working, or just relaxing at home, they feel natural and airy – no pressure, no fatigue, just easy listening. Comfort is honestly the biggest win for me. The clip-on design sits gently over my ear, and I can wear them all day without that sore, plugged‑up feeling I get from in‑ear buds.” Other shoppers have also said they are “very pleased” with these earbuds. Shop more dealsBreezio Open Ear Earbuds, $23 (was $188) at WalmartBreezio Hifi Open Ear Earbuds, $23 (was $179) at WalmartTozo Open Ear Earbuds, $27 (was $40) at AmazonThe Boytond Ultra-Open Earbuds offer superior comfort for hot days and long runs without sacrificing sound quality. They’re balanced to support easy listening to both your music and things around you, providing a safer way to listen during work, exercising, and more. These headphones are on sale for only $20, saving shoppers a huge 87% on the original price of $149.

The Fed chair is testifying before Congress this week. Lawmakers should ask him about transparency.

“Rein Me In” by Sam Fender and Olivia Dean earns a fifteenth week atop the U.K.’s Official Singles chart, tying as the third-longest-running No. 1 of all time.

The Odyssey has received hate from those who have not seen the film yet, and Christopher Nolan is now commenting on the movement.

The Genlayer Foundation is leading the 27-firm consortium that makes AI-based payments, escrow and dispute resolution interoperable.