
How to Ease Your Money Anxiety When the Economy Is Stressing You Out
Four out of five Americans in a survey for Discover last year said they were worried about their money situation, with inflation, everyday expenses and the state of the economy leading a litany of concerns. Nearly two-thirds said they would be financially unprepared if they lost their job, and more than half felt the same way about a recession.
Now, tariffs and a global trade war, which could raise prices and discourage consumer and corporate spending, have economists raising their odds of such a downturn this year. Coupled with wild swings in the stock market, which is down about 9 percent for the year, it's no wonder that financial anxiety is spiking to new heights.
'Since Covid, we've all just been waiting for the next shoe to drop, moneywise,' said Megan McCoy, a financial therapist and an associate professor of personal financial planning at Kansas State University. 'For years now, it's been one kind of painful financial situation after another. We can't catch our breath.'
The danger is not just the financial anxiety, which has been linked to higher risk of various health problems, from depression to heart attacks. It's also that the pressure can drive you to take actions that could ultimately make your financial situation worse.
'The urge people feel to do something to make themselves feel better can be overwhelming,' said Anne Lester, former head of retirement solutions for J.P. Morgan Asset Management and author of the book 'Your Best Financial Life.' 'But it's hard to make sound decisions when you're scared.'
Here are six strategies that experts say will help you keep a cool head and protect your money when anxiety is heating up.
Adjust your perspective.
It's hard not to focus on the most recent hairpin turns of the stock market. In the span of just five trading days this month, the S&P 500 had one of the worst two-day drops on record (10.5 percent) followed by its best one-day climb since 2008 (9.5 percent). Add it up, though, and the index is down 4.4 percent for the month — and April isn't even half over yet.
But what happens to stock prices in a single week, month or even year won't matter in the long run to retirement savers, many of whom have decades to go before they stop working, said Brad Klontz, a financial psychologist and author of the book 'Start Thinking Rich.' Even retirees often have an investment time frame that could span 20 or 30 years or more.
From that perspective, stocks still look like a smart investment for long-term growth, particularly when paired with fixed-income assets for stability. Over the past 100 years or so, stocks have returned 10 percent annually on average, Dr. Klontz said, handily beating other assets.
And while recessions are painful, he said, they're a routine part of an economic cycle, happening every few years or so, and the country has always bounced back from them, too.
'What feels in the short term like you're headed off a cliff is more like a speed bump when you look at it with a long-term perspective,' Dr. Klontz said.
Viewing your 401(k) performance with a different lens is helpful, too, Ms. Lester said.
'We tend to anchor on whatever our highest balance was, so you may be focusing on how much money you've lost since then,' she said. 'But if you look at your balance from a year ago, you're probably still up. And compared to five or 10 years ago, you're likely up even more substantially.'
Slow your roll.
For some 401(k) investors, the urge to sell stocks as prices tumbled has proved too powerful to resist.
With these savers shifting money from stocks to fixed-income funds, the volume of 401(k) trading during the first quarter of 2025 was the highest in nearly five years, according to Alight Solutions, which tracks workplace retirement plan activity. (The activity involved less than 1 percent of total 401(k) plan balances, but the jump is notable.) The sell-off picked up additional steam after the free-fall in the market on April 3 and 4, with 10 times the usual volume on Monday, April 7, the next trading day — the most transactions in a single day since March 2020.
This shows how easy it is for anxiety to spur action that may not be in your best interest, since those sellers missed out on the surge in stock prices later in the week, which allowed the major indexes to recover a big chunk of the losses incurred so far this year.
'All decisions are bets — we never know if they're wise or not until time has passed,' said Naomi Win, a clinical psychologist and behavioral analyst with Orion Advisor Solutions, a wealth management tech firm. 'Resist the culture of immediacy by learning to pause and be thoughtful and take time on decisions rather than reacting on emotion.'
One way to do this: Impose a rule for yourself that you must wait at least an hour before making a trade; set a timer to hold yourself to it. And seek out advice first from a trusted source — a financial adviser, if you have one, or a knowledgeable friend or colleague with a calm head and experience in up and down markets.
This buys time to reverse the physiological response to acute financial anxiety. When stress rises, Dr. Klontz said, the body's fight-or-flight response kicks in, enlarging the part of the brain that processes emotions like fear and anxiety (the amygdala) and shutting down the part that helps us evaluate options and make informed choices (the prefrontal cortex).
'It takes a good 30 minutes to an hour to calm down,' Dr. Klontz said. 'Then the prefrontal cortex turns back on, and people are left feeling, 'Why, why did I do that?''
Don't look at your balances. (Really, don't.)
The pain of losing money is more powerful than the pleasure of making it — a cognitive bias that behavioral finance experts call loss aversion. That's why constantly checking your 401(k) when the market is falling is a bad idea; seeing your lower balances only makes you feel worse.
It can also increase the likelihood that you'll lose more money. According to studies from the behavioral economists Shlomo Benartzi and Richard Thaler, investors with long-term goals who rarely check their accounts end up earning significantly higher returns on average than those who monitor more often. Savers who check more frequently will more often see losses, which scares them off investing in stocks, even though stocks, over time, earn substantially more than bonds and cash.
If you check your account daily, for instance, you're likely to see losses 30 to 40 percent of the time, historical data shows. If you check annually, you might observe a loss only once every three or four years or so. That's why advisers suggest checking your balances no more than once a quarter and perhaps only once a year.
Try to limit your intake of bad news about the economy and market, too. 'We are herd animals, wired to pay close attention to the mood of people around us,' Dr. Klontz said. 'If you're constantly exposed to the panic of others, you're going to be very vulnerable to doing what everyone else is doing and making bad decisions as a result.'
Imagine the worst.
It may sound counterintuitive, but identifying your biggest fear about your financial situation now, then thinking about how you'd manage the fallout, can be a calming exercise.
'Psychologically, simply knowing there are options reduces anxiety in an otherwise paralyzing situation,' Dr. Win said.
Say, for example, you're worried about losing your job. The first thing you might do is calculate how long your emergency fund will last, then reach out to professional connections who could help with a job search. If your job hunt lasts a long time and you burn through your savings, what would you do next? Maybe you could move to a cheaper apartment, downsize or even move in with family for a while.
'The worst time to make crisis plans is when you're in the middle of a crisis, because you're not thinking as clearly — it's the reason we do fire drills,' Ms. Lester said. 'Hopefully, you'll never have to pull the trigger on these plans, but it's helpful to have them, to know what you'd do.'
Identify one move.
You cannot control stock prices or whether the economy will tip into a recession. So focus on what you can control, especially actions that could improve your financial situation in a downturn.
Take spending. 'If you don't have enough cash set aside to cover your expenses for three to six months in case you're laid off, you should be looking aggressively to cut back discretionary spending and get that emergency savings built,' Ms. Lester said. 'You may feel like every nickel is already allocated, but for anybody who is getting takeout, traveling or who has more than zero subscription services, you can find places to cut back.'
If you're worried you might lose your job in a recession, try to make yourself more indispensable by learning a new skill that is in high demand in your field. Or warm up your professional network by connecting with other people in your industry or develop a side hustle for extra income, Dr. Klontz suggested.
Finding other places in your life to assert control that have nothing to do with money can help calm financial anxiety, too — and provide a welcome distraction. Ms. Lester, for example, recently found respite from the market chaos by tidying her home office. Tending your garden, organizing family photos or taking a daily walk are activities that may give you a sense of mastery over your environment when your finances feel outside of your control.
'As soon as you start creating more order, even a little bit of control somewhere, you feel so much better,' Ms. Lester said.
Practice self-compassion.
Sometimes compounding the financial anxiety is a sense that you may be partly to blame for your money struggles.
'At times like these, people often see financial failures as personal failures: The market is crashing, and now I'm not going to have enough money because I didn't make enough or save enough or I didn't work hard enough or I'm not good enough at managing this stuff,' Dr. McCoy of Kansas State said.
She encourages a gentle reframing: 'Tell yourself, 'I did the best with what I knew at the time.''
Ms. Lester said she also saw this pattern of self-blame frequently. 'Understanding that we are hard-wired to behave certain ways under certain circumstances, and forgiving yourself, is really important,' she said. 'Understand that there are many things you can do from this point forward to help yourself financially, take a deep breath, then take that next step.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
The numbers in Trump's EU trade deal are a joke
President Trump announced a trade deal with the European Union last month, proclaiming a 'generational modernization of the transatlantic alliance' that will 'provide Americans with unprecedented levels of market access' and is 'yet another agreement that positions the United States as the world's preeminent destination for investment, innovation, and advanced manufacturing.' The EU has been criticized heavily for folding to Trump. However, after many years of studying, practicing and teaching negotiations, I am not nearly so critical of the European strategy. Negotiating with Trump inevitably leads to three possible tactics: ignoring, retaliating or capitulating. Everyone goes for one or more of these tactics. But most have ended up at the last one, capitulating. The U.K. (like Columbia University, and perhaps soon Harvard) was much derided when it pioneered the capitulation strategy in May. But it is not necessarily a bad strategy when confronted by Trump. Alan Beattie of the Financial Times perceptively notes that 'Trump likes deals that aren't worth the handshake they're written on.' 'Roll with the punch,' he suggests, 'get the lowest baseline tariff you can, offer him some concessions with good optics but low impact, talk up the importance of the deal for the benefit of his ego and hope he moves on.' And so the EU has done. The U.S.-EU trade 'agreement' is apocryphal. Others have called it delusional. It is both — and thus important to understand. First, some context. In 2015, roughly the end of the Bretton Woods era for trade, the average weighted U.S. tariff against all goods was about 1.7 percent. Against EU goods it was 1.47 percent, versus 1.35 percent on U.S. goods into the EU. America currently imports more than $605 billion a year in goods from the EU. Trump's 'biggest deal ever made,' with a few exceptions, 'reduces' tariffs to 15 percent (steel and aluminum remain at 50 percent). However, it is not technically a deal. It is filled with numerous ' commitments ' such as 'work to address' and 'intend to work together,' or 'intend to address' and, curiously, 'take complementary actions to address.' This is the type of language used in a preliminary phase of a framework agreement, which would be the precursor to a serious trade negotiation. The White House is claiming that, first, that the EU will invest $600 billion directly in the U.S. during Trump's term (three times the rate it has invested in the past). This is, if not delusional, at least fantastical. The second concrete claim by the White House is that 'the EU will double down on America as the Energy Superpower by purchasing $750 billion of U.S. energy exports through 2028.' As Clyde Russell shows clearly in Reuters, these numbers simply do not make sense. But then, they need not. They serve their performative purpose well enough. Chalk up a specious victory and move on. Consider that in 2024, the EU imported 573 million barrels of crude oil from the U.S., which is valued currently at about $40.1 billion. The EU imported U.S. liquified natural gas in 2024 worth about $21.78 billion and bought about $2.67 billion in U.S. coal. So EU energy imports (at $64.55 billion) are about 26 percent of the $250 billion the EU is supposed to spend on American energy each year under the framework agreement. If the EU reaches the $250 billion a year goal, U.S. imports would account for 85 percent of its total spending on those energy commodities. While this appears to be a plus for U.S. producers, it would massively disrupt global energy markets (not to mention violate many long-term supply contracts). But more startling, it would exceed total current U.S. exports. Putting together the value of U.S. exports for all three energy commodities totals $165.8 billion, Russell calculates, 'meaning that even if the EU bought the entire volume it would still fall well short of the $250 billion.' Including nuclear adds a few billion dollars at best. Expanding to refined products, such as diesel? Perhaps another $10 billion. So the EU's commitment to buy $250 billion worth of American energy is entirely unrealistic and unachievable. 'The smart people in the room must know this,' Russell writes, so 'why agree to what is obviously a ridiculous number?' The only answer is the obvious one, and the most troubling. Substance doesn't matter, only performance. Where businesses must operate on substance and factual reality, politicians operate increasingly on attention-gaining performance. This may explain why Trump has done so poorly in business and so well in politics (and in the businesses he is generating based on politics). So, despite substantive criticisms of the EU team, they in fact made a perfectly understandable agreement. Specifically, when only attention matters and the substance of the deal is a mere side story of the performance, one can agree to almost anything. In this case, the more fantastical the better. Why didn't EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promise $900 billion? Trump would be even happier and Europe even less likely to uphold the 'agreement.' Smile, suck-up, sign, shrug and move on. The real negotiation is somewhere down the road; perhaps tomorrow afternoon. Well, maybe. Trump's authority even to make such a deal is still being litigated. The one unavoidable fact is that America has abandoned the rules-based trading system it carefully built over three-quarters of a century. It is a brave new world of U.S. trade 'agreements' based on rapid-fire, plainly meaningless commitments — but what a performance! Robert A. Rogowsky is professor of trade and diplomacy at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a former chief economist and director of operations at the U.S. International Trade Commission.


CNBC
22 minutes ago
- CNBC
What's driving the action in Amazon's stock, plus our hopes for Disney earnings
Every weekday the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer holds a "Morning Meeting" livestream at 10:20 a.m. ET. Here's a recap of Tuesday's key moments. 1. U.S. stocks were down Tuesday as Wall Street digested lackluster economic data and new quarterly earnings reports. The ISM services index came in a bit weaker than expected, weighing on investor sentiment. Meanwhile, Palantir's blowout earnings release moved the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite higher briefly in early trading, but has since lost steam. The biggest losses were seen in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 , which slipped 0.4% and 0.3%, respectively. 2. Club holding Walt Disney reports quarterly earnings on Wednesday. We hope to see continued resilience in the company's theme parks, and will be looking out for profitability in its streaming division. Shares of the entertainment giant are down more than 1% Tuesday — a move that Jim Cramer celebrates ahead of the release. "I wanted it to come down," he said. "This is much better." That's because when a stock is up significantly into earnings, investors are more likely to treat the release as a "sell the news" event. 3. Amazon shares are up over 1% Tuesday following the Big Tech name's post-earnings decline. In fact, between last Friday and Monday's close, the stock dropped roughly 10%. Jim cited investor concerns over Amazon's dominance in its cloud computing business for the weakness as competitors like Alphabet- owned Google and OpenAI grabbed share. We're standing by the stock for now though. "I think it's not as clear cut as people think," Jim said. "I would point out that it has a huge business." The solution, Jim said, is for Amazon to spend more on Nvidia chips in order to improve its crucial cloud computing division. "Could it accelerate? Yes, [but] they have to get away from their own chips where they're viewed as not being as powerful." 4. Stocks covered in Tuesday's rapid fire at the end of the video were: Palantir, Caterpillar , Yum Brands , Pfizer and Marriott International. (Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust is long DIS, AMZN, NVDA. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust's portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's What Key Metrics Tell Us About Molson Coors (TAP) Q2 Earnings
Molson Coors Brewing (TAP) reported $3.2 billion in revenue for the quarter ended June 2025, representing a year-over-year decline of 1.6%. EPS of $2.05 for the same period compares to $1.92 a year ago. The reported revenue compares to the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $3.12 billion, representing a surprise of +2.61%. The company delivered an EPS surprise of +12.02%, with the consensus EPS estimate being $1.83. While investors closely watch year-over-year changes in headline numbers -- revenue and earnings -- and how they compare to Wall Street expectations to determine their next course of action, some key metrics always provide a better insight into a company's underlying performance. As these metrics influence top- and bottom-line performance, comparing them to the year-ago numbers and what analysts estimated helps investors project a stock's price performance more accurately. Here is how Molson Coors performed in the just reported quarter in terms of the metrics most widely monitored and projected by Wall Street analysts: Brand Volume - Consolidated: 20.61 million versus 20.68 million estimated by three analysts on average. Brand Volumes - Americas: 15.04 million compared to the 14.78 million average estimate based on two analysts. Brand Volumes - EMEA&APAC: 5.57 million compared to the 5.6 million average estimate based on two analysts. Net Sales- Americas: $2.5 billion compared to the $2.42 billion average estimate based on three analysts. The reported number represents a change of -2.8% year over year. Net Sales- Unallocated & Eliminations: $-7.9 million compared to the $-6.27 million average estimate based on three analysts. The reported number represents a change of +14.5% year over year. Net Sales- EMEA&APAC: $703.9 million versus $686.59 million estimated by three analysts on average. Compared to the year-ago quarter, this number represents a +3% change. View all Key Company Metrics for Molson Coors here>>> Shares of Molson Coors have returned -0.8% over the past month versus the Zacks S&P 500 composite's +1% change. The stock currently has a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell), indicating that it could underperform the broader market in the near term. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Molson Coors Beverage Company (TAP) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research