Crypto's Volatility-Loving Fans Bet on Stablecoins For Mainstream Success
Welcome back to The Forecast from Bloomberg Weekend, where we help you think about the future — from next week to next decade.
This weekend we're looking at stablecoins taking crypto mainstream, nuclear deterrence theories put to the test, the chances Israel strikes Iran and Florida's struggling real estate market.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Make $400,000 a Year and Want to Retire at 45 -- Should I Invest More in Stocks or Focus on Real Estate?
On balance, the returns on rental real estate more or less match the stock market's average returns. However, these two types of investments are dramatically different in terms of convenience. In one scenario, the more complicated and capital-intensive option could make the most sense. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › As always, The Motley Fool cannot and does not provide personalized investing or financial advice. This information is for informational and educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional financial advice. Always seek the guidance of a qualified financial advisor for any questions regarding your personal financial situation. If you'd like to submit your question for feedback, you can do so here. Which is the better investment: real estate or the stock market? It's a question that never seems to stop circulating, mostly because there's never a crystal-clear answer. There are pros and cons to both, and they can vary from one investor to the next. Fortunately, it's possible to figure out the best answer for you. The key is getting a handle on which upsides and which downsides are most applicable in your particular situation. Someone recently asked an entire Reddit community if he should stop buying and renting out residential real estate and instead start pouring this money into the stock market to achieve faster returns. What would you do if you were me?by u/Straight_Ad8203 in Fire It's a great question to be sure. To fully appreciate the answer though, there's a bit more context needed. The individual in question is a 35-year-old medical doctor earning on the order of $400,000 per year at a job that's very demanding. There's a fair amount of money already tucked away in a retirement account and plenty in an emergency fund as well. This person also owns -- and owes on -- four different rental houses. His plan is to accelerate the payoff on these properties with whatever net cash flow is left behind from their rent revenue. This plan at least implies there will be little to no net profit from these properties for the foreseeable future. But paying off these rental houses as soon as possible will allow this doctor to semi-retire at 45 and enjoy some income as an MD, as well as some respectable rental income. His only concern? "Real estate is great but just feels like a slow return." This feeling isn't an uncommon one. But it's also possibly misleading, mostly because the money involved with being a one-person rental real estate company isn't the neat and tidy matter it is when you're running an apartment complex or own enormous office buildings. Yes, the net gains in the value of real estate itself generally lag the stock market's average annual return of around 10%. Although the wild real estate market of late has been an exception to this number, mortgage lender Griffin Funding reports that since 1967, the average U.S. home gains just a little more than 4% per year. Not great. That's also not the whole story, however. In this instance, the property owner is also monetizing this real estate by (presumably) charging rent that's at least a little more than his mortgage payments. The taxes, mortgage interest, and depreciation on this real estate are also tax-deductible expenses, adding to the owner's net/reported profits even if not adding to his tangible cash flow. On balance, renting out real estate you're conventionally financing produces an annual return on your investment of anywhere from 5% to 12%, with an average of 10%, matching the stock market's average full-year return. But that might not be the actual concern to address here, particularly for this busy investor. Far more important are the stress and missed opportunity that come with this plan over the course of the coming decade before he reaches age 45. Being a small-time residential landlord isn't a great venture for busy people. Even just four different tenants are a lot to handle when they're living in four different properties. And, while these rental houses are almost certainly insured, as a landlord, one accident can wreck what's already relatively thin cash flow. Then there's the time factor. This individual is already busy. Finding a new tenant or coordinating with repair people will require more personal time that simply doesn't exist. Also consider the opportunity cost involved with this plan. That's the cost of tying up money to finance the purchase of real estate, or for that matter, just taking care of it. While interest payments are tax-deductible expenses, they're still a real out-of-pocket personal expense using money that could otherwise be invested for growth in other ways -- for free. Ditto for sales commissions and buying and selling. Tax-deductible? Yes. But they're a net cost all the same. (Remember, tax deductions aren't the same as tax credits. You may not get all of this spent money back on the back-end, even if you've got a great accountant.) These nickels and dimes add up when you're not looking. Perhaps the chief reason owning rental real estate isn't quite ideal in this scenario -- when there's a viable alternative use of after-tax income -- is the lack of liquidity should the owner choose to sell a property. You can always sell stocks, even if at a price you don't love. There's never a guarantee you'll be able to get rid of a rental home you no longer want, however, even if you're offering it at a great price. If all goes as planned and this doctor can cut back to working three days per week 10 years from now, the time to effectively manage four rental houses likely will exist then. The business will be net-profitable, with at least a big chunk of properties being paid off. That's a pretty big "if," though. There aren't a lot of part-time doctors who actually only work part-time hours these days. The job often just doesn't allow it. There are no absolutely correct answers, and there's always more to the story. Indeed, there may be a terrific unmentioned reason here to continue focusing on real estate rather than committing this money to stocks. On balance, though, what's known about this particular situation favors owning buy-and-hold stocks over rental homes. If this individual invests wisely over the course of the coming decade -- keeping things simple and efficient, like just owning an index fund -- and actually ends up cutting back to part-time hours at age 45, he can still buy rental property then. He may even be able to outright purchase rental real estate rather than financing it if that's still his goal at that time, saving at least some money as a result. He'll save some money in the meantime too, since the cost of being in the stock market is a pittance compared to owning rental real estate. But you're still committed to owning rental properties right now? Consider this: While it feels great to pay down these loans early, that's not necessarily the best financial move. If the interest rates on these mortgages are low enough, there's a case to be made for drawing out these tax-deductible loans on this cheap money for as long as you can, and investing the extra cash flow in something with a higher rate of return. Your cash flow is certainly going to grow. Remember, rental rates rise regularly, but the size of your mortgage payments usually doesn't. This real estate venture should at least be a measurably higher-margin one 10 years from now. That's one of the chief reasons to stick with it. If you've got time, inclination, money, and ability to own rental real estate, your answer may be different. Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $402,034!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $38,158!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $704,676!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of June 23, 2025 James Brumley has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. I Make $400,000 a Year and Want to Retire at 45 -- Should I Invest More in Stocks or Focus on Real Estate? was originally published by The Motley Fool
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
For Mark Carney, every decision has trade-offs — but that's not slowing him down
OTTAWA—If there is a Carney 'doctrine' taking shape more than 100 days into the prime ministership of Mark Carney, maybe it is this: get it done, and damn the details. A few short months ago, Carney was blunt: 'I am a pragmatist above all. So when I see something that's not working, I will change it.' That's what the former central banker and UN climate finance envoy said when he captured the Liberal party leadership to replace Justin Trudeau. He went on to win the 2025 federal election on his outsider's pitch to rescue the economy from the threat of Donald Trump's tariff war. Pragmatism was how he justified abrupt domestic moves: ditching the consumer carbon tax, reversing capital gains tax hikes, and lowering income taxes while jamming 'nation-building' red-tape-cutting bills through Parliament to juice the economy. Pragmatism helps explain why, in his single mandate letter to cabinet ministers, Carney told them, 'We must redefine Canada's international, commercial, and security relationships.' But in an era where Trump is the one defining Canada's closest relationship, it's not clear if Carney's pragmatism can win over the U.S. president's chaos. On Friday, the unpredictable Trump cancelled talks towards a new deal with Canada, angry at Canada's deadline Monday for Big Tech giants to pay a digital services tax. Retroactive to 2022, it would collect $2.3 billion at first, and about $900 million yearly after that. Small potatoes compared to what Carney has already put on Canada's tab. In hopes of getting along with Trump, Carney in the past week promised to ramp up Canada's spending, along with NATO allies — all under intense pressure from the U.S. president — to a whopping $150 billion a year on military and related spending, a level almost unthinkable last year, as he vows to shift Canadian economic and security ties away from America towards Europe and beyond. In a spate of a few weeks, Carney signed what he calls a new economic, security and defence partnership with the European Union, increased aid to Ukraine, hosted a G7 summit where he offered backing of Trump's leadership efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war and left a wide open runway for Trump to handle the Iran-Israel conflict as he saw fit. Carney defended his vow to lead where the U.S. does not, telling CNN it should be seen as a 'positive' not a negative reaction 'against' the U.S. or Trump. 'The way we would like to lead, the way European Union would like to lead, a number of Asian countries as well, is in a positive respect. If the U.S. is pulling back from multilateralism, as it is with respect to trade … effectively U.S. trade policy is now bilateral — if the U.S. is pulling back, there are others of us who do believe in multilateralism,' the rule of law, 'fair and open' trade, and in defence co-operation, said Carney. 'Do something,' seems to be the Carney mantra, said Kerry Buck, a former Canadian ambassador to NATO who welcomed the prime minister's commitment hit the new NATO military spending goal of five per cent of GDP. Although Justin Trudeau eventually committed to reaching the old NATO two per cent target at the end of last year's summit, he did so without a clear plan and with a 2032 timeline that was 'clearly going to damage our bilateral relations with the U.S. under Trump, where we're very vulnerable on trade,' said Buck, speaking before Trump's move Friday. In contrast, two weeks ahead of this week's NATO summit Carney accelerated action, said he'd hit two per cent this year, and at the summit adopted the bigger five per cent goal by 2035 with no hesitation. ' It was smart transactionally to do that. And I think in terms of content, it was also necessary,' Buck said. Others wonder how Carney is going to pay for it all. Questions remain about how the government will reach its two per cent promise this year, with the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer saying it can't verify Carney's plan to hit the old target. 'Some might start to think that he has a guns-before-butter kind of approach to foreign policy … a muscular foreign policy focused on defence,' but Buck said Carney had no choice, given it was 'our most vulnerable point' with the U.S. in ongoing trade talks. Forget the 'peace dividend' that Canada and other western allies hailed at the end of the Cold War, welcoming the ability to spend less on the military and more on social welfare systems. Now Carney and the other leaders challenged by Trump are embracing what NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called a 'defence dividend,' claiming that spending five per cent of GDP on defence will create 'an engine of growth for our economies, driving literally millions of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.' Carney echoed the claim, acknowledging higher military spending may one day entail federal spending trade-offs or sacrifices, but for now, 'more of it will help build our economy at the same time as it improves our defence. And we'll get the benefits.' There is more continuity than many think between Trudeau and Carney: Carney continued the imposition of counter-tariffs against the U.S. that Trudeau launched. But he has withheld tit-for-tat retaliation against the 50 per cent steel and aluminum penalties Trump levied pending the outcome of trade talks. Carney has continued Trudeau's staunch support for Ukraine and its embattled president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Carney backs a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, a ceasefire in Gaza, and went so far as to sanction two Israeli cabinet ministers. Like Trudeau, Carney believes government has a role and responsibility to address climate change. That Carney has moved swiftly on foreign and defence files is partly due to the flow of the international summits that coincided with his first two months after winning the April 28 election. It's also due to the urgency of the threat posed by the 'tariff' president in the White House. Carney, though, has a view of the larger global economic imbalances and the roles of China and the U.S. in those imbalances, that he shares with leaders like France's President Emmanuel Macron, and as they try to persuade Trump to drop tariffs, Carney seeks to position Canada's critical mineral, AI and quantum computing sectors for a world in which those imbalances continue. Janice Gross Stein said it is too early to describe a Carney 'doctrine' but it's clear 'the fundamental thing for him is that he, like everyone, is defining a path to dealing with a very different United States.' Carney is of necessity pursuing a new more predictable economic and security deal with the U.S. at a time of crisis , 'but it's an eyes-open arrangement,' Stein said. 'Yes, we need to diversify our partnerships — that's not a new idea in Canadian foreign policy … and yes,' Carney is focusing especially on Europe and like-minded states, and NATO, 'but that's built in to dealing with the more demanding United States.' Stein sees a pragmatic streak too in Carney's overtures to countries like China, India and Saudi Arabia. Carney identified China as the biggest threat to Canada's national security during the federal election. But in office, he's taken steps to thaw relations and ease Beijing's penalties on Canadian agricultural products. At the same time he is moving to block Chinese steel dumping via higher tariff rates against transshipment countries — in line with U.S. concerns. He rolled out a G7 welcome mat to India's Narendra Modi as a criminal investigation struggles to probe India's role in the killing of a Canadian Sikh in Surrey. And Carney invited Saudi Arabia Crown prince Mohamed bin Salman, the kingdom's de facto ruler, who declined to attend, in a week where the Saudi regime executed a journalist. Those three countries, China, India and Saudi Arabia are key economic players that are ignored at Canada's peril, said Stein. 'Where he's a pragmatist is in the recognition that every decision has trade-offs. You cannot make it a high priority to diversify your partnerships when you are the smaller next-door neighbour to a country that you are sending 75 per cent of your exports to and buying 75 per cent of everything that you buy in defence from that one country, which is the United States, and then continue to exclude others in the international community.' In parallel, said Stein, Carney is acting to ensure that Canada's economy is 'fit for purpose.' The bill to fast-track 'nation-building' development projects is part of that effort, as is his move to do 'important' consultation with Indigenous groups, but done simultaneously with other reviews, 'not sequentially,' she said. Carney is 'connecting defence, foreign policy to the Canadian economy because that's his comfort zone,' said Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, a senior fellow in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. But she worries the emphasis on 'pragmatic' sends the wrong signal to countries like China, India or Saudi Arabia which will interpret it to mean Canada is ready to overlook human rights concerns in favour of doing business. Jonathan Berkshire Miller, director of foreign affairs, national defence and security policy at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said Carney is necessarily focused on 'two imperatives: mending the relationship with the United States and diversification from it.' And while Carney's experience gives him credibility in Washington 'where he is well known among economic and diplomatic elites,' Trump's second term makes traditional diplomatic approaches 'increasingly unrealistic,' he said. There is an inevitable geographic and economic reality, he said in a written response to the Star. 'America remains Canada's largest trading partner.' So rather than a drastic shift or severing of ties, he said, 'Expect, instead, a policy of pragmatic hedging: building multilateral ties while trying to be on balanced terms' with who is in the White House. For now, Carney may have some latitude, he believes. Increased defence spending can bring Canada greater strategic autonomy on Arctic sovereignty, cybersecurity and intelligence sharing. The narrow question is 'one of political will' where the requirements for sustained federal spending 'and public support' will be the big test, he said, particularly in an era where 'fiscal retrenchment' (Carney has vowed to bring the operating budget into balance) and 'domestic political division are the contemporary realities.' The broader question is whether Carney's pragmatic approach can secure both.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Mobile Pulls 'Made in USA' Claim
The Trump Mobile, a phone company, has removed language from its website claiming that its phone is made in the USA. Bloomberg's Ed Ludlow gives an update on the company's claim and what could be behind it.
