Gen Z is facing a career apocalypse
Kim was far from the only Gen Zer making the same pivot. Last year, according to the job site Handshake, the share of applications it received from college seniors for entry-level openings in tech dropped by 19% from 2022, while the share to jobs in government nearly doubled. Even younger kids saw the writing on the wall. In surveys, high school students used to cite tech giants like Google and Apple as the places they most wanted to work. But last year, in a startling shift, both the FBI and NASA ranked higher than any of those tech companies. Silicon Valley was out. Capitol Hill was in.
It took Kim only a single application to land a yearlong paid internship at the Food and Drug Administration. His performance reviews were good, and he planned to stay on at the agency after he earned his degree in May. "You hear so many horror stories of people in tech being laid off with little notice," he tells me. "Government jobs are secure. What drew me into it was the stability."
So much for that plan.
This month, with his graduation fast approaching, Kim abruptly lost his internship amid the government-wide havoc Elon Musk has unleashed at DOGE. With most federal hiring on an indefinite hold, he's been scrambling to find a job — any job. "It's been a huge source of stress," he says. "Most of the private industry has already hired their graduating students."
Kim is one of the roughly 2 million students set to graduate this spring into an exceptionally shaky job market. Things were already looking tough for the class of 2025, given the steep hiring slump in industries like tech, finance, and consulting. But now, as Musk takes a chainsaw to the government, many college seniors are in panic mode. Some have seen their offers at federal agencies rescinded; others have received no word on jobs they applied to months ago.
It's not just government positions that are taking a hit — it's jobs at a whole host of businesses, nonprofits, and universities that rely on federal funding and contracts. And going to graduate school — the traditional backup plan for students during times of economic instability — may not even be an option, if the Department of Education winds up being unable to deliver financial aid in a timely fashion. As the government is slashed to the bone in the name of efficiency, the careers of many Gen Zers could suffer for years to come.
"The impact is broad scale," says Saskia Campbell, the executive director of university career services at George Mason University. "There is this sense of grief, of loss of opportunity. This is the first year I'm actually concerned."
To make matters worse, the outlook is likely to get even more dismal in the months ahead, as President Donald Trump's tariff wars spur companies to hold off on hiring. "Two years ago, the bulk of the uncertainty and fear was in Big Tech," says Briana Randall, the executive director of the career and internship center at the University of Washington. "Now it feels uncertain in a lot of areas."
All of that leaves America's soon-to-be new grads unsure of where to turn. Sarina Parsapasand, a public policy major who's graduating from the University of Southern California this spring, was hoping to land a job in government service. But now, given the chaos in Washington, she's switched to trying to land a job in the private sector. "I have bills to pay," she says. "I can't take the risk of being in a job that doesn't guarantee the stability for me to live my life."
It's a sentiment I hear over and over again from the students I speak with. "The job market just seems super unstable in almost any field," says Katie Schwartz, a sophomore at Tulane. "It's less about finding a job you really love now and more just about finding a job that's going to give you job stability."
I'm impressed by the clear-eyed pragmatism of these students — but I'm also saddened by how old they sound. Isn't job stability what you look for when you're middle-aged, with a mortgage to pay and kids to support? When I graduated from college in 2009 without a full-time job, I was panicked but still idealistic. These kids, in contrast, seem hardened by all the chaos they've endured from a young age. In high school, they watched their parents get laid off in the pandemic. In college, they watched older students struggle to land good jobs during the tech downturn — or worse, had their hard-won offers rescinded at the last minute.
The upheaval and uncertainty have taught today's graduates to prepare for the worst. Over the past year, one college senior tells me, she's been intentionally neglecting her studies so she could focus exclusively on her job search, sending out as many as 15 applications a day. The hustle paid off with three offers, including one she accepted from a government contractor. It's her "dream job," she says, because it would enable her to make a real difference in the world.
But now, given the chaos in Washington, she's leaning toward reneging on the offer and accepting a position at a finance company. (That's why she asked me not to use her name.) "I try to keep an optimistic outlook," she tells me. But when I ask her how she feels about taking her first steps into adulthood, she doesn't sound optimistic at all.
"It makes me pretty nervous," she says. "I think a lot of people in my generation have accepted that we're not going to live the same quality of life our parents provided us."
During hard economic times, we expect to hear stories about people losing their jobs. But the greatest casualties often end up being the young people who don't have jobs to lose in the first place. Hiring freezes hurt them the most, making it impossible for them to even get their foot in the door. And research shows just how long a shadow that can cast on someone's career. Five years after the Great Recession, my generation of millennials was earning 11% less than Gen Xers were at a comparable age. And our net worth fell 40% behind theirs, forcing us to delay many of life's biggest milestones: buying a home, starting a family, saving for retirement.
The effects go far beyond money. Students who graduated into the 1982 recession, for example, wound up with fewer kids and more divorces than those who entered better job markets. Even more shocking, the research shows, they were more likely to die early. Whatever gains in efficiency Trump hopes to achieve from DOGE, its most lasting legacy may end up being the harm it inflicts on the careers — and perhaps even the life spans — of his youngest constituents.
That leaves college seniors like Kim scrambling to find a foothold in a job market that is stacked against them. Many companies have already filled their entry-level positions, if they're hiring new grads at all. And he's now competing not only with his fellow students, but also with the flood of young government workers who have been laid off by DOGE — workers who have more experience than he does. As graduation nears, he's trying not to panic. But it's hard to retain a sense of hope when even lower-paying jobs in public service are no longer an option.
"I'm not sure how my future's going to turn out," Kim tells me. And that, when you think about it, is a future that should worry us all.
Aki Ito is a chief correspondent for Business Insider.
Read the original article on Business Insider

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


CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Women are reporting bad men on this app. Here's the legal tea on the app called Tea
Tea Dating Advice is an app that has quietly existed since 2023 — but it rocketed to the top of Apple's app store this week after getting a ton of attention on social media. Since the start of the week, the app maker says, something like a million new users have signed up. Tea is marketed as a 'dating safety tool' for women, and it pledges to donate ten percent of its revenue to the National Domestic Violence Hotline. How does it achieve safety? By letting users post photos and gather information about potential suitors. Many men online saw the point of how the app might protect women, but a number of people expressed worry about the fairness and the legality of it all, ranging from the philosophical to the personal. 'The risk of abuse is insanely insanely high,' said one Redditor in a discussion on /privacy. 'It seems pretty socially deleterious if any human can have a social media profile they can't view created for them without their consent or knowledge,' one Twitter user wrote. And, of course: 'They got me fellas,' one man posted on TikTok, showing what appeared to be a report about him on the app. ('Welp time to move,' he concluded.) Then, on July 25, 4chan users claimed they found a database related to the app that included photos of users' IDs and other information, adding more fuel to the privacy fire. (The company confirmed the breach to 404 Media.) So what's the legal tea? Using AI, the app checks a users' selfies to verify that they are a woman. Once verified, users can post photos of men. These are usually mined from social media profiles and other dating apps. The app enables the photos to be run through a reverse image search, enabling them to run a basic background check, check against public sex offender databases, and check for photos that might get flagged as being used in 'catfishing' — misrepresenting one's identity online. The app also features a 'Tea Party Group Chat,' which allows users to directly share information about men, and has a rating function, which allows users to share their experiences with Yelp-style reviews, awarding men a 'green flag' or a 'red flag.' The inclusion of men's names, identities, and other information has triggered people to ask: Does the app enable users to violate others' privacy rights? The Tea's biggest problems are actually practical, not legal. Tea definitely raises fascinating questions about privacy, the digital age, and norms of modern romance, but largely stays clear of any major legal problems in the U.S. by creating the forum in the way it did. There really are three buckets (teacups?) of legal issues that could arise in connection with the app: potential civil liability for privacy violations and defamation, and possible criminal exposure related to online behavior. In general, the right to privacy covers the right to be free from intrusion into one's personal affairs, the ability to control who has access to one's personal information and the right to be free from unwarranted publicity. We all enjoy some right to keep private our affairs and – relevant here – our images. Many privacy laws are quite clear and straightforward. For instance, it is almost always a clear violation of law to publicize someone's Social Security Number. There are healthcare laws such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, which sets national standards for when and how even medical offices can handle patients' health information. Specific privacy laws govern the disclosure of student records, financial information, personal data and a host of other information people generally want kept secured. Like so much in our lives, the internet makes everything more complicated. (Perhaps the internet, to paraphrase Homer Simpson, might well be the cause of, and solution to, all the world's problems.) A norm about the world we all accept now is that photographs of us all are likely bouncing around the internet right now – and mostly these are pictures that we posted ourselves. With the Tea, some men have complained that the very act of enabling users to post photos of them online without their consent violates their privacy rights. It is fair for people to be concerned about their images or likenesses published online. Still, many aspects of our world complicate any ability one might have to challenge the unconsented use of an image on a dating app, at least in the U.S. First, as a legal matter, many of the images that appear on Tea were first voluntarily posted on dating apps or social media sites. When a user posts a photo to the internet or an app like Facebook or Instagram, he or she typically retains the rights to it (i.e., they still own it), but has granted the platform the right to distribute or display it in connection with the service. (To be fair, most users don't read the fine print when they sign up for apps.) It becomes harder to make a privacy rights argument when one has waived those very rights to the photo in another context. A practical question would come up around enforcing a complaint that one's image appeared on an app without their consent. A staggering number of photos that we didn't post exist online of nearly all of us; we don't have a right to challenge the legality of every group photo ever posted on a social media platform in which we appear. Certainly, Tea raises the bar by explicitly inviting criticism or negative attention based on the photo. But where would the legal line around those photos be? Accompanying a photo with truthful information such as 'I went on a date with this man?' Truthful, but potentially embarrassing information such as 'I went on a date with this man and he was cheap and didn't pay for my latte?' A truthful, but mean-spirited expression of opinion that might bring huge reputational harm, such as 'I went on a date with this man and I honestly worry that he might be a sex offender?' (More on how the law handles individuals' sincere opinions in a moment.) No matter how embarrassing any such posts might be, the legal line around them is a fuzzy one. In principle, a user could instead raise a copyright complaint if a photo they took and posted to a social media or dating platform gets posted by someone else to another, like Tea. If they are the copyright holder, or owner, of the image and it was posted without their permission and isn't in the public domain, they could perhaps petition Tea to have the image taken down. It does not appear that that approach has been tested yet. Note, however, that people may not have the rights to many photos they appear in; when a person appears in an image, there's a good chance that they didn't take it — unless it was a selfie. Legally, defamation is the publication of false information that harms someone's reputation. Generally, for a statement or act to be considered defamatory, the following elements must be present: the statement must be made public to at least one other person; the statement must be presented as a fact, not an opinion, and must be untrue; the person publishing the statement must be at fault, either by being aware that the statement is false or being reckless about it; and the statement or act must have caused some damage, whether financial or in the form of emotional distress. Anything published on Tea is public, so the first prong is easily met. The other criteria are heavily fact-specific, and will depend on the nature of the statement made, the speaker's belief in or research into its truth, and the level of harm caused by it. Even though a lot of the information published (spilled?) on Tea can cause great embarrassment to anyone outed or targeted on it, it is difficult to win most defamation suits based on an individual's sincere expressions of opinion or perceptions of events. Short of knowingly fabricating harmful information about one's date, a user merely expressing her negative opinions about a person or an experience with them are not likely to satisfy most defamation claims. Likewise, the app itself isn't likely to lose a defamation suit for speech that is presented on its platform. The closest existing parallel might be the array of public Facebook pages that ask 'Are We Dating the Same Guy?' and invite users to post information to help determine whether a man is, well, drinking his tea from multiple mugs at once. Last year, a man sued Spill The Tea Inc. and Meta (the parent company of Facebook) and 27 women in a Chicago-area chat. He said they posted about him and said he was 'very clingy, very fast,' and 'he told me what I wanted to hear until I slept with him, and then he ghosted.' Another posted a link to an article about a man charged with sexually assaulting a woman he met on the app. The man in the photo wasn't the plaintiff, but the suit alleged that the woman used the article to imply that he was the man in the mugshot. But a federal judge threw the suit out, on the basis that none of the statements were false, all were subjective opinions, none were inherently damaging as defined by the law, and that the plaintiff did not establish that any of his photos were used for commercial purposes (as would have been required for him to win under Illinois privacy law). It can be. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally protects online platforms from being treated as publishers or speakers of content posted by their users, so Tea is largely shielded from liability for what happens on their platforms. (The Section 230 question would get trickier if photos on the app were being used for sex trafficking, but that's not the case here.) However, individuals on the app could personally face criminal exposure for truly extreme conduct. (Here, we are talking spilling tea that is not just steaming, but boiling hot.) For instance, several states have laws prohibiting 'doxxing,' or releasing unauthorized personal information with an intent to harm or cause someone harassment. Establishing criminal intent that would stand up in court might be tricky, given that a Tea app user could always argue that her intent was to protect other women, not unduly harass the purported victim. Several states have added electronic communications to their existing harassment and stalking laws, but these laws cover conduct far more egregious than anything that has been publicly reported about appearing on Tea. New Jersey's cyberharassment law, for example, makes it a crime to post obscene materials 'with the intent to emotionally harm a reasonable person or place a reasonable person in fear of physical or emotional harm.' Arizona's doxxing law makes it a crime to post an individual's personal identifying information 'for the purpose of imminently causing the person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment.' Other states' laws generally are in the same ballpark and require some form of malicious intent. It can certainly be embarrassing to have one's information splashed across the internet without their consent, and even non-defamatory statements can bring real costs. However, the high bar of establishing criminal intent would make it difficult to prosecute most behavior that takes place on Tea. There are reasonable questions about the structure of the app; men claim to have already gotten past the app's gender verification process by posting selfies taken by women, or by using AI to generate photos of themselves as women. (We will leave the issue of the cultural, political, and legal minefield of verifying anyone's gender in 2025 for another day.) Men who have had the misfortune of appearing on Tea have valid concerns about the conduct it enables. Some of the information that a user might make public on the app – behavior on dates, information about sexually transmitted diseases, even criminal history – is exceptionally sensitive and might have been originally disclosed to another person with the hope that it would be kept private. Human interaction is complex and people all have different standards for what they find objectionable; what one person may interpret as a playful joke, another may interpret as a line-crossing insult worthy of being broadcast to the world. Men have complained that the app's group chat function invites not only discussions of misconduct or safety, but mockery of their appearance, or even the mere fact of their decision to end a relationship at a given time – a right everyone has. What kind of accountability could there be here for information that is posted that is inaccurate or simply hurtful? Still, one need not strain to recognize the many reasons why an app like Tea was created in the first place. There are reams of data stretching back a generation regarding safety on the internet and in dating as an obvious concern for women. For starters, 2023 data from the Pew Research Center found that women are more likely than men to say that dating apps feel unsafe. In addition, incontrovertible statistics have long documented America's rate of intimate partner violence against women. Statistics show that over a third of women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner. W, and women aged 18 to 34 – years in which many women who choose to date might be doing so – experience the highest rates of intimate partner violence. The app largely trended this week due to many women sharing potentially important things the app helped them discover, such as when dates were on sex offender lists or had histories of domestic violence. In light of these realities, concerns from men about the legality of an app like Tea seem really inadequate. However, perhaps the biggest issue Tea exposes isn't with the law, but with the digital age generally. Much internet communication is largely anonymous and pooled (i.e., visible to all others), which encourages piling on. Internet forums that allow people to air grievances blur the important social and legal line between accountability and punishment. Comment threads, whether on public forums or a closed, women-only dating safety app, welcome, and even invite, vigilante justice. At times, that form of justice may be useful and valid, given the lack of other channels of recourse – whether legal or personal – aggrieved daters may have. Still, Tea — the app — is not the problem. It is a symptom of a far broader issue:how people share information about each other, and date, in a national climate characterized by profound personal distrust, where women are treated poorly online, and with a ballooning number of platforms that empower individuals to publicize unverified information about others. (Note that the aging writer of this piece met his wife the old fashioned way: on a website.) While doing so can sometimes create legal problems, the biggest concern in all of this is about all of us, not a single app. Some of the men outed on the app certainly have a basis to feel aggrieved. But for the most part, if they escalate to filing legal challenges, they will likely find themselves crying alone over spilled tea. ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Elliot Williams is a CNN legal analyst and former deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department. He is the author of 'Five Bullets: The Story of Bernie Goetz, New York's Explosive 80s, and the Subway Vigilante Trial That Divided the Nation,' coming from Penguin Press in 2026.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
JP Morgan Says Apple's Set To Beat Q3 Estimates
Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) looks set to beat when it reports Q3 fiscal 2025 on Thursday July 31 despite headwinds from cooling iPhone demand and modest Services growth. J.P. Morgan's Samik Chatterjee says the near?term setup is stronger than imagined given H1 pull?forward benefits, App Store link?outs in the US and the looming DOJ versus Google lawsuit in Services. The bank forecasts revenue of $89.6 billion, with iPhone at $39.9 billion, iPad at $7.7 billion, Mac at $7.4 billion and Services at $26.7 billion, some $600 million above the $88.96 billion consensus and sees EPS of $1.43. The firm keeps an Overweight rating and $250 price target after Apple has beaten revenue and EPS estimates for seven straight quarters. Services growth has remained healthy but lackluster, and the iPhone 17 rollout is failing to excite an install base used to major feature leaps. Apple's installed device base tops 2 B active units, giving it a cushion if upgrade cycles slow. Analysts will also watch for any updates on Siri enhancements and Vision Pro traction as Apple leans into AI amid peers. J.P. Morgan's Overweight thesis hinges on this resilience amid a tougher macro backdrop. Production headwinds have eased versus 90 days ago, hinting at smoother supply chains. Why it matters: A beat on July 31 could give AAPL shares a lift and set the stage for the iPhone 17 launch. Investors will be watching the Q3 result live and tracking early demand signals for Apple's next phone. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio


Business Wire
41 minutes ago
- Business Wire
Shareholder Alert: Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Announces the Filing of Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against Apple Inc.
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, prominent investor rights law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ('BLB&G') filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of the federal securities laws by Apple Inc. ('Apple' or the 'Company') and certain of the Company's current and former senior executives (collectively, 'Defendants'). The action is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Apple common stock between June 10, 2024, and June 9, 2025, inclusive (the 'Class Period'). This case is related to a previously filed securities class action pending against Apple captioned Tucker v. Apple Inc., No. 5:25-cv-05197 (N.D. Cal.). The case is captioned City of Coral Springs Police Officers' Pension Plan v. Apple Inc., No. 25-cv-06252 (N.D. Cal.). The complaint is based on an extensive investigation and a careful evaluation of the merits of this case. A copy of the complaint is available on BLB&G's website by clicking here. Apple is a multinational technology company most well-known for its iPhone. It also sells other smart technology products and offers a variety of integrated software and services through the operation of various platforms, including the App Store. Since 2011, iPhones and other Apple smart devices have contained software for the Company's digital personal assistant, called 'Siri.' In recent years, a number of Apple's competitors have introduced artificial intelligence ('AI') capabilities, which put pressure on Apple to incorporate generative-AI technology into its iPhones and especially to introduce advanced AI-based Siri features. In 2020, Epic Games, Inc. ('Epic') sued Apple, challenging Apple's restrictions on app developers' ability to communicate with, and direct consumers to, purchasing mechanisms outside of those offered by Apple's App Store (the 'Epic Action'). Apple takes a 30% commission on all revenues generated from its App Store, and Epic's efforts to open other avenues for app-related payments posed a threat to one of Apple's major revenue streams. After the companies initially went to trial in 2021, the court presiding over the action issued a 180-page order enjoining Apple's 'anti-steering' rules, which the court found were anti-competitive (the 'Epic Injunction'). This injunction went into effect on January 17, 2024, after Apple had exhausted its appeals. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made misrepresentations and omissions that fall into two categories: (i) statements regarding the launch of new generative-AI based Siri features; and (ii) statements concerning Apple's compliance with the Epic Injunction, including statements relating to any impacts on revenue from this compliance. Throughout the Class Period, starting with the Company's 2024 Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple represented to investors that the Company would be rolling out a number of AI-supported features for Siri in the first half of 2025, promising that 'over the next year' or 'in the coming months,' Siri would gain AI functionality that would enable it to 'take hundreds of new actions in and across Apple and third-party apps,' and 'deliver intelligence that's tailored to the user and their on-device information.' The Company also repeatedly represented that it had implemented a plan to comply with the Epic Injunction. In truth, Apple faced significant undisclosed challenges in developing the generative AI-enabled Siri, including meaningful quality challenges, that would make it unable to rollout the features in the first half of 2025 as had been stated. Additionally, the Company willfully violated the Epic Injunction by implementing new measures to prevent developers from deploying competitive alternatives to in-app purchases. Apple's defenses and justification for those measures were reverse-engineered to hide its anti-competitive motives from the court and investors. The truth began to emerge during a series of evidentiary hearings held by the court in the Epic Action from February 24 through February 26, 2025, in response to a motion from Epic seeking to enforce the injunction and hold Apple in civil contempt. On February 25, 2025, a senior Apple employee testified that the impact on the Company's finances was a key factor in its decision to implement a particular anti-competitive aspect of its 'compliance plan,' and that eliminating this would cost the Company 'hundreds of millions if not billions,' in App Store revenue. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Apple common stock declined by $6.68 per share, or 2.7%. The truth was further revealed on March 7, 2025, when an Apple spokesperson was quoted by multiple news outlets, disclosing that the launch of the Siri generative-AI features would be delayed. Specifically, the spokesperson stated that '[i]t's going to take us longer than we thought to deliver on these features and we anticipate rolling them out in the coming year.' In response to this news, the price of Apple common stock declined by $11.59 per share, or 4.8%, the following trading day. The following week, on March 12, 2025, Morgan Stanley published a report, stating that '[t]he delayed rollout of a more advanced Siri means Apple will have fewer features to accelerate iPhone upgrade rates in FY26.' The report presented evidence that around 50% of iPhone owners who did not upgrade to an iPhone 16 said that the delayed Apple Intelligence rollout impacted their decision not to upgrade. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Apple common stock declined by $11.16 per share, or 5.1% over the following two trading sessions. Then, on April 3, 2025, The Wall Street Journal published an article criticizing Apple for overpromising on its AI capabilities and chiding the Company that it 'shouldn't announce products until they're sure they can deliver them.' On this news, the price of Apple common stock declined by $20.70 per share, or 9.2%. On April 30, 2025, the court presiding over the Epic Action issued an order finding Apple in willful violation of the Epic Injunction, holding Apple in civil contempt, and referring the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings were appropriate. Finally, on June 9, 2025, Apple held its 2025 Worldwide Developer Conference where it notably failed to announce any updates regarding advanced Siri features beyond that the Company 'needed more time to reach a high quality bar.' Industry commentators were underwhelmed with this news, with CNN commenting that 'it's unlikely that any of the announcements made at Monday's event will change the perception that Apple is behind its competitors in AI.' These disclosures caused the price of Apple common stock to decline by $2.47 per share, or 1.2%. The filing of this action does not alter the previously established deadline to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Pursuant to the June 20, 2025 notice published in connection with the Tucker action, under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Apple securities during the Class Period may, no later than August 19, 2025, seek to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff for the Class. Any member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Scott R. Foglietta of BLB&G at 212-554-1903, or via e-mail at BLB&G is widely recognized worldwide as a leading law firm advising institutional investors on issues related to corporate governance, shareholder rights, and securities litigation. Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international reputation for excellence and integrity and pioneered the use of the litigation process to achieve precedent-setting governance reforms. Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest and most significant securities recoveries in history, recovering over $40 billion on behalf of defrauded investors. More information about the firm can be found online at