Investopedia Markets News (all except PF)

The jobs report for February arrives after the labor market showed signs of a rebound in January.
Credit: David Paul Morris / Bloomberg / Getty Images

News over the weekend brought a fresh jolt of geopolitical uncertainty for investors to digest as the first trading week of March kicks off.

On Saturday, the U.S. and Israel launched a joint military strike on Iran, and U.S. President Donald Trump called on Iranians to overthrow their government. Iran retaliated with attacks on Israel and Gulf nations. Investors will likely be watching for more developments and their impact in the coming days.

Investors will also be watching for employment data from the government's jobs report for February on Friday. The labor market showed signs of improvement in January after a shaky end to 2025. Retail sales data for January are due Friday as well. Consumers pulled back on spending to close out last year.

Apple has teased a “big week" of new product launches, and several noteworthy tech firms are scheduled to report earnings this week, including chipmaker Broadcom and cybersecurity provider CrowdStrike. A handful of prominent retailers are also on the calendar, including warehouse retailer Costco, Target, and electronics seller Best Buy. 

Read to the bottom for our calendar of key events—and one more thing.

Jobs Report Comes As Investors Watch for Momentum in Labor Market

Will U.S. employers surprise economists again in February? The jobs report release on Friday comes after surprisingly strong job gains in January potentially signaled positive developments in a labor market that was flashing warning signs at the end of 2025. U.S. employers added 130,000 jobs in the year’s first month, more than double the amount forecasted by economists. But the same report also contained downward revisions to jobs data from earlier months, showing that hiring in 2025 was weaker than expected. Investors will also be eyeing the private-sector ADP jobs report released on Wednesday.

The Census Bureau is still playing catch-up on data releases following last year’s government shutdown, so the delayed retail sales report for January arrives this week. The December data showed that retail sales stalled at the end of the year, with economists pointing to weak labor market growth as a contributing factor to slower consumer spending. 

The Federal Reserve’s Beige Book will describe economic conditions around the country in advance of the central bank’s next meeting on March 17-18. Meanwhile, manufacturing and services sector survey data for February will also be in focus. 

Broadcom, Marvell, and Retailer Earnings Could Highlight Corporate Calendar, Along With New Apple Products

Last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook teased “a big week ahead" for the iPhone maker, starting on Monday morning. The company is expected to announce a handful of new products, which could include the iPhone 17e and a lower-cost MacBook, over the course of several days, culminating in a “special Apple experience" event on Wednesday.

Following last week’s earnings from AI juggernaut Nvidia, more tech-focused earnings will also be in focus this week. Semiconductor designer Broadcom is set to release its latest quarterly results Wednesday. In December, the company projected its AI-related revenue would double in the quarter. Marvell Technology's earnings report is set to follow Thursday.

Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike is reporting earnings during a period of pressure for software stocks, which have been rattled recently by fears of AI-driven disruption. Though some analysts see AI as an opportunity for many cybersecurity firms, including CrowdStrike. Investors will also be following reports from database software maker MongoDB, insurance software provider Guidewire, and Internet of Things firm Samsara. 

Several noteworthy retailers are also on this week’s earnings calendar, including Target, which saw new CEO Michael Fiddelke take the helm last month. The retailer's shares have been on the rise this year after slumping in 2025. Investors will also hear from Costco, which is also seeing improvement in its stock price this year after a downbeat 2025. Electronics big box chain Best Buy and discount retailer Ross Stores report this week as well. 

Quick Links: Recap Last Week’s Trading | Read Investopedia’s Latest News

This Week’s Calendar

Monday, March 2

• ISM manufacturing PMI (February)
• More Data to Watch: S&P Global U.S. manufacturing PMI (February)
• Key Earnings: EchoStar (SATS), AST SpaceMobile (ASTS), MongoDB (MDB)
• Apple (AAPL) kicks off its first product launches of the year

Tuesday, March 3

• Federal Reserve Officials Speaking: New York Fed President John Williams, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari
• Key Earnings: CrowdStrike (CRWD), Ross Stores (ROST), AutoZone (AZO), Target (TGT), Viking Holdings (VIK), On Holding (ONON), Best Buy (BBY)

Wednesday, March 4

• ADP National Employment Report (February)
• More Data to Watch: S&P Global U.S. services PMI (February), ISM services PMI (February), Fed Beige Book
• Key Earnings: Broadcom (AVGO), Veeva Systems (VEEV), Brown-Forman (BF.A, BF.B), Okta (OKTA)

Thursday, March 5

• Initial jobless claims (Week ending Feb. 28)
• More Data to Watch: U.S. productivity (Q4), Import price index (January)
• Key Earnings: Costco (COST), Marvell Technology (MRVL), Kroger (KR), JD.com (JD), Burlington Stores (BURL), Samsara (IOT), Guidewire Software (GWRE), Gap (GAP)

Friday, March 6

• U.S. employment report (February)
• More Data to Watch: Consumer credit (January), Retail sales (January), Business inventories (December)
• Key Earnings: Genesco (GCO)

One More Thing

Have you given up on the idea of home ownership? Investopedia’s Terry Lane has more on a study that found renters who stop believing they'll ever be able to own a home end up spending more and working less, while those who are planning to buy exhibit better financial discipline.

Greg Abel took over as Berkshire Hathaway's CEO at the start of 2026.
Credit: Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images

Key Takeaways

• Greg Abel delivered his first shareholder letter as Berkshire Hathaway's CEO on Saturday, after Warren Buffett stepped down from the role in December.
• Berkshire's operating earnings dropped nearly 30% in Buffett’s final quarter as CEO, as the company took write-downs of its stakes in Kraft Heinz and Occidental Petroleum.
  

Warren Buffett's successor Greg Abel wants Berkshire Hathaway investors to know he'll be able to build on the legendary investor’s legacy. But can he convince them?

In the new CEO's first annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A, BRK.B) shareholders Saturday, Abel sought to assure investors of his commitment to upholding values established under Buffett's leadership, along with the conglomerate's potential for growth after a disappointing quarter. Buffett stepped down in December after six decades at the helm of Berkshire.

"Warren is obviously a very hard act to follow," Abel said Saturday in the letter released alongside the company's fourth-quarter earnings report.

"I will not be your CEO for the next 60 years as simple arithmetic makes that—shall we say—an ambitious plan. However, 20 years from now, when I will have just a fraction of the tenure that Warren had, my intention is that you—or your descendants—will be proud that your company is even stronger," Abel wrote.

Berkshire posted a nearly 30% year-over-year drop in operating earnings to $10.2 billion in Warren Buffett’s final quarter as CEO, as the company took write-downs of its stakes in Kraft Heinz (KHC) and Occidental Petroleum (OXY). "Our investment in Kraft Heinz has been disappointing," wrote Abel.

Why This Is Significant

Amid uncertainty about how Berkshire could change under new leadership, Abel has sought to reassure investors of his commitment to Buffett's legacy and ability to deliver returns. The 95-year-old Buffett still remains on Berkshire's board. 

Berkshire's cash and U.S. Treasury holdings dropped to $373.3 billion from a record $381.7 billion in the third quarter. The company held off on buying back its own shares.

For the full year, Berkshire's operating earnings slid to $44.5 billion, down from $47.4 billion in 2024, though the company noted that was above its $37.5 billion average over the past five years. Abel said the results underscored the durability of the company's businesses, "while also reflecting the fact that we have opportunities for further improvement."

The CEO did not move to introduce a dividend, as some had speculated ahead of Saturday's report.

"Our approach to cash dividends continues to be that Berkshire will not pay dividends so long as more than one dollar of market value for shareholders is reasonably likely to be created by each dollar of retained earnings," said Abel.

Berkshire's class B shares (BRK.B) have added less than 1% in 2026 so far, and remain about 6% off last May's highs, before Buffett announced he would be leaving the CEO post. 

Experts have assumed homes have gotten more expensive because too few have been built. But what if that isn't the case?
Credit: Chris Ratcliffe / Getty Images

Key Takeaways

• Researchers have found evidence suggesting that the housing affordability crisis is directly linked to incomes, not housing supply.
• That casts doubt on whether the government can bring down housing costs by encouraging new construction.

An analysis by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco challenges the common assumption that homes have gotten more expensive because too few have been built.

The analysis, published earlier this month, showed that cities across the country have built housing faster than their populations have grown. Home prices, meanwhile, tend to rise alongside incomes. Indeed, the housing supply grew faster than the population, even in expensive markets like San Francisco.

In other words, rising incomes, not a shortage of housing, could be fueling the soaring cost of houses.

The research by a team led by Schuyler Louie, a doctoral student at the University of California, Irvine, could reframe the debate over what's causing the housing affordability crisis—and how to fix it.

With rent and homeownership costs soaring relative to typical incomes, politicians from both major parties are looking for ways to bring those costs down. But the problem may have less to do with too few homes being built and more to do with high-income earners bidding up prices out of reach of everyone else.

What This Means For The Economy

The research implies that income inequality, not a housing shortage, is the reason homes have become unaffordable for many Americans in recent years.

"House price growth may simply reflect growth in housing demand, driven in part by growth in average income, such that questions of housing affordability may primarily be about differences in income growth at the top of the distribution relative to the middle," the researchers wrote.

So far, efforts have focused on increasing supply to bring costs down since today's high housing costs are partly the result of restricting supply. Groups like the National Association of Realtors and other housing advocates contend that restrictive local zoning laws, opposition to new developments, and other factors have, over the last few decades, caused a massive housing shortage.

Ending that shortage could improve housing affordability, the logic goes. For example, the Housing for the 21st Century Act, introduced last year and advancing through Congress with bipartisan support, aims to cut red tape and fund new construction.

But if Louie is correct, those solutions could be off the mark.

He argues that the affordability crisis won't be solved by building more homes alone. The deeper issue, he wrote, is "the relative distribution of economic growth across income levels"—in short, who's gaining income and where. If high earners are driving up prices in certain markets, adding supply won't help the workers being priced out.

That shift matters for policy. Bills like the Housing for the 21st Century Act focus on clearing the way for new construction. But if the research holds, a more effective target might be the labor market itself—and the growing gap between what top earners and everyone else can afford to pay for a home.

Kevin Warsh is looking to shrink the Fed's balance sheet—but that could prove difficult, analysts said.
Credit: Tierney L. Cross / Bloomberg via Getty Images

Key Takeaways

• The Federal Reserve's balance sheet has grown to $6.6 trillion.
• The incoming Fed Chair, Kevin Warsh, could seek to reduce that amount when he takes over in May.
• Reducing the Fed's balance sheet could increase market volatility and raise mortgage rates.

When Federal Reserve Chair nominee Kevin Warsh joined the Fed in 2006, the central bank had less than $850 billion in assets. It now has $6.6 trillion, or nearly eight times more.

The gargantuan rise has long drawn skepticism from Warsh, who may now decide it’s time to reduce the Fed’s footprint in financial markets. But that footprint also helped calm markets during panic. The Fed absorbed trillions of bonds during the 2008 and 2020 crashes. And it spurred ultra-low mortgage rates in 2020, prompting a boom in homebuying and refinancing.

Moreover, markets are now used to a massive Fed balance sheet—and a return to pre-2008 conditions would be tricky, to say the least.

“Doing it is akin to forcing the toothpaste back into its container. Not impossible, but it risks being a right mess,” wrote Padhraic Garvey, regional head of research for the Americas at the Dutch bank ING.

Warsh hasn’t shared his views on the Fed’s balance sheet since President Donald Trump picked him to lead the Fed on Jan. 30. In an op-ed last year, he said the Fed’s balance sheet is “bloated” and can be “reduced significantly.” He argued that would enable the Fed to cut interest rates, as Trump has pushed the central bank to do.

“Money on Wall Street is too easy, and credit on Main Street is too tight,” he wrote.

Analysts, however, note that a smaller Fed balance sheet could make markets more volatile and push up mortgage rates—undercutting Trump’s goal to make homebuying cheaper.

It is one reason why some don’t anticipate an aggressive makeover.

“Warsh is unlikely to be as balance sheet hawkish as funding markets fear,” Bank of America rates strategist Mark Cabana wrote to clients.

Why This Matters

The Fed’s balance sheet size influences mortgage rates, market stability, and borrowing costs. Any shift under Warsh could affect homebuyers, investors, and banks alike.

QE’s Track Record

For consumers, the Fed’s bond-buying has had tangible impacts. Mortgage markets were busy in 2020 and 2021, as ultra-low interest rates spurred homebuyers and gave homeowners big monthly savings if they refinanced.

The Fed’s 2008 bond-buying program—known as quantitative easing—also stabilized markets at the depths of the crisis. The exact impact of later rounds of QE in 2010 and 2012 remains under debate among economists. But the goal was to keep borrowing costs low, making it cheaper for businesses to invest long-term and give support to the beleaguered mortgage market.  

Both times the Fed has wound down the QE programs, the central bank’s balance sheet has remained in the trillions. 

The most recent slimdown took the Fed’s balance sheet from a post-COVID peak of nearly $9 trillion to today’s $6.6 trillion. It stopped “quantitative tightening” late last year, as signs emerged that the Fed’s effort to pull money out of the system had reached a limit.

Fed officials remain wary of repeating September 2019, when the plumbing of the financial system clogged up as cash stopped flowing smoothly. The disruptions led to a spike in interest rates, forcing the Fed to pump cash back into the system.

All the while, the Fed has faced some criticism over QE. Some argue the Fed’s purchases have contributed to inequality, driving up stock prices by making borrowing cheaper and markets calmer. Others, including Warsh, worry that those periods of calm make the economy more vulnerable—and force the Fed to take ever-larger actions in response to market sell-offs.

Warsh said in April 2025 that QE has “become a near permanent feature of central bank power and policy.” He argued that it made it easier for Congress to grow deficits, knowing that the Fed’s bond purchases would keep the government’s financing costs low. 

“Each time the Fed jumps into action, the more it expands its size and scope, encroaching further on other macroeconomic domains,” Warsh said in a speech. “More debt is accumulated, more capital is misallocated, more institutional lines are crossed, risks of future shocks are magnified, and the Fed is compelled to act even more aggressively the next time.”

Ample vs. Scarce

At its core, the debate is about whether money should be scarce or ample.

Before 2008, the financial system operated with money being scarce. Banks had relatively little cash on hand, and they borrowed from each other daily if they needed cash to fulfill large customer requests. The price they charged each other was the federal funds rate. And to keep that rate at its intended level, the Fed added or removed money from banks daily.

By flooding markets with cash in 2008, the Fed’s textbook way of managing interest rates stopped working. But Congress also overhauled bank regulations after several lenders collapsed during the financial crisis, with changes that made banks safer but also ensured a supersized Fed balance sheet.

Analysts caution that any changes on that front—even if they aren’t wholesale rollbacks—carry their own set of risks.

The key safeguards in question ensure banks hold more cash than they used to, helping keep them afloat even if customers pulled vast sums of cash during a panic. Banks cherish the safety cushions they’ve built—many choose to hold significantly more than regulators require. But they hold that cash at the Fed, thus driving up the central bank’s balance sheet.

“Altering liquidity requirements may reduce demand for reserves and permit a smaller Fed balance sheet, but reduced liquidity buffers could impair financial system resilience in periods of stress,” Michael Gapen, chief U.S. economist at Morgan Stanley, wrote. “There is no free lunch.”

Despite his years of skepticism over QE, Warsh is likely to be on “team ample,” BofA’s Cabana wrote. Warsh may judge that the benefits of switching back to scarce reserves aren’t worth the cost of more volatile funding conditions, Cabana wrote.

There “doesn’t appear to be a straightforward path to a smaller central bank footprint in financial markets,” wrote Ian Lyngen, head of U.S. rates strategy at BMO Capital Markets. Any major changes “run the risk of destabilizing the funding market,” he wrote.

And one key answer to a smaller Fed balance sheet—reducing banks’ demand for cash reserves—involves regulatory changes that take months, if not years.

“This isn’t to suggest that a smaller balance sheet is unattainable for a Warsh-led Fed, rather that achieving one is likely to play out over a longer timeframe,” Lyngen wrote.

SAVE Plan Allows For Cheaper Payments, Easier Forgiveness

President Donald Trump and Secretary Linda McMahon's Department of Education's attempt to end the SAVE plan was rejected.
Credit: Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A federal judge dismissed a case blocking the Saving on a Valuable Education plan, allowing the Department of Education to resume the repayment plan for now.
• The Department of Education and the plaintiffs who sued to end SAVE still have the ability to continue the lawsuit.
• Congressional action is still expected to eliminate the SAVE plan by July 2028.

The Saving on a Valuable Education repayment plan neared its end, but it's not dead yet.

On Friday morning, the district judge in the State of Missouri v. Trump case said it refused to rule that the SAVE plan had to end. It also dismissed the case in its entirety, meaning all injunctions previously restricting the SAVE plan are moot.

That means the Department of Education can allow SAVE plan borrowers to make payments under the income-driven repayment plan. It also allows for qualifying borrowers to receive forgiveness under the SAVE plan.

However, the district judge did not decide whether the SAVE plan was legal. As of Monday, the Department of Education has not announced whether it will lift the administrative forbearance that has paused payments and forgiveness accruals for SAVE borrowers for over a year and a half.

This means borrowers in the SAVE plan are still in limbo, awaiting news from the Department of Education about what will happen to their repayment plan.

Why This Matters

Millions of borrowers on the SAVE plan have been in limbo for almost two years. This decision throws borrowers back into the chaos.

The Department of Education said it is currently "evaluating the Court’s decision" when asked to comment Friday afternoon.

The Missouri v. Trump lawsuit began in April 2024 when a group of states argued that the SAVE plan, an income-driven repayment plan created under the Biden Administration, was illegal. The repayment plan offered generous terms, such as lower monthly payments and a quicker path to forgiveness, which the states argued the president lacked the authority to implement.

The Biden administration fought back, and while the lawsuit went back and forth, the millions of borrowers in the SAVE plan were placed under an administrative forbearance.

SAVE plan borrowers, which now number more than 7.43 million, have been in this forbearance for over a year and a half, unsure of what will happen to their repayment plan.

These borrowers received some clarification after President Donald Trump's "One Big, Beautiful Bill" was passed in July. The law ordered the SAVE plan to be phased out by July 2028. The court ruling does not affect this law, but it does allow borrowers to remain on the plan until it is phased out, an option that was not available before Friday's ruling.

The Department of Education under Trump tried to hammer the final nail in SAVE's coffin in December 2025, when it filed an agreement to immediately eliminate the repayment plan and move all enrolled borrowers to another option, as long as the district judge approved.

However, Sr. District Judge John Ross refused to approve the agreement to end SAVE.

"What the parties seek is a ruling on the merits as to the validity of [the SAVE plan] that no party intends to continue to defend, and which has effectively ended via congressional action. Such a ruling is not permitted," Ross wrote in a case filing Friday.

The judge also dismissed the case "without prejudice," meaning the Department of Education and the states that originally brought the lawsuit can refile and resume the case. It also means that all injunctions issued in the lawsuit that restricted borrowers from making payments or receiving forgiveness through SAVE are terminated.

The Education Department still has the opportunity to eliminate SAVE immediately, but would have to go through a negotiated rulemaking process in order to do so.

Update, Feb. 27, 2026: This article has been updated to include the Department of Education's response.

Clarification, March 2, 2026: This article has been updated to include that borrowers in the SAVE plan remain in an administrative forbearance.

About 160,000 people are eligible to receive automatic student loan forgiveness.
Credit: fizkes/Getty Images

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• About 160,000 borrowers who applied for loan forgiveness in 2022 may qualify for automatic debt discharge if they attended one of the more than 150 schools that engaged in misconduct.
• Eligible borrowers will receive a notice of forgiveness by March 29, and loans should be discharged within a year.
• Others who applied for loan discharge through the borrower defense program will also soon receive a decision about their application.

About 160,000 borrowers who attended colleges accused of deceptive practices will soon learn whether they qualify for automatic forgiveness.

The Sweet v. McMahon lawsuit, filed in 2019, alleged that the Department of Education significantly delayed processing borrower defense applications. The borrower defense program forgives the debt of students who borrowed money to attend a school that engaged in misconduct, such as misrepresenting its graduation rates, employment after graduation, or the cost of a degree.

A settlement in that case was reached in 2022, and the Department of Education agreed to expedite processing and to make a decision on all borrower defense applications submitted prior to November 16, 2022, by January 28, 2026.

While many applications have been approved since then, about 200,000 borrowers who submitted a borrower defense application between June 23, 2022, and November 16, 2022, have still not received a decision.

The Department of Education requested an extension to respond to these applicants in November, but the request was rejected. Soon, most of the affected applicants should receive a notification that their debt will be forgiven.

It is important to note, however, that the Department of Education has recently appealed to a higher court, hoping it can reverse the previous rejection of an extension. A decision on this appeal has not yet been made.

Why This Matters

Borrowers who attended a school that engaged in misconduct may find it more difficult to find a job and repay their student loans post-graduation. And wiping out debt for 160,000 borrowers will improve the affected households’ finances, and could potentially boost consumer spending.

How Do I Know If My Loans Are Eligible For Automatic Forgiveness?

About 160,000 borrowers should be eligible for automatic forgiveness if they:

1. Took out federal student loans to pay for one of the more than 150 colleges that were identified by the Department of Education as very likely to have participated in misconduct.
2. Applied for a loan discharge through the borrower defense program between June 23, 2022, and November 16, 2022.
3. Did not receive a decision about their borrower defense forgiveness from the Department of Education by January 28, 2026.

These borrowers, who make up about 80% of the total 200,000 applicants, are eligible to receive "full settlement relief" under this court decision, according to the Project on Predatory Student Lending, the leading legal organization that represented borrowers in the Sweet v. McMahon case.

The eligible borrowers will receive a notice by March 29, 2026. Email notifications will generally come from the address [email protected]. Applicants will not be asked to pay for anything related to their borrower defense claim. Any message that asks for money is a scam.

The loans should be discharged within a year of receiving this notice of automatic forgiveness.

Borrowers have not been required to make payments while their borrower defense application was pending. If you did make payments after you applied for a loan discharge through borrower defense, you will be refunded for that in addition to the forgiveness.

Can I Still Get Borrower Defense Forgiveness If I Am Not In This Group?

While the Sweet settlement specifically affects borrowers who applied for borrower defense forgiveness between June 23, 2022, and November 16, 2022, borrowers who applied before and after those dates may still be eligible for a loan discharge. They just won't get it automatically.

About 20% of 200,000 post-class applicants did not attend one of the schools identified by the Department of Education as eligible for automatic forgiveness. These 40,000 applicants are not automatically entitled to "full settlement relief," but are owed a decision from the Department of Education by April 15.

Borrowers who applied for the defense program after November 16, 2022, are not covered by the Sweet settlement, and their applications will be subject to the Department of Education's standard regulations.

Borrowers who applied prior to June 23, 2022, should have already received their forgiveness. If they haven't, they can contact the Department of Education at [email protected] to ask about their loan.

Credit: Maskot / Getty Images

Key Takeaways

• The richest 1% of Americans will benefit the most from tax cuts, receiving an average of $8,850 in 2026, according to a recent analysis.
• Tariffs disproportionately impact low- and middle-income households, as they typically spend a larger share of their income on goods.

President Donald Trump's first year in office ushered in significant change, from tariffs to massive tax legislation.

But not everyone benefits equally from these policies, according to a new brief from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a think tank.

In brief, the researchers analyzed the effects of policies backed by Trump and Republican Congressional members—such as tariffs, the expiration of Affordable Care Act subsidies, and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)—on Americans of all incomes.

The analysis found that the richest 1% of Americans, or those with incomes of more than $916,900, will receive the largest tax cuts in 2026, an average of $8,850. By contrast, those with an income of between $92,100 and $153,600 will pay an additional $980.

What This Means For You

Trump's policies are affecting households differently depending on income. Those who earn more may gain more from these policies, as these households tend to spend a smaller proportion of their income on goods and rely less on public benefits.

Tariffs are also impacting Americans' wallets. Martha Gimbel, cofounder and executive director of the Yale Budget Lab, notes that tariffs tend to have a disproportionate impact on low and middle-income consumers because they tend to spend a greater share of their income on goods.

(While the Supreme Court struck down many of Trump's tariffs last Friday, his administration has reimposed many of those tariffs under a different law.)

Those with higher income, Gimbel said, "spend more money on services, dog walkers, tutors, things like that. And so mechanically, something that increases the price of goods is just going to hit lower-income consumers harder than higher-income consumers."

A Yale Budget Lab analysis found the new tariffs, set at 15% and in effect for 150 days unless they're extended by Congress, would cost households between $600 and $800.

However, Gimbel acknowledged that the uncertainty about the future of Trump's tariffs makes determining their economic cost less than an exact science.

"It is unclear whether the 150-day tariffs will survive legal scrutiny," said Gimbel. "Uncertainty has an economic cost. We will simply have to see how large that cost is."

As for how Trump's other major policy, the OBBBA, impacts Americans, low- and middle-income households might benefit from provisions such as the Senior Tax Deduction and No Tax on Tips. But these policies are temporary, and other parts of the bill, such as those that impose cuts on Medicaid, could cost more than these short-term gains over time.

"There's not just tax provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act," Gimbel said. "There are also spending provisions. Low-income consumers may also be losing their Medicaid. They may be losing their SNAP benefits. When you combine the effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and tariffs, everyone is worse off until you hit the top" 10% of income.

According to ITEP, the bottom 20% of earners, who make less than $30,700, face a 3.1% increase in their overall taxes as a share of income. The math doesn't flip in Americans' favor until household income crosses about $361,000, and only the top 1% see a meaningful net tax cut.

A separate analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that OBBBA would make the poorest 20% of Americans worse off every year through 2034.

Block Shares Soared Friday on the News

Block CEO Jack Dorsey (pictured here in 2021) said Thursday that advances in artificial intelligence tools have "changed what it means to build and run a company"
Credit: Eva Marie Uzcategui / Bloomberg / Getty Images

Key Takeaways

• Shares of Block surged Friday after the fintech company announced plans to lay off nearly half of its staff.
• Almost 30,000 people across 45 tech companies have been laid off since the start of the year.

As artificial intelligence technology advances, more people are likely to lose their jobs, according to one high-profile tech CEO.

Jack Dorsey, chief of fintech shop Block (XYZ), delivered the foreboding message on Thursday after announcing the company will lay off more than 4,000 people, representing nearly half of its existing staff of 10,000. Block, which owns Square and Cash App, had a "strong year" in 2025, but the advances in artificial intelligence tools have "changed what it means to build and run a company," Dorsey said in a shareholder letter published alongside its fourth-quarter earnings results.

Shares of Block were up 15% recently, after surging as much as 21% earlier in the session in response to the news.

The company, formerly called Square, is the latest tech firm to slash its headcount. Others including eBay (EBAY), Salesforce (CRM), Workday (WDAY), Zillow (Z) and Amazon (AMZN) have all announced job cuts in the last couple of months, with some citing AI as the primary driver. Dorsey said other companies are likely to make similar workforce decisions.

WHY THIS MATTERS TO YOU

AI-related layoffs have not abated, even though some company leaders including Klarna, have said it turned out to be a mistake.

"I don't think we're early to this realization. I think most companies are late," he said. "Within the next year, I believe the majority of companies will reach the same conclusion and make similar structural changes."

Dorsey, who famously founded social media platform Twitter, said AI tools were now at a state that could fundamentally transform how companies operate, and the firm would put AI at the core of how "the entire company works." During the company's earnings call, he said that its smaller, nimbler workforce would be better positioned to experiment and create new products faster, per a transcript provided by AlphaSense. Dorsey also said that the company may have "application gap" in its use of AI, but planned to use those tools more aggressively.

So far this year, almost 30,000 people across 45 tech companies have been handed their walking papers , according to data compiled by layoffs.fyi, which has been tracking job cuts since 2020. More than half of that represents Amazon's layoffs, which last month announced it was reducing its workforce by 16,000 people.

Despite the big gain on Friday, shares of Block remain in negative territory in 2026.

Investors will be watching closely to see what Warren Buffett's successor, Greg Abel, has to say in his first annual shareholder letter as CEO.
Credit: Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images

Key Takeaways

• Berkshire Hathaway is set to release its fourth-quarter earnings and annual report Saturday.
• With the report, Greg Abel is expected to deliver his first annual shareholder letter as CEO, after Warren Buffett stepped down from the role at the end of December.

Berkshire Hathaway's legion of loyal investors have something new to look forward to on Saturday. 

The company's annual shareholder letter, which will accompany the fourth-quarter earnings and annual report, won’t be delivered by Warren Buffett for the first time in over 60 years, after the legendary investor stepped down from the CEO role at the end of December. That duty now falls to new chief Greg Abel.

Buffett's letters, which could run over 10 pages long and were known for their folksy tone, may be a tough act to follow. However, the practice could also give Abel an opportunity to better connect with shareholders and offer more clarity on his vision for Berkshire.

Why This Is Significant

Investors will be watching closely to see what Abel has to say and how closely he adheres to Buffett’s legacy, both in the tone and substance of his letter. 

CFRA analysts, who have a neutral rating on Berkshire shares, said earlier this month that there remains a great deal of uncertainty around Abel's leadership and concern about a long-term loss of Berkshire's “Buffett premium” with the transition.

Berkshire's class B shares (BRK.B) are virtually flat for 2026 so far, and remain about 7% off last May's highs, before Buffett announced he would be leaving the CEO post. The 95-year-old Buffett still remains on Berkshire's board and serves as chair. 

"I think investors would really like to get a greater sense of who Greg Abel is and what he intends to bring to the process of managing Berkshire," CFRA's Cathy Seifert told Yahoo! Finance in a televised interview Thursday.

Seifert said that could include more detail on how Abel plans to deploy Berkshire's massive cash hoard. Some of the speculation around Abel's potential moves has also revolved around whether he could resume buybacks or take steps to introduce a dividend, which Buffett had opposed.

However, there's also a chance he might hold off on making any bold moves, according to Seifert. "Investors should also prepare themselves for this annual letter to be an homage to Warren Buffett, and we may not learn any more about Greg Abel," she said.

Meanwhile Buffett, who's previously called Abel a "great talent" and successful investor who "will have ideas about where money should be invested," has been talking up Abel's abilities in recent months.

"I’d rather have Greg Abel handle my money than any of the top U.S. CEOs," Buffett told CNBC in an interview last month.

Netflix shares popped Friday after the streamer dropped its bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.
Credit: Aleksander Kalka / NurPhoto via Getty Images

Key Takeaways

• Netflix shares soared on Friday after the streaming giant gave up its bid to acquire Warners Bros. Discovery's movie studio and streaming service.
• Warner Bros. on Thursday said a new $32 per share offer from Paramount was "superior" to the agreement it reached with Netflix in December.

Netflix decided not match Paramount Skydance's offer for Hollywood giant Warner Bros. Discovery. Investors of both bidders are cheering the news. 

Shares of Netflix (NFLX) soared 9% in premarket trading Friday, a day after the streaming giant announced it wouldn't match Paramount's revised bid to acquire all of Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) for $31 a share. Shares of David Ellison-led Paramount (PSKY) rose 4%, while those of WBD declined 1%.

"We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.' iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs in the U.S.," Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters wrote yesterday. "But this transaction was always a 'nice to have' at the right price, not a 'must have' at any price."

Why This Is Important

Netflix's decision not to match Paramount Skydance's new offer likely concludes the months-long battle between the two media giants to gain control of Warner Bros.'s vast library. Uncertainty about the final cost of its pending Warner Bros. acquisition has weighed on Netflix shares, which are down about 15% since the deal was announced in December.

Earlier Thursday, WBD wrote that its board concluded Paramount's increased offer to acquire the entire company was a "Company Superior Proposal" to its deal with Netflix, announced in December, for the streamer to acquire Warner Bros., consisting of its film and television studios, its HBO Max streaming service, and HBO.

The updated $31 per share offer values WBD at $77 billion, excluding the company's debt and billions in fees to be paid out to compensate for the termination of the WBD-Netflix deal. If completed, the acquisition could cost Paramount Skydance up to $110 billion.

WBD said yesterday that Netflix would have four business days to propose revisions to their merger agreement "so that the PSKY proposal would cease to constitute a 'Company Superior Proposal,'" but Netflix elected to bow out of the race.

Netflix's concession likely concludes a long and at times bitter battle over Warner Bros.'s rich catalogue of media assets, including HBO and intellectual property rights to some of the world's largest film franchises like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.

Correction—Feb. 27, 2026: A previous version of this article misstated the value of termination fees to be paid by Paramount Skydance.